Senate
9 November 1977

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1977

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

page 2345

PETITIONS

Telephone Charges

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 865 citizens of Australia:

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

Telephone users outside major metropolitan telephone districts, particularly those conducting businesses outside those districts, suffer an unfair burden for fees charged for calls.

The system of charging fees for calls based on the distance between non-adjoining zones instead of for the time of the call is archaic and unreasonable.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should require Telecom Australia to standardize all telephone fees for calls on a time basis so that the fee for calls of equal time be the same throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Mr Steve Biko

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 48 citizens of Australia:

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

That on 13 September 1977, Steve Biko, President of the Black People’s Convention died, aged 30, while being held incommunicado for questioning in detention without trial in South Africa;

That this is the 20th death of a black political prisoner in similar circumstances in South Africa in the last 18 months; and the 44th death of a prisoner while in police custody in recent years;

That Steve Biko had been held in detention since 22 August; and had previously been held for 101 days without trial; and in addition, was under a Five year house arrest and restriction order;

That Steve Biko is the acknowledged leader of the black people’s resistance to apartheid, racial exploitation and injustice in South Africa, and that in this context his death in the hands of the white police must be regarded with grave suspicion;

Your petitioners accordingly request the Australian Government to register the strongest protest to the South African Government at the circumstances of Biko ‘s death.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Non-State Business Colleges

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

That the report of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations on Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation, July 1977, p. 197, states that, in respect of Stenographers/Secretaries:

With the exception of new business college graduates the demand for less experienced and less skilled people in Sydney is in balance with the supply.

Business College graduates are exactly what the market wants and employers demand.

In one of the few fields of employment shown by the report to be under-supplied, the Government is effectively reducing the ability of business colleges to train enough secretaries and stenographers for the positions which are available.

The sixteen technical colleges in the Metropolitan area of Sydney which accommodate 3,220 students in day secretarial studies do not have the capacity to accommodate more than 6 per cent of the 2,435 students at non-State business colleges in the same area who will be disadvantaged by the Government’s recent decision to withdraw fees subsidies and living allowances from the end of 1 977. 1977 School leavers who wish to undertake a course in Secretarial Studies and thus ensure they obtain a worthwhile position of employment on graduation are being forced to pay fees of the order of $ 1 , 400 for the year and also to forgo TEAS living allowances.

The Government’s decision is unfair, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable and capricious.

Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act immediately to undertake a thorough review of the position of non-State business colleges, guarantee interim funding forthwith and reverse its decision.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chaney, Senator Rae and Senator Sheil.

Petitions received.

page 2345

BIRTHDAY OF THE PRESIDENT

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

- Mr President, I advise honourable senators that today is your birthday. On behalf of all honourable senators I wish you many happy returns and a happy recess.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank each honourable senator and the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

page 2346

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2346

QUESTION

SANKEY CASE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Has the Government made a decision to take over the conduct of the proceedings in what is known as the Sankey case currently before the Queanbeyan Court of Petty Sessions?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I do not know how many times I or the Prime Minister have to say that this is not a decision which is to be made by the Government; it is a decision to be made by me as Attorney-General. It is a rule which was clearly understood and stated by the Prime Minister when he was speaking about the resignation of my predecessor, Mr Ellicott. The proceedings in Queanbeyan involved claims by the Government to what is known as ‘Crown privilege’ or public interest privilege’ in relation to a large number of high level documents- Cabinet submissions, Cabinet decisions, correspondence at that level between Ministers and so on. On Monday 3 November the magistrate upheld the claim that those documents should not be made available as evidence in the proceedings. The parties are now considering action to be taken in relation to that decision.

I have taken the step also of writing to the solicitors for Mr Sankey to ask them what evidence they have in support of the information which has been laid by Mr Sankey. At the present time I have not received a reply from them. Certainly it would not be proper for me to make any decision on this unless I was informed fully as to what evidence is available to the informant and unless I had examined the evidence on this matter which is in the hands of the Government. That is the position as it stands at the present moment. The matter has largely been held in abeyance because of the proceedings in Queanbeyan. Certainly it has not been resolved because the parties have not indicated what steps they are going to take in response to the magistrate’s decision, nor have Mr Sankey ‘s solicitors replied to my inquiry of them as to what evidence they have on this matter.

page 2346

QUESTION

PREPARATIONS BY LABOR PARTY FOR GENERAL ELECTION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I note reports in the media this morning that the

Opposition has been obtaining legal advice about how to avoid the constitutional difficulty it faced when in government in 1975. Noting that the Labor Party seems to be devoting its rather meagre attention to the problems of two years ago, I ask the Leader of the Government: Can he assure the Senate that this Government is concerned with Australia’s present needs and its needs in 1978, unlike the Opposition, which is simply fiddling around with yesterday’s problems?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As usual, the Government Whip is spot on. I was more than interested to see that in the forthcoming general election campaign our opponents, as usual, will be devoting their time and attention to affairs of the past, whereas the present Government, led by a progressive Prime Minister, has progressive policies for the future. We are quite prepared to propound those policies. I have no doubt that honourable senators opposite all look downhearted this morning not so much as a result of the Records Office party, but as a result of the results of the gallup poll published in this morning’s Bulletin. I suggest that they also study that poll. It shows us on the up and up and them on the down and down.

page 2346

QUESTION

PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask it particularly as he is concerned about today’s and tomorrow’s problems rather than yesterday’s. I refer to the answer given by the Treasurer yesterday in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition relating to land transactions. The Treasurer indicated that any land transactions with which he was associated were conducted by a family trust company and not by him. I also refer to the revelation of shareholdings by the Premier of Queensland in companies involved in the contractual relations with the Queensland Government. Will the Government immediately implement the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament to the effect that there should be full and frank public disclosure of financial interests of members of parliament in order that the public may be satisfied that this Parliament is beyond reproach?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I should have thought that the honourable senator has been here long enough to know that the pecuniary interests of members of parliament fade into insignificance against what ought to be disclosed as to the pecuniary interests of Ministers and their staffs. I thought it would have been well known that one of the first acts of the present Prime Minister was to introduce a most rigid and searching procedure for both Ministers and ministerial staff. There is a total and absolute obligation on all Ministers to update their pecuniary interests for the Prime Minister in a special form. I am trying to recall whether this must be done annually or every six months.

Senator Cotton:

– It is every six months.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is every six months. All Ministers must give this to the Prime Minister. The obligation also rests on the members of the ministerial staff. They have to update their pecuniary interests. That information comes to me as the Minister for the time being in charge of this area. This Government has been most scrupulous in that procedure. The question as to whether this obligation ought to be extended to other areas such as back bench members of the parliament is still under consideration. But I thought everybody would realise that if pecuniary interests are to be declared this ought to start with those holding executive positions in government and their staffs. The Government has not legislated in this area but it has introduced stringent, rigid internal procedures which, as far as the Prime Minister and I are concerned, have overcome the immediate problem.

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask a supplementary question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The point of my question was the report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament which recommended that there should be full and frank public disclosure of the financial interests of members of parliament. It was that report, particularly in relation to Ministers, which I asked whether the Government would implement and not machinery which is a private arrangement between Ministers.

Senator WITHERS:

– I suppose some governmentswe had one between 1972 and 1975- have an inclination to rush into things without feeling their way. The matter of pecuniary interests has not been varied by this Government. As I have said to the honourable member, that report on the extension of what ought to be done is still under study by the Government. I assume that the honourable senator was a member of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament as he takes such an interest in it. As I understand the report it applies not only to members of parliament but also to certain members of the Public Service. It was also suggested that it ought to apply to certain members of the media. I do not know whether this meant members of the Press Gallery or media people in other places. It is very easy to make recommendations. One of the more difficult things is to make them work well and effectively. The most urgent area that needed to be tackled was that of Ministers and ministerial staffs. That has been tackled in a thorough going manner. We will look at the other areas when we come back in the next Parliament.

page 2347

QUESTION

NATIONAL TRACHOMA PROGRAM

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask: In view of the fact that the Federal Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, cannot, according to Press reports this morning, find anything to substantiate the claims of the Premier of Queensland Mr J. Bjelke-Petersen, that Mr Miller and Mr Grogan were using their positions as members of the trachoma team for political purposes and in view of the fact that just about every newspaper in Australia this morning has supported the importance of the project, will the Minister assure the Senate that the Federal Government will ensure that the program will continue and that the two people involved will not be suspended?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

-As the Minister for Health advised yesterday, discussions are being held with the Royal Australian College of Ophthamologists to ensure that the trachoma project continues. The Commonwealth Government regards this project as vital for Aborigines. As honourable senators would be aware the project is conducted by the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists and is funded by the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government has a responsibility for obtaining the co-operation of State authorities. In his statement yesterday the Minister made clear his concern that the project should continue. I will refer the question Senator Bonner posed this morning to the Minister and obtain information on the two points that have been raised. I give the assurance that the program will continue but I will refer the matter of the two people concerned and their suspension to the Minister for Health.

page 2347

QUESTION

HIGH COURT DECISION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the AttorneyGeneral studied the implications of a recent High Court decision involving mining operations in Tasmania’s south-west wilderness region in the case of Stow v. Mineral Holdings Ltd which appears to rule out future legal action by conservation organisations in disputes of this nature?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-In the time available to me since my attention was drawn to this case, I have not had the fullest opportunity to study it as deeply as I would like in order to give a full answer to Senator Mulvihill. However, it appears that the case raises an important question as to access to courts, or what is known in legal terms as ‘locus standi’. This depends upon a number of principles and also whether the law should provide for class actions. These questions were referred to the Law Reform Commission for consideration and report on 1 February 1977 and I notice from the latest report of the Commission which I tabled yesterday that it has this matter in hand. For those honourable senators interested, the issues are summarised in paragraphs 86 to 90 of the report. The Commission indicates that it proposes to publish discussion papers on the matter early next year.

page 2348

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL SECONDARY EDUCATION GRANTS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I ask: How many Aboriginal secondary education grants are being made available this year? How does this compare with the past? What steps are being taken to ensure that Aborigines are better equipped to secure employment after leaving school?

Senator Cavanagh:

– If they ever think for themselves they are dismissed.

Senator Keeffe:

– They are sacked from health teams. That is what happens.

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

-I am always grateful for interjections because they help to point up what was done under the Whitlam Government and what is being done today under the Fraser Government. My recollection is that in 1975 under the Whitlam Government there were about 11,500 ABSEC or Aboriginal secondary education, grants. If I recall Senator Messner’s question aright, he asked how many such grants are being made available this year. This year it is estimated that there will be some 14,500 grants, compared with some 13,834 last year. Next year there will be 15,200 grants. That is an approximation. Therefore the number of grants by this Government compares more than favourably with the number in the past. In fact, there has been an enormous increase. There has been a very substantial increase in the maximum reimbursement of boarding allowances and costs. For example, for 1978 the boarding allowance will rise from $1,450 to $1,600. The allowances for students in hostels will increase from $28 a week to $30 a week, and for students boarding privately the allowance will increase from $20 a week to $22 a week. This is a basic step towards helping Aboriginals to gain better employment.

I think the primary answer to the question from Senator Messner lies in a number of other factors. For example, the Fraser Government has laid down a policy called ‘a national strategy for Aboriginal employment’. That is an initiative of recent months. It is a policy which impinges on all portfolios. It is a policy which asks the whole of the government framework including, one hopes, State and local government, to give some preference and priority to the employment of Aborigines. If one looks at the total potential work force of Aborigines in Australia, which out of a total population of 150,000 Aborigines must be only 30,000 to 40,000, one can appreciate that if the three spheres of government apply themselves to this policy there will be no real problem as regards employment if Aborigines choose employment rather than their traditional life style.

Within the portfolio of Education there is a concentration now upon the revision of curricula to make the training and education of Aborigines more meaningful, whether they choose their traditional or the European style of life. This revision is now taking place, and we are looking towards the appointment of careers officers or vocational guidance officers to bridge the gap between school and employment, which is a vital matter as far as Aborigines are concerned.

page 2348

QUESTION

EXPENDITURE ON ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Do the Budget Papers not show that payments for Aboriginal advancement in the last two years have declined by $ 14m? Is the Minister aware that in the last two years of the Labor Government payments for Aboriginal advancement in Australia totalled $45m for capital purposes and that in the first two years of the Fraser Government these payments declined to $2 8m? Taking that into account and taking into account recurrent payments, is she aware that there has been a decrease of $ 14m in the first two years of the Fraser Government?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not have before me the figures cited by Senator Wriedt, but I will have them examined by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and then give what information he is able to provide on this matter.

page 2349

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is he aware that during 1974 the present Opposition, while in government, threw an additional 189,918, or nearly 200,000, people out of work in that year alone- that was an additional 3. 1 per cent of the work force- bringing unemployment in 1974 from 2. 1 per cent of the work force to 5.2 per cent?

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. My patience has run out. Just a moment ago the Minister for Education took extended time to make a policy statement. We now have a senator doing the same thing by way of a question. Under the Standing Orders a senator in asking a question should limit the amount of information that is given and should not make an extended statement in support of the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is true that information should not be given. The honourable senator should ask the question seeking information.

Senator WALTERS:

-Thank you, Mr President. I do not think Senator Georges likes the figures I have given.

Senator Georges:

– I object to that at Question Time. I ask for a withdrawal because the inference is that we should sit here and listen to that sort of nonsense coming from honourable senators on Government benches in anticipation of an election. Surely she should not make comments of that sort. I ask her to withdraw them.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walters will proceed.

Senator WALTERS:

-Thank you, Mr President. An additional 3. 1 per cent of the work force were put out of work and this brought unemployment in 1974 from 2.1 per cent of the work force to 5.2 per cent. As I said, that occurred in one year alone. In contrast, in the first full year of this Government -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator, you must seek information. Do not give it.

Senator WALTERS:

-Can the Minister say what additional percentage of the work force has become unemployed in the first year of this Government?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think it is a well known fact that Labor put nearly 200,000 people out of work in 1974. Unemployment rose by 157 per cent. As I said here the other day, most of the unemployment arose from the lunatic economic policies of the previous Government. I gave one instance where that Government was determined to increase imports to this country. It sent for a report. The report said that if the Government did certain things only 29,000 would become unemployed. .If it would give force and effect to its economic dogma, the Labor Party did not care about putting 29,000 people out of work. It did not care at all. It said: ‘Let us put 29,000 people out of work so that our economic dogma will be put into effect’. What happened? Some 107,000 people went out of work. I would have thought that the Labor Party would have a bit of humanity, but it does not care about people who are unemployed. The Labor Party would rather stick with its crazy economic dogma which led to the greatest unemployment and the greatest inflation in this country this century.

page 2349

QUESTION

NATIONAL TRACHOMA PROGRAM

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health arising out of a question asked by Senator Bonner. I understood the Minister to say that the Government will ensure that the trachoma program in Queensland will go on but that she does not know about the continued employment of the two particular employees. If the employees are to be dismissed because they hold political views different from those of the Queensland Premier, is this not a suppression of freedom of the individual political rights of the two employees? As Dr Hollows and the Minister know nothing of the political activities of the two employees in regard to the carrying out of their job, does the Minister’s reply indicate that the Government is prepared to declare them guilty without trial on an accusation of a biased Premier?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Cavanagh does not seem to understand that the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists is conducting the trachoma campaign. It was that college which did not want to become embroiled in a political situation. As I said earlier, the Minister for Health is having continuing discussions with the college to ensure that the trachoma project proceeds. I offered to obtain for Senator Bonner, from the Minister for Health further information with regard to the two individuals. As far as the other comments made by Senator Cavanagh are concerned, he seems to misunderstand the objection that was taken by the Australian College about becoming embroiled in a political situation. It is for that reason that the Minister for Health is having continuing discussions with the college to ensure that this project which the Commonwealth Government regards as vital for Aboriginals is able to proceed.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists is running the campaign, will the Minister representing the Minister for Health guarantee the continued financing of the college if it is prepared to continue the campaign?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Minister for Health has stressed that the funds for this campaign have been made available by the Commonwealth Government. The campaign has been most successful. Up to the present time more than 60,000 persons have been examined. The Minister has stated publicly that the campaign must not be jeopardised in this way and that it will proceed. The funds are available without question. The Government is endeavouring to ensure that this important program is able to continue without delay.

page 2350

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES BUILDING

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-Can the Minister for Administrative Services say whether a decision has yet been made about the construction of a national archives building in the Australian Capital Territory?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Yes. As honourable senators would know, particularly Senator Knight who has pursued a very keen interest in this matter, for several years past various interest groups- universities and archival organisationshave expressed dissatisfaction with Commonwealth archival facilities. Senator Knight in particular has been stressing the need for an effective building program to provide suitable archival facilities appropriate to the importance of the vast store of archival wealth for which the Australian Government is responsible.

I am sure that honourable senators will be pleased to know that the Government has approved in principle the construction of a national building for the Australian archives at a preliminary order of cost of $ 1 8m. It has also decided to authorise the National Capital Development Commission to arrange an architectural competition for the building and to report back to Cabinet with firm proposals for construction when the results of the competition are available. The construction of this national building will be a most important step forward in our archival program. As the honourable senator would also know, the Government has decided that this year it will proceed with construction of the repository in the suburb of Mitchell in north Canberra. The estimated cost of this is $6.25m. I can inform the honourable senator that a contract has been let for this building and the work will commence shortly.

While on the subject of archives, I mention for the benefit of honourable senators from South Australia that the Government also has approved the expenditure of $ 1.3 m for the extension of the Adelaide repository. The Government also has approved the preparation of designs for a $1.7m extension to the Brisbane repository. Each of these three buildings will provide a full range of services, including conservation workshops and air conditioned storage. Our activities in Victoria and Tasmania are still in the early stages of development.

I am certain that Senator Knight, who has been very keen on seeing the commencement of the Mitchell repository, will be interested to know that it is scheduled for completion in October 1979. Its completion should enable the removal of the huts adjacent to the Kings Avenue Bridge which have been not only poor storage but, I think it is fair to say, an eyesore in the national capital.

page 2350

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs by referring to the Liberal Party propaganda document containing 163 points of alleged achievement, including one which states:

Legislation for Aboriginal land rights. First recognition of claims to traditional land outside reserves.

Is the Minister aware that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill has still not been implemented and that the so-called complementary legislation has never been carried m the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether this has been a deliberate action by the Government to prevent Aborigines getting land rights until the uranium leases are resolved? What action will the Government take before 10 December to implement the land rights policy? Is the Minister also aware that as a result of failure to implement land rights, Tipperary Station has mustered up to 3,000 head of cattle from adjacent lands which belong to Aborigines and the owners of Tipperary Station will not negotiate with the traditional owners regarding compensation until such time as legal action is taken by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? When does the Government propose to take this action?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Keeffe is well aware that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill was passed through this Parliament after a lengthy debate in which he and I engaged in a great deal of discussion. As far as the other questions that have been raised by him are concerned, I shall refer them to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and seek that information.

Senator KEEFFE:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I am aware that the land rights legislation went through this Parliament but no Aboriginal groups yet have title to their land and they cannot get tide to their land until the complementary legislation is carried.

Senator Cavanagh:

-Until the Trust is appointed.

Senator KEEFFE:

-Yes, until the Trust is appointed. Nothing has been done. Why?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I have said I will refer the matter that has been raised to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The question with regard to deliberate action by this Government to prevent the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly putting through a Bill is a question to which I do not respond. I respond by saying that this Government has put through this Parliament the legislation which it outlined in the Liberal Party policy document referred to. The specific matters that have been raised, as I have said, will be referred to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

page 2351

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS: NATURALISATION CEREMONY

Senator LEWIS:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of the recent attempt to disrupt the operation of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs through the sudden dumping by some clever Dicks in the Labor Party of an extremely large number of applications for citizenship upon that Department’s Melbourne office?

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I rise to order. I believe the terms used by the honourable senator to be objectionable, and I think they ought to be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– The reference was not directed to an individual. Senator Lewis will proceed.

Senator LEWIS:

– Furthermore, is the Minister aware that, immediately after the naturalisation ceremony last Friday night in the city of Oakleigh, some Australian Labor Party activists, who were not clever Dicks, brought undue influence to bear on a number of new citizens in the filling out of voter enrolment cards? Does the Minister intend to take any action in relation to these matters?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs received a report on 1 November this year. It indicated that some 520 applications had been received on 20 October in the office of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Melbourne. Of these applications, 342 were dated as having being filled in by the end of August. Another 240 applications had been completed before the end of July. I understand that the average waiting time for processing applications is about 12 weeks. Therefore, this action has prevented those people being eligible to vote at the forthcoming election.

It is certainly not the fault of this Government that these people were unable to acquire Australian citizenship in time for the next election. The Minister has been informed that the reason given for not forwarding the applications to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at an earlier date was that an action committee associated with the applications wanted the people concerned to be interviewed outside working hours in the areas in which they live. Notwithstanding this lengthy delay in submitting these applications, the Minister has advised that interviews will be held at the Brunswick Town Hall on 2 December next when about 25 per cent of the applicants will be interviewed. Everything will be done to expedite the processing of these cases in view of the delay that has been experienced by the applicants concerned and which was caused by the delay in forwarding their applications to the Department.

As far as the citizenship ceremony held recently at Oakleigh is concerned, it has been reported to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that some disruption took place during the proceedings caused by three persons who later identified themselves as members of the Australian Labor Party. These persons were talking to new citizens at the rear of the hall after the new citizens had received their certificates, but before the speeches following the formal proceedings had been given. Apparently, these activities had the effect of disrupting the smooth flow of proceedings at the ceremony.

No objection is raised to new citizens being helped to fill out enrolment forms, but it is expected that such help would normally be given after the proceedings had been finalised. With regard to action to be taken, I remind the Senate that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs wrote to all parliamentarians in October this year, referring to the citizenship ceremonies and mentioning that such a ceremony is a formal legal process in which the whole community unites in welcoming new citizens to this country. It is an occasion which impresses upon candidates the honour and dignity of citizenship and the responsibilities and privileges they take as Australian people. The Minister tells me that he has had a very favourable response from parliamentarians from both Government and Opposition parties. It is unfortunate that a few have seen fit to abuse what seems to be a well established and understood tradition of assisting migrants in their citizenship following the ceremony.

page 2352

QUESTION

MOUNT LYELL MINE

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I think my question should be addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, although it does have Treasury implications. Is there any prospect of the Senate being advised before it rises today or, if not, within a few days, of the findings contained in the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the operations of the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd at Queenstown in Tasmania which I understand was furnished to the Government on 30 September last? I ask this question because of its extreme importance and because of the widespread concern in Tasmania expressed by all shades of political opinion about this very important matter. Will the Minister agree that the terms of the report hold the key to the future of the Mount Lyell mine and therefore the future of the whole west coast community in Tasmania?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The Minister for Industry and Commerce will answer the question.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The honourable senator’s comments are quite appropriate. It is a very important report on Mount Lyell. One acknowledges that and one acknowledges that legislation has been put through the Parliament in the last couple of days to try to do something about the situation in Queenstown. Industries Assistance Commission reports come through the Business and Consumer Affairs ministry to the Government for consideration. That is the present process for consideration of these reports. The reports are always considered by a group of Government departments which have an interest in the area, and this is what is happening. Once that matter has been concluded, the honourable senator may be quite sure that as in the past the Government will make its proper announcements.

page 2352

QUESTION

DROUGHT

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister will be aware of the severe drought conditions over vast areas of Australia, particularly in western and southern New South Wales and northern and western areas of Victoria. Can the Minister say what initiatives the Government has available to assist primary producers adversely affected by drought conditions?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am very concerned about the way droughts are occurring. It is a long time since Australia has had what I would call a national drought. There has been drought State by State. It has been possible to balance up by moving stock to a good place from a bad place. The pattern of droughts developing at the moment is making me very uneasy indeed. I think the honourable member knows the situation. The Commonwealth has always stood ready to help the States, which basically are concerned with administering these matters. The Commonwealth is always ready to help the States with finance. It has done so in the past and the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he will do so again on request. This is what we always should do, and all governments have done that.

page 2352

QUESTION

BULIMBA HOSTEL

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. On 6 September last, replying to a question I asked regarding the future of the Bulimba hostel and its 300 inmates who are low income earners and who could become homeless, the Minister said that he was most concerned for the welfare of the inmates and that he would have discussions with his colleagues about what assistance could be provided. I now ask the right honourable senator: Has he anything further to add in view of the fact that I am informed that since then the present leaseholders of the property have put forward several proposals for the hostel’s redevelopment?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– The honourable senator raised this question with me originally. It was also raised by the honourable member for Griffith. The hostel is in his electorate. I gave an assurance on the previous occasion that nobody would be disturbed until satisfactory arrangements had been made for them. That is still the position. Officers of my Department have been having discussions with officers of other departments, as I understand it, in the city of Brisbane to work out the best possible solution so that nobody is personally inconvenienced or disadvantaged. That is my policy and I will insist on it being carried out.

page 2353

QUESTION

NATIONAL TRACHOMA CAMPAIGN

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and it follows upon questions by Senators Bonner, Keeffe and Cavanagh concerning the deferment of portion of the national trachoma campaign in Queensland. Is it not a fact that it was the elected Aboriginal councils of the Aboriginal communities in Queensland which requested the removal of the two field officers concerned in the Queensland trachoma campaign? I point out, Mr President, that the Aboriginal councils are elected and that the two field officers are self-appointed Aboriginal political activists. Is it not a fact that the Queensland Premier acceded to this request? Is it not also a fact that the national trachoma campaign continues in all other respects- medical, surgical and in conjunction with the Queensland program that has been in operation for 20 years- except for the suspension of these two Aboriginal political activists?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-I am not aware of the facts, as stated in the question, with regard to the Aboriginal councils. I shall refer those details to the Minister for Health to seek an early answer from him.

page 2353

QUESTION

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS SCHOOLS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Did the Minister for Education write to the Chairman of the Australian Council of Independent Business Schools on 19 July informing him that fee subsidies would be terminated? In that letter did the Minister state: ‘The Government’s decision must be regarded as final and is not one which I would seek to have reversed*? Other than the fact that there is an election on 10 December, what was the reason for the Government’s complete somersault on what appeared to be an irrevocable refusal? Or is it a case of the Cabinet again overruling the Minister?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think it is delightful that Senator Mcintosh has indicated that any sins I might have are not of my making but of others’ making. But I reject that proposition, however attractive it might be. I take it that the inference is that Senator Mcintosh feels the policy should not be reversed and that independent business colleges should not get fees. Otherwise the question seems to be irrelevant.

The fact is that the Whitlam Government itself faced the intractability of a problem which created equally difficult solutions as to whether one stayed with maintaining some 18 business colleges or in fact brought about equity. There are some 100 business colleges in Australia. Eighteen of them receive some kind of per capita grants and attract tertiary education assistance. The remainder do not. The Whitlam Government itself froze the number which would receive this assistance and would not let any more in.

The problem is one of balance and is not one that in itself is totally clear one way or the other. The Government has given further thought to the matter and has decided to continue with the payments to those colleges. It has asked the Tertiary Education Commission to look at the matter m longer term. I take it that that would have the support of both sides of the Senate, considering that particularly from the Government side there has been an enormous interest in seeing that this problem is resolved satisfactorily.

page 2353

QUESTION

REFUGEES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the numbers of refugee immigrants coming into Australia, can the Minister advise whether refugees are accepted irrespective of health and other qualifications and whether it is considered that persons not eligible for immigration under normal causes may endeavour to gain entry as refugees?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Both the Ministers whom I represent have made statements from time to time with regard to our concern for refugees who arrive in this country. I have stated on their behalf and on my Department’s behalf the measures we take to alleviate their distress and the measures that are taken with regard to their health requirements on arrival. It is a fact that refugees are being accepted into this country who may otherwise have been delayed in their applications for immigration or who in some cases may not be accepted as applicants for immigration.

Where refugees have been arriving in this country, every effort has been made to ensure that their comfort and health requirements are attended to. In most cases, through my Department, they are given income sources of security that assist them in their settlement in Australia. Statements have been made in the Senate and there is information on support services that have been arranged for refugees. I can make that information available to the honourable senator.

page 2354

QUESTION

NATIONAL TRACHOMA CAMPAIGN

Senator GEORGES:

– I would like to return to the trachoma program in Queensland and ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister for Health whether it is not a fact that the Premier of Queensland stated bluntly that unless the two men concerned were sacked there would be no co-operation from the Queensland Government. Is it not a fart that the Premier refused access to the Aboriginal communities on his own initiative, not that of the leaders of the communities, as suggested by Senator Sheil? Will the Minister take urgent steps to see that there is no discrimination against these two men at the behest of that most inhuman person from the north?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-As I stated when the question was posed by Senator Sheil, I am not aware who initiated the matter with regard to the disquiet concerning the seeming political activity of the two people about whom we have been concerned today. I shall seek that information from the Minister for Health, and also the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs if he is able to contribute to it, to ensure that in answer to these questions the farts emerge, rather than information distorted in varying ways by what could be newspaper accounts. With regard to the first claim posed by the honourable senator, I am not aware that political activity was involved in this. I am aware of some of the subsequent actions and the concern of the College of Ophthalmologists about being involved in this activity. However, I shall seek the information that has been requested.

page 2354

QUESTION

MIGRANT EDUCATION: WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Education. The Government recently announced an extra allocation of funds for adult migrant education, a matter which is important to Western Australia, as my State absorbs a higher proportion of migrants than does any other. Will the Minister give the Senate details of Western Australia’s share of this allocation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that recently the Commonwealth Government announced that an additional $2.3m would be spent on adult migrant education beyond the increase already made in the Budget. Western Australia’s share over recent years in terms of cash flow has been as follows: For 1975-76, $240,567; in 1976-77, $357,097; and for the program year 1977-78 the Budget allocation was $368,600. An additional $3 1,400 is being allocated to this year’s program, making a total of $400,000. Actually, that amounts to a 1 2 per cent increase this year. In addition, Western Australia will share in the supplement in regard to existing full-time courses at tertiary institutions, in the on-arrival English language programs, in vacation English language courses and in a variety of initiatives in regard to the English language courses at the work place, and so on. Western Australia ‘s migrants will also, of course, be sharing in the increased living allowances which are now, basically, at the level of the unemployment benefit.

page 2354

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations agree that unemployment has reached serious proportions in Australia and that, despite the Government’s attempts to gloss over the serious social implications it is causing, the position is getting worse day by day? Is the Minister aware that three years ago, when the Labor Government was in office, the number of vacant positions advertised weekly in the Sydney Morning Herald was 18,000 and that now the figure has dropped to less than 6,000, which is a measure of the downturn in general business activity? When does the Minister expect to see an upturn in job opportunities for Australians?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Government has expressed concern at all times about the level of unemployment. We were most concerned about the level of unemployment that we inherited from the Labor Government. When the Labor Government came to office in 1972 there was a level of unemployment of about 2 per cent. When it went out of office in December 1975 the level of unemployment had grown to 5.2 per cent or 5.3 per cent- a three per cent increase. That occurred in the last 18 months of office of the Labor Government.

That dramatic increase in unemployment was caused by the Labor Government’s irresponsible policies, which created not only record unemployment but also record levels of inflation. That has been the problem which the present Government has had to tackle. It has tackled effectively the rate of inflation, reducing it to below double figures. Unfortunately the Government has not been able to reduce the level of unemployment. It has increased slightly over the period of two years that we have been in office.

The latest level of unemployment is due to the dramatic effects of the Latrobe Valley strike. An additional 53,000 people were registered for unemployment because of the irresponsible actions of trade union leaders about which we never heard any complaints from the Labor Opposition and in relation to which no real suggestions and leadership have been provided by the Labor Opposition or the Australian Council of Trade Unions. That is the unemployment situation in this nation at this time and they are the causes of it. The Government is confident that its policies of containing inflationary pressures in this country and encouraging private investment and development are commencing to work and that there will be an increase in the number of vacancies for employment in the private sector.

page 2355

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEA

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the dearth of information available about the internal situation in Kampucheaformerly Cambodia- and especially the reports, now a year old, which detail the massive killings, starvation of the population and many major infringements of human rights being inflicted on the people by the ruling Khmer Rouge. Can the Minister provide the Senate with any more recent information on developments in this nation, particularly on the state of infringements of human rights? Have any international aid agencies been permitted to enter Kampuchea? Will Australia contribute to any program to provide aid to the suffering population of our South East Asian neighbour?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that what has been reported as happening in the country formerly known as Cambodia has been a matter of general concern throughout Australia. The honourable senator may recall that some time ago I answered a question from him on this subject in which I indicated that my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs had advised that, due to our incapacity to have proper representation in that country and to receive proper reports through the normal diplomatic channels, the Department of Foreign Affairs has to rely to a large extent on media reports of what is happening. The honourable senator will recall that my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs also advised that he and his Department had no reason to disbelieve any of the reports emanating from that country.

It has been said that one of the most tragic events of recent years has been the absolute cruelty, slaughter and deprivation of human rights and liberties in that country. It was a country which, prior to the emergence of the Khmer Rouge, was by repute one of the most contented and happy countries in the South East

Asian region. With the de-escalation and cessation of the war in South Vietnam, one saw the emergence of the Khmer Rouge in former Cambodia. Those who used to laugh at the domino theory should consider what has been happening in Cambodia ever since then and the senseless, mindless slaughter of innocent women and children, let alone male political opponents. It brings a sense of shame to us all that we have no capacity to stop it. As to the honourable senator’s query about what Australia would be prepared to do about aid, I am quite certain that, if proper sanity returned to that country and if aid teams were able to enter it to relieve human suffering, the Australian Government would be in the forefront of those willing to offer help.

page 2355

QUESTION

KIMBERLEY BY-ELECTION

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services and Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has any approach been made by the Government or Premier of Western Australia, in accordance with section 218A of the Electoral Act, for permission to hold the Kimberley by-election on the same day as the Federal poll? Has either the Minister or the Prime Minister any knowledge of such a request from the Government of Western Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Communications between Premiers and Prime Ministers generally remain confidential unless one or the other discloses them. I cannot recall the Prime Minister telling me that he had received a communication from the Premier and the Premier certainly has not informed me. I am in a state of ignorance.

Senator Georges:

– They cannot be held together.

Senator WITHERS:

-As I understand the Act, they can be held together with the consent of the Governor-General in Council. I know of no formal request for such action.

page 2355

QUESTION

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL EMPLOYMENT POLICY

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question follows upon an earlier one put to the Minister for Education. This year the Government has produced a national Aboriginal employment policy to assist Aboriginal people generally, but particularly in their communities in isolated areas. I understand that as part of that policy there has been a review of the Aboriginal education field with a view to training more Aboriginal people as aides, teachers, et cetera. Is the Minister in a position to indicate the present situation? Is it the intention of the Government to increase the number of staff within the Department to give added emphasis to the training of Aboriginal people to work within their own communities?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As Senator Kilgariff indicated, his question follows on from an answer I gave earlier today because it relates to the national Aboriginal employment strategy of the Commonwealth Government. I reminded the Senate yesterday that in terms of recruiting Aborigines to be trained as full teachers at Batchelor Teachers Training College and of recruiting teaching aides the Government is aiming to increase the numbers and to use both preservice and in-service training. I also reminded the Senate yesterday that we hope to develop at Ti Tree, some 100 miles or more north of Alice Springs, a multi-purpose training centre to train aides which can be used by departments such as the Department of Health to bring an in-service upgrading to the whole of the Territory. At the moment I am having discussions with the Government to see whether we can get some increases in the intake, particularly of teaching aides. Overall, I am hopeful that we will be able to increase greatly the quality of the in-service training of the present students. I remind the Senate that it is important that there be an increase in the number of Aboriginal teachers and aides so that their cultures shall be undisturbed as far as possible.

page 2356

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, follows upon a question asked of the Minister by my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland. Is it not a fact that Professor Hogan, who has been one of the advisers to the Government and to the Government parties, has forecast that in the first half of next year unemployment will rise to 8 per cent of the work force? Can the Minister state whether, in his opinion, that is a reliable forecast? Is he now able to say what the Government expects the level of unemployment to be? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister when announcing policies on the eve of the last election said that a Liberal government would find work for all who wanted work? When can the Australian people expect to have that promise fulfilled?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I am surprised at Senator Bishop or, indeed, anyone in the Opposition raising the question of Professor Hogan s forecast on unemployment which was so grossly abused by their leader, Mr Whitlam, who completely distorted the Professor’s statements. Apparently

Senator Bishop is now repeating those distortions. Professor Hogan indicated that the forecast on unemployment which he was making related to the normal peak level of the year, namely, January 1978. Of course, as we know, that time of year is the time when unemployment is at its highest level because of the large numbers of school leavers who come onto the labour market.

Professor Hogan gave some predictions in regard to that period of January next year. The figures he cited did not relate to the first half of next year. They were not intended to indicate a permanent level of unemployment for next year at all. He has gone to great pains to repudiate the claims originally made by Mr Whitlam and now being repeated by Senator Bishop. Those claims are totally false. It surprises me that Senator Bishop has not understood, the falsity of the statements made by Mr Whitlam about Professor Hogan ‘s predictions.

Professor Hogan indicated there would naturally be a rise in unemployment in January next year. His worst prediction was that unemployment could rise as high as 8 per cent, but he was not firmly predicting that at all. He went on to say that the level of unemployment would fall after January and that there would be a general improvement in economic conditions during 1978 due to the policies which the Fraser Government has been pursuing and on which he has been an adviser as well. He expressed confidence in economic recovery next year. As far as the promises of this Government in relation to unemployment are concerned, I simply remind the Senate that the Government has been concerned to provide opportunities for employment.

I have indicated that the basic policy has been to encourage the private sector and to create a stimulus in that sector. We have been faced with this intractable problem of unemployment which was created by the Labor Government, as I have already mentioned. There was an increase in unemployment of 3 per cent in less than about 18 months. That was the situation we inherited. The Government, in accordance with the promise that was made, has set about trying to do something in relation to the matter. In fact, through improvements to the National Employment and Training scheme and through the institution of the Special Youth Employment Training scheme we are providing work or training for over 100,000 young people. Those schemes are constantly being reviewed and improved and we will continue to do that.

Senator BISHOP:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister answer the question? Does he agree with the forecast which he has already enunciated and which was made by Professor Hogan? Will he now answer the question which has been put to him several times? What is the opinion of the Government in regard to the percentage of unemployment during the first half of next year? Does the Minister have an opinion on the matter at all? Does he or does he not agree with Professor Hogan?

Senator DURACK:

– I really do not have anything further to add to the answer I have already given. It is very difficult- in fact too difficult- to forecast levels of unemployment at any time. It is foolish to be making such predictions. Professor Hogan, who is a very careful and distinguished economist, has already indicated the difficulties that he has in making forecasts. He has made some but he has also made many qualifications to them. I have already dealt with some of the qualifications in my answer to the honourable senator’s question.

Senator Wheeldon:

– Have you lost faith in him?

Senator DURACK:

– We have not lost faith in him. I am pointing out that the honourable senator is completely misleading and distorting the forecasts that Professor Hogan has made. Professor Hogan has indicated himself the difficulties in making such forecasts. I would like to make just one last point. One of the greatest distortions and confusions that affect forecasts of the unemployment level comes about as the result of strikes such as the Latrobe Valley strike in which an additional 53,000 people were added to the list of unemployed in one month in Victoria.

page 2357

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUE

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Can the Minister inform me of the additional funds that have been made available to local government in South Australia as a result of the Fraser Government’s new and generous attitude to income tax sharing in its federalism policy? How does South Australia’s share of revenue supplementation under new federalism compare with the share that has been available to other States?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Under the formula whereby for the first time local government will get a revenue growth supplement which will rise at the same rate as increases in Commonwealth income tax revenue, South Australia has done very well. In the last year of the Whitlam Government South Australia received $6.8m for local government. In 1976-77, under the Fraser Government, it received $1 1.9m and in 1977-78 it will receive $ 14.2m. In the first year of the Fraser Government it received an increase of 75.7 per cent and in the second year an increase of 19.2 percent.

I think the honourable senator asked me how the share of revenue received by South Australia compared with that received by other States. With the exception of Tasmania, which because of a population problem had some adjustments made to its allocation, the increase this year of 19.2 per cent received by South Australia is higher than that received by other States. That in itself I think should be interesting in view of the discussions that are taking place regarding unincorporated areas in South Australia which in my view do not constitute a disability in the volume of funds.

page 2357

VIP FLIGHTS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of the honourable senators I present details of special flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 March 1977 to 30 June 1977. In view of the limited number of schedules available I have arranged for reference copies of the report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library and in the Senate Records Office.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I am disappointed that the VIP schedules are up to date only as to 30 June. I have been asking for the VIP manifests for some months. The information was not made available to Estimates Committee A or to the Committee of the Whole when this subject was debated. We now find ourselves in the situation where all we have been provided with is a manifest of flights from 1 March to 30 June. There is no way in which the public at large will be able to ascertain just who has been using VIP flights from 30 June to when the Senate rises. This is of great concern not only to me but also to a great many other people. I am sure that most honourable senators opposite know why I am interested in VIP flight manifests. They know there is a certain gentleman whom I have claimed on many occasions overuses VIP flights.

Senator Sheil:

-Who is that?

Senator McLAREN:

– He is the incumbent of Yarralumla- the Governor-General. I hope that the new Governor-General, when he takes office, will take cognizance of the stringent economies that have been imposed by this Government and will not misuse or overuse VIP flights. I note that the Minister, when tabling this report, said that he will place a copy of it in the Parliamentary Library. I hope he will make available to me one copy to take away. What is the use of tabling documents when, as we have found so often since this Government has been in office, not sufficient copies of reports, whether on VIP manifests or on other matters, are available. Often there are no copies available.

We are told that the Minister will place a copy of this report in the Parliamentary Library. It is a public document once it has been tabled in the Parliament but how on earth will all the people in Australia who are interested in the overuse of VIP flights be able to see the report? They cannot come to Canberra and get into the Parliamentary Library to look at the document, so the Government ought to make copies available. Senator Withers said in answer to a question yesterday that he would make available tens of thousands of the uranium report kits to people who wanted them. He did so because they promote the Government’s policy. Here we have a document which is great public interest but only one copy is available and it is in the Parliamentary Library. I hope that the Minister will provide me with a copy of it before I leave the precincts of the Parliament today. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2358

TAXATION STATISTICS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present a paper entitled ‘Taxation Statistics 1975-76’ dated 1 November 1977, the supplement to the 55th report of the Commissioner for Taxation.

page 2358

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1 975 I present the final report of the Australian Heritage Commission 1976-77, together with the Auditor-General’s report on the Commission’s accounts.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2358

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the interim annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission on copper ores and concentrates.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2358

MR W. F. TOOMER

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral)On 1 June 1977 I tabled in Parliament a statement concerning a proposed inquiry into the case of Mr W. F. Toomer, an officer of the Department of Health in Western Australia. The statement indicated that two senior officers of the Public Service, Mr R. J. Perriman and Mr G. P. Temme, would, as delegates of the Public Service Board, undertake a full inquiry into Mr Toomer ‘s case and report thereon to the Board. Messrs Perriman and Temme have now reported to the Board and, for the information of honourable senators, I table a copy of that report. The Public Service Board has indicated that it is currently urgently examining the report and, on the resumption of Parliament after the election, I will table a further statement giving details of action taken.

page 2358

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I present the seventeenth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2358

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2358

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn to a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2358

BILLS: DECLARATION OF URGENCY

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

– I declare that the following Bills are urgent Bills:

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1 977. States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1977. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance ) Bill 1 977. Apple and Pear Stabilization Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977.

Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Amendment

Bill (No. 2) 1977. Apple and Pear Stabilization Export Duty Collection

Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 977. Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 3) 1977. Customs Amendment Bill 1977. Brigalow Lands Agreement Amendment Bill 1977. Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill 1977. Australian Rural Bank Bill 1977. Trade Practices Amendment Bill ( No. 2) 1977. Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1977. Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance)

Bill 1977.

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1977. Environment (Financial Assistance) Bill 1 977. Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1977. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1977-78. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1977-78.

I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 19

Majority……. 10

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

– I move:

I further move:

That the question be now put.

Senator Georges:

– No, just a moment.

The PRESIDENT:

– There can be no debate.

Senator Georges:

– That is definitely the roughest exercise I have seen in this place. There was no consultation. The Leader of the Government came in here like a steamroller.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Be seated, Senator Georges. The immediate question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the ayes have it.

Opposition senators-The noes have it.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is a division required?

Opposition senators- Yes:

The PRESIDENT:

– A division is required. The bells will be rung for one minute.

The bells being rung-

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. The bells should be rung for longer than that. At the moment we are facing an entirely different situation from the previous situation.

The PRESIDENT:

– In the circumstances although honourable senators are in the chamber following the last division I shall have the bells rung for three minutes.

Question put:

That the question be now put.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the allotment of time (Senator Withers’s motion) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 28

NOES: 19

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 2360

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL 1977

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 8 November. Clause 18.

The Principal Act is amended by inserting after Part III the following Parts: 79ZA The moneys of the Service shall consist of-

Upon which Senator Townley had moved by way of amendment.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) The Committee is dealing with clause 18 to which Senator Townley has moved two amendments. The question is:

That the words proposed to be left out be left out.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– At the time when the Committee adjourned consideration last evening there was a number of questions asked of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) which had not yet been answered. Also there had been some debate on the amendments which Senator Townley moved. In regard to the first amendment there is a point that ought to be given consideration by the responsible Minister when other legislation is introduced. A problem is raised by the amendment which deserves further consideration.

The second amendment seeks to amend proposed section 87 by leaving out the expression that the Tribunal ‘is satisfied that the circumstances justify its so doing9 and inserting as the grounds of specification the words ‘there have been persistent breaches of standards, specifications or conditions’. I do not really think this amendment is satisfactory. (Quorum formed). I thank Senator Georges for giving me such an impressive audience. In regard to the second amendment which has been moved by Senator Townley which specifies the circumstances which the Tribunal should take into account, I do not feel the enumeration he puts forward is more satisfactory really than what is contained in the Bill at present. I do not think the

Tribunal would need to consider only persistent breaches of standards, specifications or conditions. There may be one breach, and it may be a very important one, or there may be other matters which justify the Tribunal taking action. I do not really think that the honourable senator has found the answer to this problem. I hope that the Government will have a further look at this matter when it is making a general review of the Act.

There is one other matter apart from the questions which have already been raised and about which the Minister has been asked. That is the matter which I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate. Unless I am mistaken I do not think that this has been mentioned by the Minister. I refer to the provision in the proposed section 79e (2). Proposed section 79e sets out the various powers of the Special Broadcasting Service. I believe that basically the powers are sensible and fairly normal for the operations of the Service. But sub-section (2) says:

The provision under this Part of broadcasting or television services shall be in accordance with such principles as are prescribed.

This provision concerns me. I feel that it ought to be looked at again. Obviously nothing much can be done about it today. (Quorum formed). I refer again to proposed new section 79e sub-section (2) which provides:

The provision under this Pan of broadcasting or television services shall be in accordance with such principles as are prescribed.

This provision worries me. I can imagine the principles which a government- not our Governmentformed by those opposite might manage to prescribe and might tie into the activities of the Special Broadcasting Service. I ask the Minister to indicate whether some revision might be made of or some further consideration given to this question of the adequacy of merely prescribing principles. The regulations which are put down may be quite all right. They, of course, will be subject to the scrutiny of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Nonetheless, it seems to me to be a wide prescription that is provided in this proposed new section. I would appreciate some comment on it.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not support the amendments which have been moved by Senator Townley. We do not support the second amendment, for the reasons which have been advanced by Senator Missen. It seems to us to be window dressing. The first amendment to us does not seem to add anything in the context of the Bill. The comments made by Senator Missen with regard to proposed. new section 79E sub-section (2) are equally applicable to proposed new section 79d (b). In the overall context of this legislation the reference to principles being prescribed or purposes being prescribed falls into the same category. I draw the honourable senator’s attention to that fact.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will be brief. Last night Senator Button asked why the special broadcasting services could not, in effect, do their own thing and why they did not have guidelines or regulations. The knowledge that the two radio stations, 2EA and 3EA, have transmissions in more than 20 languages must have escaped Senator Button. It is impossible to monitor so many languages in practical terms and to ensure that standards are being observed. For this reason, upon reflection, guidelines are necessary. The previous Government was very keen on monitoring and the establishment of guidelines for standards. I do not see why the Labor Party would not support a similar situation.

Senator Button, incidentally, was critical of the fact that the Minister could make particular decisions in the field. I remind him that in ethnic broadcasting the Minister is advised by NEBAC-the National Ethnic Broadcasting Advisory Council-on policy matters. Since we are good at acronyms, SEBAC- the State ethnic broadcasting advisory committees- in New South Wales and Victoria advise him on day to day programming matters. So both NEBAC and SEBAC members, with the exception of a couple of departmental officers, are in fact representatives of ethnic communities. There is in fact a direct and continuous link.

Some comment was made about the powers of the Special Broadcasting Service which are dealt with in proposed new section 79E. They are similar powers in terms of property acquisitions and so on to those that are given to the Australian Broadcasting Commission in existing legislation. I think no comment was made on those powers. Senator Missen rightly drew attention to the need for the interests of smaller States to be taken into account. I shall make sure that my colleague in another place understands that. The two points raised by Senator Townley deserve comment. The first one was in regard to substituting a test that there should be persistent breaches. I suggest to him that the real and critical matter is the nature and magnitude of a breach. We would not want to insist that there be persistency of breaches of great magnitude. Of course to say that is to understand, and I think he would acknowledge that. The second point relates to sponsorship. I make it clear that the

Government does not intend that there should be full and uncontrolled sponsorship at all in this field, but there should be some on limited matters.

I do not want to take the time of the Committee on this but I suggest that since both Senator Townley and Senator Missen have raised some queries which I think deserve further thought- Senator Townley ‘s in terms of particularities I would be prepared to invite the Government to give early attention to the comments that have been made here and in its early approach to the whole consolidation and reform of the broadcasting and television legislation, including the wireless and telegraphy legislation, to take into account all the critical matters raised by both sides of the chamber. That may accommodate the honourable senator’s views

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– When I moved my amendments yesterday the House of Representatives was sitting. I. pointed out the danger, particularly in regard to small areas, of the Special Broadcasting Service becoming a commercial Australian Broadcasting Commission station. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has said that the Government will look at the question. He has also said that it will look at the provision relating to the length of licence and what circumstances would result from the length of licence being reduced from 3 years to 12 months. In the light of that and in the light of the- (Quorum formed). Mr Chairman, it may be of interest to view that just prior to that quorum being called there was one Labor person in the chamber and he has responsibility ibr the carriage of this Bill. Senator Georges walked in, as Whip, and called for the quorum. I noticed that while the doors were open two Labor senators from Tasmania approached the doors, saw that a quorum was being formed, and walked away. Now there are still only two Labor people in this chamber. There has been a deliberate attempt, after all the rubbish honourable senators opposite went through a few moments ago, not to do any work today. I do not know where they are, whether they are sitting in the sun or what. But if this is the way they want to run this chamber we will certainly go along with them.

Senator Button:

– I rise to a point of order. What relevance do Senator Townley ‘s remarks have to the clauses of this Bill?

The CHAIRMAN:

-You should be speaking to the clause before the Committee, Senator Townley.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– All right, I will speak to the clause. I was hoping that more Labor Party senators would come into the chamber and listen to what is being said about this Bill because it is something that affects everybody.

Senator Georges:

– We do not have the time.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-They have almost doubled their numbers. I was saying that as the Government will now be looking at the particular sections of the Act which I brought to its attention by way of amendments, I seek leave of the Senate to withdraw the amendments that I proposed.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Leave is not granted.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Townley) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Townley from withdrawing his amendments.

Amendments withdrawn.

Senator Georges:

- Mr Chairman, I wish to speak to the motion.

The CHAIRMAN:

-Standing Orders have been suspended and Senator Townley has withdrawn his amendments.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 24- by leave- taken together.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The provisions of clause 23 should be singled out for concern. In referring to these provisions in particular, I am not saying that the Opposition approves of the provisions of the other clauses with which we are dealing in this bracket. We find proposed section 106b particularly objectionable. This deals with the secrecy provisions applicable to members and staff of the Broadcasting Tribunal. The comments we make about it relate in a sense to the comments made in relation to earlier portions of the legislation. The question was asked: What documents should be kept secret from the Australian public in relation to the broadcasting industry? The Minister, of course, gave some answer when he referred to contracts between employer and employee and things of that kind with which we would not disagree.

The point about section 106b is that it refers to the whole question of the assembly of information to the finances and ownership of the broadcasting industry. As was pointed out yesterday in the course of debate on the question of finance and ownership of the Australian broadcasting industry, the Government’s record on this matter is not a good one. It involves the issue of licences contrary to the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act; it involves files which suddenly become lost. That sort of administration has characterised the last two years. It is quite extraordinary that this type of provision, which provides for the assembly of information, is inserted and is then qualified by the provisions of proposed section 106b which imposes very severe penalties on those members of the Broadcasting Tribunal and its staff who divulge any of that information. In our view the vast majority of that information should be public material. We do not know why there are penalties in this legislation for the non-disclosure of information which is not appropriately public material when there is the Crimes Act. Why is the broadcasting legislation singled out for special provisions of this kind which deal with the non-disclosure of information?

We welcome the principle that the Tribunal should assemble material just as the old Australian Broadcasting Control Board assembled material, although not as much as the public would have liked. We remind the Government that public standards regarding freedom of information and accessibility to information have changed in Western democracies and are changing in Australia. It is extraordinary that this legislation is introduced despite those changes which are and ought to be properly taking place.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I remind Senator Button of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which was passed in 1975 by the Whitlam Government. It contains provisions the same as those which Senator Button now questions. The Whitlam Government thought they were appropriate at that time. I remind Senator Button also of the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act 1976. My recollection is that that legislation was passed by this Parliament without comment. It is natural and proper, particularly in commercial practice, that matters which are viewed to be confidential- I dealt with this last night- should have their confidentiality maintained. That is a principle that has been upheld by the Senate in its Estimates Committees. No new precedent is being set. The provisions are eminently sensible. Public servants are forbidden to disclose confidential information. I see no reason there should be any objection to the principle. ( Quorum formed).

Senator Carrick:

- Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order on the state of the Committee and the calling of a quorum. My point of order is that there is a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to obstruct the business of this place today. This pattern will persist unless it is made clear to the Committee -

Senator Georges:

- Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Surely what Senator Carrick says is not a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I will decide in due course. You will sit down, Senator Georges.

Senator Georges:

– You are usually very prompt, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

-I am just listening.

Senator Carrick:

– I make the point of order that in fact it is the duty of not only you, Mr Chairman, but also honourable senators on both sides to maintain the normal order of this place and not engage in vexatious practices. In simulated indignation Senator Georges is trying to show that he has been denied a full time and program for the conduct of business. He is well aware that the Government which he supported was a master of the guillotine and in fact the inventor of it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I understand your point, Minister. It is not the practice to ignore a call for a quorum.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-There are a number of proposed new sections in this part of the Bill on which the Opposition would normally have liked to comment. They would have been matters of comment though, rather than indicating particular opposition. However, I wish to indicate quite specifically opposition to clause 28 of the Bill which is the provision dealing with review of decisions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I really find that this section is one which makes a mockery of the socalled nature of the Broadcasting Tribunal as a quasi-judicial body.

In this country in the past couple of years there has been a lot of talk about the nature of the broadcasting structure. There has been a lot of talk by the Minister about divorcing the granting of licences and the renewal of licences from the process of government and of taking those questions out of the hands of politicians and putting them into the hands of a quasi-judicial body which would deal with them, one would hope, in a quasi-judicial way.

How does this proposed new section 1 19a operate in regard to the deliberation of that quasi- judicial body which will deal with important matters in Australian broadcasting, important matters relating to the granting and renewal of licences and so on? How it operates effectively is this: It says to the Broadcasting Tribunal: ‘When you are weighing the facts, when you are balancing the information before you and trying to reach a decision about who should get a licence to broadcast or about who should have a licence to broadcast renewed, you do so in the knowledge that only one side can effectively appeal’. So if there are two sides before this quasi-judicial body, the Tribunal has to decide what should be the justice of the situation in regard to those opposing sides- one representing a proprietary interest and the other, one would think, representing a public interest. The Tribunal is told by its own legislation that the side which represents the proprietary interest- the Reg Ansetts, the Kerry Packers of this world- will have the right to appeal. But the other side which one hopes, if this legislation is interpreted generously, may represent the public interest effectively has no right to appeal on these important matters. It is an extraordinary provision for any Government senator who claims to be a lawyer to approve in this House of review. It is an extraordinary provision to go into any legislation which is passed by the Senate because of the consequence of it all. There can be all sorts of glib explanations for it in terms of particular subparagraphs of the proposed new section. But the fact that remains is simply this: It hangs as a sword of Damocles over the head of the Broadcasting Tribunal as to who can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

It should be borne in mind that in any adversary situation in the legal sense before the Broadcasting Tribunal, the parties do not come equally to the Broadcasting Tribunal in terms of power. There are no provisions in this legislation to assist members of the public in a financial sense who want to take proceedings or participate in proceedings before the Tribunal in regard to these very important matters. The financial power is all on one side, the side of the licensee who, in renewal proceedings, again is granted that additional right to appeal. It is totally unsatisfactory for the Minister or Government senators, as they probably will do, to get up and say, You must understand that this broadcasting legislation is just part of the whole scheme of things the whole grand design that we have for Australian broadcasting.’ It is quite clear that there is no grand design; there is, in fact, a grand mess.

If this legislation is passed we will of course be promised something else in 1984 or some such time, if the Government is returned to power, which will patch up the mess that is made today, but that is not satisfactory. After all, in 1976 we were told that broadcasting legislation to fix the whole thing up would be introduced in March 1977. We are now in November 1977, dealing with but a little bit of that legislation that was promised for March 1977, so it it completely unsatisfactory for the Senate to be fobbed off, in regard to its proper function of considering legislation, by the suggestion that in years to come these things will all be fixed up by a more benign, intelligent and interested government than, apparently, the one we have at the moment.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– My understanding and advice is that the right of appeal is not restricted to any one interest at all. If there are any nuances to the argument they will be referred to my colleague for study. I find it, if I may say so in the best of charity, a strange homily that supporters of a Labor government which did nothing in the field except use its ministerial authority arbitrarily for three years should lecture this Government upon reform. In fact, that Government merely injected into the granting and policing of licences the arbitrary power of the politician.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise to direct attention briefly to the large number of matters which are included in Schedule 1 under the heading ‘Minor and Consequential Amendments’. That is again, in my view, bad drafting, bad construction. A great many of the matters there included are neither minor nor totally consequential. Without going through them in detail I would, in view of the limited time available, merely direct the attention of the Senate to that fact.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2365

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1977

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 7 November on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– In view of the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, when a great number of Bills have to be dealt with in a very limited time, I will make my comments brief. The arguments concerning education have during the last 12 months or so been canvassed widely in the Parliament and no doubt will be again during the course of the coming election campaign. I want to place on record that there have been two achievements of the Fraser Government in the field of education. The first has been that it has killed any hopes that have existed in this country, initiated by the efforts of the former Labor Government, to raise education in this country to standards which would enable every child at a government or nongovernment school, and later in the tertiary institution, to obtain the kind of education which that child wants. The second achievement of the Fraser Government has been the reactivation of the old State aid debate. In the last few weeks we have had question after question being put in this chamber to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) by Government senators- we call them Dorothy Dixers- in response to which he has made it quite clear that he is happy to see the old State aid debate reactivated in this country, to the detriment of all school children in Australia.

I deal firstly with the question of the hopes that have been destroyed by this Government. It is sufficient to say, without going into all the details of the education debate, that the States are now being starved of funds for education by this Government. Evidence of that appears in the figures which have been published in the Budget Papers. In the three years in which the Labor Government was in office it undertook the biggest task in education of any government in this country. We knew when we came to office in 1972 that, for the first time, a Federal government had to take it into its hands to stimulate education spending in this country. After 23 years of neglect by our predecessors, we had to do that and we did that. In those three years we increased the allocation to the States for education by an average each year of 41 per cent in real terms. This Government, which claims to have done so much for education, has frozen the funds for education this year. The real increase in two years of office of the Fraser Government has been one per cent. The record should be compared.

The Minister for Education comes into this chamber and talks day after day at Question Time about how standards have been improved in the various States and claims credit for it for the present Government. Every educationist in Australia knows that the things that have been achieved in recent years have been achieved almost exclusively by the Whitlam Government -not by the Fraser Government. The intentions of the present Government ought to be made known. Every educationist and every parent in Australia should realise that what they have had over the past two years is only a taste of what they will get in the succeeding three years if the present Government happens to be in power after the next election. To make matters worse, the Government is also intending to transfer to the States so much of the expenditure in the tertiary sector- universities and colleges of advanced education- and it will do the same in respect of schools if it can possibly get away with it. It is all part of the federalism plan to transfer these financial responsibilities back to the States and to force the States into imposing a State income tax in Australia in 1 978 or 1 979.

Yesterday and the day before the Minister had to admit that certain legislation which is on the Notice Paper does mean that the States will be able to impose a State income tax in the next two or three years. The Minister was reluctant to admit it, but the facts are there for all to see. The legislation will not be dealt with before the Parliament rises because the Government wants to hide the facts from the Australian people. There is no need for me to restate the arguments. The picture is quite clear. Fortunately the Australian people can see the picture in this issue quite clearly. A clear majority of Australians accept the fact that this Government has cut into education spending to the detriment of the government schools, the non-government schools and the tertiary sector.

The second point I mentioned refers to the achievements of the Fraser Government. Not only is the Government responsible for a reactivation of the old state aid debate, but also it is part of the Government’s decision not to accept the recommendations of the Schools Commission. I am speaking now specifically of schools. It has in fact instructed the Commission to obey its policy decisions. The evidence of that is shown clearly in the Schools Commission’s report of this year. I believe that it is worth while quoting the relevant section to show just how the Commission itself is so concerned about the trend of thinking of this Government. The Schools Commission was formed in 1973 for the purpose of giving moneys to government and non-government schools on the basis of need so that the schools that had the greatest need in fact would get the appropriate assistance. One of the most important aspects of that was to ensure that the divisive government versus non-government schools debate would be brought to an end, and the Commission has done great work in that area. Let us consider what the Commission said in its report, which is in contrast to the Government ‘s direction to the Commission, forcing it to put money into high resource, high income nongovernment schools- not the poor Catholic schools or the poor non-government schools but what are called the levels 1 and 2 schools where the Commission had demonstrated that there was no justification for doing it. Before I deal with the section of the report where the Commission refers to the question of reactivating what is commonly called the state aid debate, at page 10 it had this to say about the Government’s attitude towards putting more money into levels 1 and 2:

Levels 1 and 2 schools -

That is the high resource non-government schools, the Melbourne Grammars and Sydney Grammars and so on- cannot be accorded priority for additional assistance within the funds available for 1978. As these schools already operate at levels above those of the national average their need for additional funds cannot be as great as other less well provided for schools.

Dealing with capital funds for the nongovernment area, the Commission made its attitude quite plain when it said: the Commission does not believe that the situation in 1978 warrants the transfer of $3m out of other programs to make this possible.

Returning to the Commission’s comments about the divisive nature of the Government’s policies, it states at page 3 of the report:

A feature of the Commission’s work since its inception has been its success in drawing together the diverse interests in government and non-government sectors. Traditional barriers between these sectors have been substantially reduced and individuals and groups within them have been encouraged to work together in the common interests of educating all Australian school children to the best possible standards. The operation of the Commission’s joint programs and the development of formal and informal planning relationships between government and non-government schools and systems are significant examples of the evolution of this concensus. This is a major outcome of the Commission’s work over the past four years and indeed may be one of the major achievements of the Commonwealth in its role in Australian education. The Commission views with great concern the implications of the guidelines for the maintenance of the situation.

That is the most damning indictment, the most damning statement on a government policy that I have ever read in the report of a statutory body. It is saying to the Government of this country that it is on the wrong track, that it is undoing the work that has been done over the past three or four years by the Schools Commission. The Schools Commission knows the motivation behind it. This Minister purports to know better than the Schools Commission, with all the resources behind it to determine the needs of schools in both the government and nongovernment sectors. Yet the Government has the hide to turn around and tell the Commission that it does not know what the real needs are, that the Government knows better than the Commission and will direct it to put funds into those schools. Is it any wonder that the Commission, which is composed of educationists from across the whole spectrum of education in Australia, including the Catholic schools and the government schools, the governments themselves, universities and academic people, unanimously decided on the recommendations made in this report? The Minister has answered Dorothy Dix questions during Question Time, trying to make out a case for the wealthy schools, sucking up to the wealthy non-government schools that he and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the other people went to. That is the reason it is all being done. Whether the Minister went to such a school I do not know.

Senator Carrick:

– No, I did not.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I will take that back about the Minister, but a lot of his colleagues did, and that is where their real interests lie. The Commission was formed to put a stop to all that. As it has stated in its report, it made so much progress towards stopping it but now this Government wants to undo that progress for the sake of some cheap political advantage. These people talk about class, privilege and so on, and say that the Labor Party does not like to help anybody who is successful, and all that sort of nonsense. We like to help the people which authorities such as the Schools Commission have identified as people, schools and systems which need assistance. That was the purpose of our action. That is what we created. That is what the Government is trying to destroy. I do not intend to go any longer because there are many other Bills to be dealt with today. I close by saying, as I said earlier, that the Australian people are awake to what is being done by this Government in the educational field. I only say that in the succeeding three years- if this Government happens to be returned on 10 December- the situation will get a lot worse than it has been over the last two years. We are dealing cognately with two Bills, namely, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill. On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendments:

At the end of motion, add ‘, but-

1 ) That, in respect of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1977:

the Senate is of the opinion that the Government is neglecting the real needs of schools in Australia; and

the Senate condemns the Government’s interference with the independence of the Schools Commission, specifically by its directing funds to wealthy private schools against the Commission’s recommendations.

That, in respect of the Sates Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1977, the Senate is of the opinion that:

there is insufficient funding for technical education in Australia; and

the Government’s intention to transfer a major secdon of tertiary education funding to the States will be to the detriment of tertiary education’.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I shall be very brief. I simply recite a few facts. For the calendar year 1976 the Whitlam Government in its last year cut education in Australia by $ 105m- the only cut which education has suffered. The Whitlam Government also set aside triennium funding, froze student allowances at the June 1974 figure and was able to have the Schools Commission say of it that in its three years of office the gap in respect of resources between government schools and nongovernment schools had widened to the detriment of the non-government schools. That is the record which Senator Wriedt is inviting us to deal with. What a pity he did not read or hear the speech which the very distinguished Australian Labor Party Minister for Education in the Whitlam Government, Mr Beazley, made two days ago. What Senator Wriedt said today is profoundly rejected by Mr Beazley. Senator Wriedt would not have made his statements about the divisiveness of state aid if he had, in fact, thought to read what that very worthwhile former Minister said. Of course, Senator Wriedt was using the Schools Commission to talk about the divisiveness of state aid. This is what the former Minister said:

I do appeal to the Schools Commission to come back to the conception we had about its work, that is, that it is quite irrelevant to the Commonwealth whether an Australian citizen happens to be a child in a government school or a child in a non-government school. They are all Australian citizens.

So the honourable member went on. I commend him thoroughly for those remarks. It is interesting that Senator Wriedt should align himself in opposition to that situation. Senator Wriedt gave a great lecture about how this Government, in its time, has neglected government schools and their standards. But Mr Beazley stated:

Everything that Karmel could have asked of the State governments in his objective for the decade they have in fact carried out. In the maintenance of State governments efforts for government schools the progress which is occurring is faster than Karmel envisaged.

Senator Baume:

– Faster?

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, faster than Karmel envisaged. So, in everything which has been said today by Senator Wriedt there is a fundamental denial implicit in what Mr Beazley has said. The Schools Commission which has been used to berate us has said that the maintenance of effort in all government schools has been exceeded. It went on to prove that in three States the whole secondary system had risen to the level 2 category. Senator Wriedt says that moneys should not be applied to level 2 non-government schools, but he is quite happy to have moneys applied to level 2 government schools. He talks about divisiveness! That is the scandal of the Labor Party.

I simply say that Mr Beazley has given the answer to that statement. It was necessary for Mr Beazley to invite the Schools Commission to understand that we are all Australians and not people divided. This, of course, is the message that the Government will carry out. The Government does not believe that the gap should continue to widen as it did under the Labor Government. This Government believes that assistance to government schools should be increased substantially. When the Government came to office it in fact reversed the adverse decisions of the Labor Government. It reversed the cuts in education and gave in fact a two per cent real money growth. The Government set up a rolling triennium program and it unfroze student allowances. Now it is argued that the Government is guilty because it is attempting to do something about the widening gap. The fact is that opportunities are now available for all students in the field of tertiary education. The Government has brought to the under-privileged education groups- the 750,000 people in the technical and further education field in co-partnership with universities and colleges-something that the Labor Party profoundly rejected. This Government has extended help to the under-privileged, the disadvantaged, children in institutions and children living in isolated areas.

Need I go on? The whole thrust of the Government’s policies has been to help and to lift from disadvantage to equality of opportunity. The document from the Schools Commission that Senator Wriedt seeks to use against the Government is the most profound record of this Government ‘s achievement in uplifting government school standards. This is an example of the very federalism which Senator Wriedt seeks to berate. No doubt the Labor Party intends to reverse the Government’s federalism policies. The honourable senator has been very silent on that point. No doubt a Labor Party government would go back to the taxation policies of the Whitlam Government that trebled income tax, doubled sales tax, doubled the rates of customs and excise and so on. The very federalism policy of the Government has given the Schools Commission the opportunity to note that the States are capable of improvement above maintenance of effort. I think we have a proud record. As Mr Beazley has noted, the Government has exceeded the Karmel targets.

Senator Wriedt:

– Of one per cent.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Wriedt laughs, but the facts are against him. During a time of great economic restraint due to an economic condition created artificially by the Labor Government, the present Government has given top priority to education and will continue to do so in the future. In two years the Government has introduced more major reforms, through the Williams committee, through the Tertiary Education Commission and through a whole range of reforms, than the Labor Party ever dreamed of. This Government has acted. Members of the Opposition have prattled. I commend the two Bills to the Senate.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to order. Surely the Minister is not closing the debate?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate is considering Senator Wriedt ‘s amendment.

Senator Georges:

– Then he cannot be closing the debate.

Senator Carrick:

– A list of speakers was not provided. No honourable senator rose. I waited to see whether any honourable senator rose. Because no honourable senator rose I was in fact closing the debate.

Senator Georges:

-I am raising a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator cannot raise a point of order. He can speak in a moment. The question is: ‘That the words proposed to be added by Senator Wriedt ‘s amendment, be added’. You can now speak to the motion, Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has been at considerable fault in this case. He must have known that members on this side of the chamber wished to speak.

Senator Baume:

– How could he know?

Senator GEORGES:

-The list of speakers has already gone over to the Government side.

Senator Baume:

– When?

Senator GEORGES:

– I think Senator Baume had better discuss that with Senator Chaney. Let me put this to honourable senators clearly. The matter of speakers on these Bills was discussed yesterday. Senator Carrick said that there was no st of speakers and, therefore, took it that the Opposition was not prepared to enter the debate.

Senator Lewis:

- Mr President, what is the point of order?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges is speaking to the motion.

Senator GEORGES:

-The Minister was being unfair when he said that because he was then on his feet closing the debate. How could any honourable senator on this side of the chamber possibly get to his feet to speak while Senator Carrick was still speaking? I want to make it clear to the Government that the arrangements have broken down today because of the procedures that have been adopted. Sessions often have come to a rather rapid and constricted close, but we have had the necessary discussion to ensure maximum debate on what the Opposition considered to be the most important of the Bills in respect of which there was to be some shortage of debating time. The Leader of the Government must accept the responsibility for what has happened today because this morning he immediately took it for granted that there could be no discussion or arrangement on the time limits for various Bills, that there could be no discussion on whether we could limit the time of speakers in the debate. We have always had this arrangement but today it is not to be the case. We came in to the Senate and immediately had steamroller tactics adopted by the Government.

From the point of view of my position it will be difficult today to carry out any of the arrangements which were agreed to earlier in the week to enable us to rise at about 4.30 p.m. or 5 p.m. today. We realise that the Government needs to get its legislation through before the proroguing of the House of Representatives tomorrow. I am sorry to have to make these comments today. On previous occasions on these last sitting days we have been able to arrange to have as much debate as possible and still meet the requirements of the transport officers to get honourable senators away. The Opposition has moved certain amendments and I have taken this opportunity to speak in order to ensure that those who wish to speak on this Bill will be able to do so.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak briefly because what Senator Georges has done is raise the question of arrangements between the Whips which, as I understand it, is not a matter for discussion in the Senate. Such arrangements have no formal status in the Senate and it becomes a matter of embarrassment when there are allegations that there has been some departure from arrangements. It becomes an embarrassment which it is impossible to resolve in the public arena. I simply put on record that as far as I am concerned the normal procedure in this place will be followed and if the Opposition chooses to indicate whether it has speakers on a Bill I will follow my normal practice of providing you, Mr President, with a list which shows the names of those honourable senators who it has been indicated to me have an interest in speaking. Of course, whether or not you call those honourable senators is a ma’ter for your discretion, as it always is, but I suppose you would have no objection to my saying that in 99 cases out of 100-1 can think of only one exception in the last two years- you follow the list that has been given to you.

I say to anyone who is concerned about the matters which have been raised by Senator Georges that if while we have debating time there is an indication to me that there are Opposition senators wishing to speak that fact will be made known to the President by me in the normal course. One of the unfortunate things about parliamentary proceedings when the chamber is under pressure is as to time. I agree with Senator Georges that at the completion of each of the sittings with which he and I have been associated there has been heavy pressure of legislation in the last couple of days. But it is unfortunate that so much of the limited time -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Whose fault is that?

Senator CHANEY:

– The honourable senator interjects, ‘Whose fault is that?’. But, of course, in such a situation no government has been without fault. It is no good referring back to situations in the past such as when the then Senator Murphy closed the debate on 43 Bills. It is a fact that in every session of the Senate I have ever attended- half of those were while the Australian Labor Party was in government and half have been while our parties have been in governmentthe same problem concerning the passing of legislation has arisen. The only additional point I wanted to make, before that interjection interfered with my train of thought, was that it is extraordinary when we are in this situation that so much of the available time is spent on technical matters, whether they be the calling of quorums or argument about the procedures which are being followed. This limits still further the amount of time that can be spent on debate. I simply say to the Opposition that if we are to have any sensible debate on any of the matters which remain before us, we ought to make that our objective.

Amendment negatived.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

– I refer to Part HI of the State Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1977 which deals with nongovernment schools. I. take the opportunity at the Committee stage to correct a statement made by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) during the second reading debate. He has made the statement publicly. He said that the Schools Commission referred to the marked gap between the resources available to government and nongovernment schools. It is a poor situation when a Minister deliberately drops a word from a quotation. In fact, he did that in a newspaper article some months ago. The Commission did not speak about the marked gap between government and non-government schools. It said government and most non-government schools’. If one reads that phrase in the context of the Commission’s report, one sees that the Commission was excluding those non-government schools to which this Government directed it to grant more money. I believe that is a matter which ought to be brought to the attention of the Committee so that the position can be made clear and so that the Commission can be defended. Its report has been distorted by the Minister. I repeat that the Commission was emphasising that there was a gap between the resources available to government and most non-government schools, but not to all nongovernment schools. The Commission has been consistent and it has maintained its traditional position of emphasising the provision of additional resources to those lower level, low resource non-government schools- a position which the Australian Labor Party strongly supports.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I would like certain aspects of the State Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1977 to be clarified. Clause 9 (5) (b) refers to the numbers of students at affiliated colleges and provides that one-half of the number of resident full time post graduate students at that student residence or affiliated college in that year shall be included in the number of residents in that particular college in addition to the full time undergraduate students. I ask the Minister: Has this been a long standing practice?

Clause 17 (4), on page 19 of the Bill, contains no reference to post graduate students in colleges of advanced education. I imagine that there are now post graduate students at colleges of advanced education, even though they might be few in number. If there are post graduate students at colleges of advanced education, why would a similar situation not prevail for them as applies for university students at affiliated colleges? In respect of clause 28 (5) (b), I am unable to see how the amount of $132,607,000 is obtained. Would that figure have been arrived at arbitrarily, or does something in the Bill indicate that such a figure should appear in this particular clause?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The answer to the first question is yes, it is a long standing practice. Post graduate students account for half the numbers. As to the second question, relating to colleges of advanced education, to my knowledge there are no post graduate students at those colleges. However, there might well be post graduate students at those colleges, and if that is so one would want to treat them equally with other post graduate students. With respect to the honourable senator’s third question, my advisers remind me that the amount of $ 132m appearing in clause 28 represents the sum of capital amounts available. What the honourable senator said is correct.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– May I just confirm that, in relation to post graduate students at colleges of advanced education- if in fact there are any and I think there are nowadays- the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) is saying that those post graduate students at colleges of advanced education should be treated equally with post graduate students at universities?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The honourable senator has raised a matter which has not previously come directly to me. I certainly shall give the matter consideration and, if there are anomalies, I shall seek to have them removed.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2371

APPLE AND PEAR STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1977

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 8 November on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is required to give consideration to three Bills relating to the apple and pear industry. I think it has been conceded that they will be dealt with in a cognate debate. On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time:

That all words after ‘that’ be left out and the following words be inserted in place thereof: the Bill be withdrawn with a view to bringing forward a Bill which-

Increases the rate of stabilisation payments to $3.00 per box of apples and $1.20 per box of pears; and /or

Provides supplementary assistance measures to facilitate adjustments in the fruit growing industry and provides assistance directly to individual fruit growers till such times as a coherent planned policy, by which the Australian fruit growing industry can prosper, is determined ‘.

Copies of the amendment are in the process of being circulated to honourable senators. Since this Government came to power it has become the practice in the Senate on the last day of sitting of all sessions of the Parliament to debate Bills dealing with primary industry. It strikes me as a fair comment that the problems associated with Australian agriculture are receiving very little priority. In fact, they are always at the bottom of the legislative list. I always find myself on the last day of a parliamentary sitting commenting upon the fact that Bills are not receiving sufficient consideration by the Senate and that the Government obviously looks on the problem of Australian agriculture as one of the low priority jobs.

We are all aware of the fact that there are grave difficulties facing practically every sector of the rural industry. The problems associated with the apple and pear industry have been with us for the whole of the 1970s. We are required from year to year to deal with matters affecting the industry in the form of some stabilisation of the industry itself. Senator Cotton is handling these Bills. I am reminded that on a number of occasions he has made statements in the Senate and elsewhere that the industry itself has to take the measures to put its own house in order. That is leaving the Government out of the picture and accepting the principle that sectors of the industry should in some way or other in their diversity and different geographical locations come together in some coherence and order and take the necessary steps to resolve the problems they face. That is pie in the sky. We believe that governments have an obligation to give leadership, take initiatives and bring in the sort of legislative processes to which the industry can respond.

Again, we find ourselves in a critical state of mind in relation to this industry. We do not disagree with the general steps outlined but we believe that the proposed assistance is not adequate and that more needs to be done by the Government. It is clear that if the Government is really sincere about helping Australian agriculture it should be giving a lot more time and attention to the diversification of problems which are obviously occurring not only within the industry but also within the regions of the industry. There are specific problems in the apple and pear industry relating to the apples produced in Tasmania. Tasmania produces two-thirds of the total export trade. Therefore whatever happens on overseas markets has an importance relevance to those whose livelihood, investment and future are tied up with stabilising the industry.

The purposes of the first Apple and Pear Stabilization Bill was to bring about some stability. That type of ad hoc legislation has been continued in the subsequent seven years. It is not difficult to say that the restructuring of the industry is continuing. But there has been a tendency by many people involved in agriculture in Australia to diversify their interest from the growing of fruit to other forms of agricultural activity. Because of the general nature of the problem facing agriculture, that is not a very palatable alternative nor is it a profitable alternative. Of course, when we have changes in the export market for apples and pears, then the industry faces a very serious problem.

I was somewhat surprised to read of the debate that took place in the other place because when my colleague Mr Scholes moved the amendment which I am suggesting should be considered by the Senate today, he was berated by the Tasmanian members, all of whom are up for election and, therefore, whom one would have expected to have shown a bit more interest in the problems facing the apple and pear industry in Tasmania. The last time the Senate dealt with this matter it actually carried an amendment, with the support of the Tasmanian senators, in which concern was expressed about the inability of the industry to reach a stable position. The Government has not taken that into consideration. It has turned its back on that and we find Tasmanian members of the House of Representatives, who are all up for election and whom one would expect to be much more interested in the plight of the industry, making statements that the support is not required. I find it difficult to appreciate how they can come to that conclusion. Within the second reading speech and in the representations that have been made to the Labor Party by the industry in Tasmania the point is made. In a telegram sent to me the executive director of the State Marketing Authority, Mr Windas Smith stated, in part:

The best way to overcome this problem is to increase Commonwealth contribution to supplementary support scheme say $3 for each $ 1 from State sources.

That is precisely what the Opposition believes should be adopted in this place. The Opposition proposes therefore to move an amendment to that effect. I cannot understand the illogical thinking of those Liberal Party or National Country Party Members of the House of Representatives who take the view that there is not a problem in the apple and pear industry in Tasmania. As recently as less than a month ago newspapers circulating in Tasmania have drawn attention to the problem. I cannot share the enthusiasm, although I concede that there has been some minor improvement, that has been expressed in the other place that the recurring stabilisation schemes are doing anything substantial to alter the very unsatisfactory state of income of those who have investment and activities related to the growing of apples and pears.

Clearly, the Government has not taken any steps to extend or promote employment retraining schemes for apple and pear orchardists. If we are going to talk about restructuring the industry we must have a plan of what we are going to do with those people who wish to leave the industry. As honourable senators know, something like 40 per cent of those in the industry have left it in recent years. They go to the cities or to some other location and there are no effective steps to retrain them. No one can tell me what they are to do with their time and their skills. Surely this comes within the purview of government responsibility. If people are to be encouraged to leave agriculturethat has been the basis of all the rural readjustment schemes- I want someone on the Government side to tell us what we are to do with the people. We are supposed to be concerned about people. We are supposed to be concerned about their economic future. We are supposed to be concerned about their capacity to play a meaningful part in the economy of this country yet there is no training scheme adequate to train these people who have geographic problems, location problems, who cannot be readily absorbed from that particular industry to which I am referring, the apple and pear industry- it applies equally to other readjustment schemesinto some other form of industrial or rural activity.

That surely has to be recognised as part of the responsibilities of government. I cannot accept the philosophical position that Government supporters take that the private sector can stand on its own two feet and that the individual should be making his own decisions. The purpose of government is to lend its resources and experience, its assistance to those who, for a whole variety of reasons, find that they are unable to continue in the ways they had previously operated.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting I was drawing attention to the debate on this legislation in the other place. I find it difficult to appreciate the reasoning behind the following statement made by one Government supporter in that debate:

As I said, this year the support is not required; the growers do not need it. It is not of much use giving the growers the money if they cannot use it.

That statement seems to me to indicate that Tasmanian members have no appreciation of the problem not only in their own State but also in the rest of the industry throughout Australia.

There are certain differences in the industry in different States. The Opposition’s amendment does not distinguish between States. It might be argued that in some States the problem is more acute. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the sort of assistance proposed in the amendment could be said to be a waste of public funds. On every fair assessment of the state of the industry, the assistance is needed.

The Opposition has moved its amendment, recognising the plight of the export section of the apple and pear industry throughout Australia which requires this assistance. Therefore, I think we are entitled to say that Government supporters from Tasmania are out of touch with reality, out of touch with the needs of the industry and out of touch with the economic problems that face the industry. I think we are entitled also to say that the Government has done precious little to reduce the cost of distribution and shipping. As a consequence, cost increases have eaten into the return to the apple and pear grower. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show a rate of inflation of 13.1 per cent for the year ended September 1977. That inflation flows right through the cost structure. The problems to which I have referred in the last two debates concerning apple and pear stabilisation need to be examined carefully by the Government.

The Opposition believes that the $3 a box for apples and the $1.20 a box for pears are necessary to keep the apple and pear growers alive until a Labor government is elected and effective restructuring arrangements are introduced. In those circumstances we are of the view that the Senate ought to look seriously at our proposition, as it did on the last occasion when we were able to prevail upon a sufficient number of Government senators to support a proposal that the Government have a fresh look at this industry. We did so not because we wanted to alter the Government’s legislation but because we felt that a mere repetition of previous assistance measures did not go to the heart of the problem, did not really recognise the economic factors, did not recognise the human factors and did not recognise that the industry requires much more encouragement and assistance from the Australian Government.

So often when people talk about assistance to the various industries of this country they tend to place some of the blame on the States. We have heard a lot about the much vaunted federalism policy. It has been said that, because of that policy, the States are in a position to come to the aid of different sectors pf industry. If that is to be the way in which federalism works, it negates the whole principle. Export matters are within the province of the Federal Government and therefore Federal Government assistance should be the principal component of assistance to the apple and pear industry. In the light of those circumstances and recognising that time does not permit a full debate on this issue, I urge the Senate to support my amendment and to give serious consideration to the propositions which the Opposition has put before it.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Mcintosh:

– I second the amendment.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Time is short today and we do not have long to deal with a great number of matters; so I shall be as brief as possible. This is a matter of very considerable importance which should not be dealt with in the somewhat flippant or political way in which the Opposition has dealt with it today. I support the legislation. It is important legislation dealing with an important industry- an industry which is of great importance to my State of Tasmania and of very considerable importance to Australia as a whole. It is an industry which not only provides some of the basic foodstuffs to the people of Australia it is also an important export earner. It is an industry which has had its troubles. It is an industry which over recent years has had a great deal of troubles. Two things have happened recently, particularly to the industry in Tasmania but generally, which make the remarks of Senator Gietzelt totally inappropriate. One thing that has happened is that the industry is enjoying the best overseas markets for years, and that is something about which we all should be saying Thank God ‘. Thank God that an industry which has had these troubles is able at the moment to say that it will not need a government support scheme this year. The legislation proposes a continuation of the existing scheme which was barely used or barely necessary in the last season because the market returns to the producers were sufficient. It is expected that a similar situation will prevail in the forthcoming season.

The last time legislation of this type came before the chamber I expressed my concern in more ways than one. I have been delighted to And that the fears I expressed at the time did not eventuate. It may be that next year this very volatile and variable overseas market will cause the Government to do more for the apple and pear growers of Australia. With the best overseas markets for a long time and with the introduction by this Government of the freight equalisation scheme, which has enabled the Tasmanian growers to compete on an equal basis in the Australian domestic market for apples and pears, the situation is not such as was described by Senator Gietzelt. Whilst I agreed with his general expressions of concern I felt that he was out of touch with the reality of the moment. So I do not accept his criticisms of the attitude of the Tasmanian members in the House of Representatives. Those Tasmanian members are far more sensitive and far more in touch with the reality of the situation than is Senator Gietzelt. The industry is, from every inquiry that I have been able to make, quite happy to accept the current proposal of $2 per box of apples.

The honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has battled very hard for the apple growers of Tasmania, and I believe that of the jobs that have been done by any member of the House of Representatives his has been an excellent job. In his speech, which is reported on page 2991 of the House of Representatives Hansard, of 7 November, he read a telegram which he received and which I believe is best summarised in the first few words of the telegram. The telegram is from Mr Windas Smith, the executive director of the State marketing authority in relation to apples, and it reads:

Current maximum support of $2 per bushel for apples is appropriate . . .

If Mr Windas Smith and the other industry representatives with whom I have spoken say that they regard the assistance as appropriate at the moment and that the scheme is unlikely even to be used this year, I am quite prepared to say that if the industry is happy there is no reason for the Parliament to intervene in the somewhat hypocritical way in which I believe the Labor Party’s amendment has come before this chamber. It has come before the chamber from a party which did more to destroy primary industry in Australia than any other party has done in any similar period of government. I do not have the time to elaborate on that statement, but I do not think I need to. I think everyone in this chamber is familiar with what was done to destroy primary industry. Need I do more than simply say that the farmers of Australia, the primary producers, who were told by the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, that they had never had it so good, responded to him in very clear terms in December 1975 as they will again in December 1977.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You would not like to put a bet on it, would you?

Senator RAE:

-I see that Senator Gietzelt feels that politics is a betting matter. I suppose it is a matter of chance at times. I do not think that there is any uncertainty at all as to what the Australian people will do in December. They will not be interested in re-electing the most disastrous government that it has ever been the misfortune of Australia to have to put up with. We could talk about what that Government did by way of the creation of inflation and the creation of unemployment and the destruction of primary industry in so many ways. If one were to get into a debate on those matters, a debate I would have thoroughly enjoyed had we had more time, one could talk about things like the Australian Rural Bank, which we are about to introduce and about which the Labor Party did nothing, and all the other things, but let us leave that to the hustings.

I simply take the opportunity to indicate on behalf of Tasmanians that we will support the industry in the same way that we have in the past. If it needs fighting for, we will tight for it. If the apple turns sour in the future so far as overseas marketing is concerned, I am quite certain I speak for my Tasmanian colleagues in both Houses when I say that we will be the first to say to the Government that something needs to be done. At the moment I do not propose to support what I regard as a totally hypocritical political exercise by an opposition which has done more to destroy the people which it is now pretending it will help than has ever been done.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I sought the call to speak very briefly on this matter in order to expose the shabby, shoddy logic in the argument presented by Senator Rae. If Senator Rae believes his own propaganda that this assistance will not be called upon this year he cannot possibly have any rational objection to voting for an amendment to increase the maximum level of support to $3 a box, $ 10 a box or for infinity. If he really believes his own assertion that the assistance will not be called upon he has no rational reason for voting against this amendment. We have seen from Senator Rae a repetition of the cant and humbug that Liberal Party members from Tasmania in the House of Representatives have always displayed on this issue. We know the esteem with which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) holds the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck). The Prime Minister endearingly called him a grub and told him to crawl back into the apple.

The other matter I wish to refute is Senator Rae’s allegation that the Labor Government destroyed primary industry. I point out two facts for Senator Rae s edification. In the two full financial years that this Government has been in power net farm income has fallen. For the present financial year, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics has forecast a further 16 per cent decline in net farm income. Regardless of whatever may have happened to primary industry under previous governments, that fact is pertinent to what is happening to primary industry under this Government.

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

– It is pretty clear that we have been sitting for six weeks and that we normally sit for two weeks. We are dealing with a series of Bills designed to assist the apple and pear industry. The purpose of the Bills was carefully explained in the second reading speech. The purpose is to extend the support provided under the stabilisation scheme. It will be based on a maximum level of support of $2 a box. The maximum quantity eligible for support is two million boxes. Support will be limited to sales ‘at risk’ to Europe, including the United Kingdom. This will also apply to pear exports and will be based on a price of 80c per box. The maximum quantity eligible for support will be 1.4 million boxes, again for sales ‘at nsk’. It has not been mentioned in the debate but I think it could be mentioned usefully as the second reading speech states that the Australian Government is consulting with the States on an assistance program for 1978 which could involve an additional $lm to assist apple exports to Europe including the United Kingdom.

The scheme has been operating since 1971. Therefore it was introduced by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. It was carried on during the time of the Labor Governmentthat period of great unhappiness for us all. It is now being continued by the current Government, It has been very important for the apple States, particularly Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia. It provides a measure of stability which is badly needed. The apple and pear industry is an uncertain industry. It has problems; we all know that. I think that this continuation of support will allow the industry further time to adjust. That might become necessary. The number of apple-bearing trees has fallen by 25 per cent during the past four years, and the volume of exports has fallen to about half the 1975 level. So it is obviously an industry that has had problems, that needed stabilisation and needed some time to readjust itself.

There are some hopeful signs about the 1977 export market return, but these are not finally known yet. European apple market prices were exceptionally high because of poor crops in Europe following the 1976 drought. There was a reduction in supplies from other southern hemisphere countries. So things may look a little brighter. I underline the word ‘may’. I trunk it is mentioned in the second reading speech that we are dealing with a volatile market scene. The 1978 prospects for prices in Europe are really looking more favourable than we had expected a couple of years ago. All in all, those are particularly good features at the current time.

The amendment of course is not supported. I think there is no mention in the second reading speech of the Industries Assistance Commission’s work in this area. Therefore in order to complete my remarks I have looked into this subject. The apple and pear stabilisation scheme was the subject of a recent IAC inquiry, as a result of which the Government’s decision to extend the scheme to 1977-78 has been taken. It can be shown that the Government has main;tained the level of support at this level for three years now, despite the IAC recommendations that the scheme should be discontinued after 1977.

Sometimes we hear contrary remarks, although not very often in this chamber, I must say, because it tends to contain a fairly sensible group of people. We see lots of stuff in the newspapers from time to time lecturing us all about protection and so forth and how important it is that the IAC recommendations be taken as the last word of God. Here is a particular case in which primary industries, which tend to think that they do not get much of a fair go, have been particularly helped by the Government. The Government has said to the IAC: ‘We do not agree with the recommendations in this case. We will go further and do more to help’. I think that shows that the Government behaves sensibly in all cases. It believes in the maintenance of support at this level. It believes that the scheme will assist the industry. It has confidence in the industry and it equally has confidence in members of its parties from Tasmania and other States who, if the industry again suffers difficulty and needs adjustment and help, will bring forward, as they always do, propositions both with sense and wise argument. They are taken account of by the Government. As honourable senators can understand, the Government will in no way support the amendment. I also mention that the matter was canvassed in the same form in the House of Representatives, where the amendment was also rejected.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 30

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment, requests or debate.

page 2376

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 3) 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As I understood it, the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 3) and the Customs Amendment Bill were to be taken together.

Senator Durack:

- Mr President, I was about to make that suggestion. I am sorry that I did not anticipate Senator Douglas McClelland.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That being so the Senate is now debating the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 3) 1977 and the Customs Amendment Bill 1977. The matters in the Customs Tariff Validation Bill will be the subject of legislation in about six months time. Therefore the Opposition does not oppose it.

The Customs Amendment Bill is an attempt to overcome the drug problem in Australia. The Opposition certainly agrees that the drug problem is of great concern to Australia and is in need of urgent solution. Therefore we do not oppose that Bill. The Bill is based on the assumption that the existence of more severe punishment will deter drug traffickers. In view of the enormous profits that are reaped by drug traffickers and in view of the exploitative effects of these people on the youth of Australian society, it seems only appropriate that the financial and penal sanctions imposed on offenders should be increased. The Bill provides for penalties of up to $100,000 or up to 25 years imprisonment, or both, for drug trafficking offences. As that was the recommendation of the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence, the Opposition accepts those penalties as being appropriate.

It is important to note that my colleague, the shadow Attorney-General, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen), pointed out in the House of Representatives that many drug traffickers are also drug addicts who have entered the trafficking business to keep themselves supplied in funds and in drugs. These people may well be the unfortunate sufferers of the more severe penalties to be imposed under this legislation. That sort of person needs help, and we would hope that the application of penalties that will come into effect under this legislation will occur in a qualified and compassionate manner.

As the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare recently reported in its very excellent report on drug trafficking, Australian governments have never committed themselves to any substantive and comprehensive policy on drugs. Drug abuse in Australia has been dealt with in a rather piecemeal fashion. There is obviously clear and urgent need for government to provide a comprehensive framework to deal with all aspects of the drug abuse problem. Because this Bill deals with only one aspect of the problem it may well have only a limited impact on the overall purview of the situation. For the reasons I have mentioned, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I should like to carry on for about four sentences beyond what Senator Douglas McClelland said. The report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, chaired by Senator Baume, must be taken into consideration. We should not allow this Bill to go through and give the impression that we are going to solve a drug problem by imposing increased penalties. The overall problem must be attacked at its base. The Committee which reported to. the Senate, I think, has the guidelines which ought to be followed.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Senate for its support of these measures. I think it is recognised- the comment has been made- that the drug problem is a wide social as well as a legal problem. However, the fact remains that enormous profits are being made by particularly evil members of the community who are prepared to traffic in drugs for their own large profits. Certainly the penalties that are now being introduced in these measures are designed to provide an adequate and proper sanction for that. Hopefully they will be a realistic deterrant to those people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2377

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 8 November on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2377

BRIGALOW LANDS AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1977

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 8 November on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– These two measures to which the Senate is giving consideration are important pieces of legislation. The Labor Party does not propose to oppose the schemes which the Government is putting before the Senate for its deliberation.

The measures are proposed in order to give effect to the Government’s package of assistance to the beef cattle industry, assistance that one must say is somewhat belated. It has been introduced only since it has been apparent to anyone associated with agriculture that the beef industry is in a state of acute crisis, desperation and near-bankruptcy; that the vast majority in the industry, especially in Queensland, because of its dependence on the export market, are struggling to survive. In various other parts of Austrafia the beef industry also is in such desperate straits that there is need for Government intervention and assistance. It is worth while to bring to the attention of the Senate the fact that the proposed assistance came not only after the plight of the industry was obvious but also after motions of no confidence had been moved against the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in several centres throughout Australia.

I wish to refer particularly to the first such motion of no confidence which, in February of this year, was moved by the Farmers Union of Western Australia. That was to be followed by similar motions in other parts df Australia, more importantly that which was carried at the end of September last at the Cattlemen ‘s Union Conference in Toowoomba. As the plight of the beef producer has become more noticeable and acute we have seen develop a growing militancy among farmers in this industry. It is a shame that the Government moved only after the problem had reached such proportions that Government intervention provided the only way in which producers could be saved from economic ruin.

That militancy among farmers is continuing to develop throughout Australia. Only today we heard that leading figures in the beef industry are considering running independent Country Party candidates in the forthcoming Federal election. When we look at what happened at the Toowoomba conference we know why this legislation is before the Senate. The Brigalow Lands Agreement legislation was first adopted in 1962. Mr Fraser has now become aware of the deficiencies and inadequacies of the representation that has been given primary industry by the Minister, Mr Sinclair. The motion of no confidence which was carried overwhelmingly, at the Toowoomba conference contrasts startingly with the rousing reception that was accorded Mr Hawke of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Ha, ha!

Senator GIETZELT:

– The honourable senator may laugh, but many farm industry leaders have expressed to me the wish that someone of the calibre of Bob Hawke would represent people in the agricultural areas of Australia. Obviously they feel the need for militant representation, which they are not getting now, to protect their interests. That proposition has over the last year been put to me consistently by farm leaders. I am only expressing their view that this Government has let them down; that they need a representative with the charisma and drive of Bob Hawke to lead them to the promised land that has not been reached under this Government.

Senator Lajovic:

– The promised land?

Senator GIETZELT:

– Honourable senators may be vexed to learn of these murmurings of dissent, that there is such dissidence in the farming community because the Government has failed it time and time again. I repeat it, it was not until the crisis had almost reached the point of no return that the Government acted. Of course, in Queensland that disenchantment will become apparent in the results of the election next weekend.

We do not oppose the scheme because we realise that once the present state of desperation in the industry has been reached Government intervention and assistance is desirable, but we are of the view, and would hope the Government would accept it as constructive criticism, that if there were effective administration of the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act, which was passed by the Parliament almost a year ago there would be no need for additional legislation. That body was given the responsibility of dealing with this kind of difficulty. Clearly there are deficiencies within the administration of that Act. The measures are also restricted insofar as their impact is concerned, especially the proposal to defer payments by the brigalow land settlers in Queensland. It relates only to that area. I concede and the Opposition concedes that a very difficult situation exists in central and southwestern Queensland. But there are other areas in Australia that also are in a serious and parlous plight. The Government must surely accept some blame for its inability to extend the provisions applying in this case to those other disaster areas.

The beef incentives payment provides for the payment of $10 a head with a limit of $2,000 to each beef cattle producer. That will do only one thing. It will see him over his current difficulties. It will not solve his problem. It will just keep him alive for a short period. The cost of the administration of this proposal will be high. For the beef cattle producers in extreme circumstances it will hardly touch the bottom of the barrel especially after the cost of mustering the cattle for spraying for disease treatment has been deducted. Supporters of the Government must accept that there are very serious limitations to this proposal that the Senate is discussing.

I am sure that all members of the Senate will agree with me when I say that the problems of the beef industry will not be solved until more markets are found and the trade in export beef is increased. I know that there have been some positive achievements in this respect, but they have not been good enough. It was said in 1975 that if a Liberal-Country Party government were elected it would expand the areas of export, it would find new markets and it would solve the problems of denial of access to markets for our beef producers. That has not happened. It is easy to talk at election time about what one is going to do. In 1974, when we had problems with meat prices in Australia, we had Mr Fraser, Mr Anthony and Mr Sinclair advising the beef producers of Australia, whose herds at that stage numbered 28 million, that they ought to get them up to around 40 million. Thank God they did not and that the size of the herds increased to only 32 million or 33 million. Every person who bought into the industry at that time, unless he has access to extraordinary resources, has found himself in a parlous financial position.

The Government will say in this debate that it has done what can be done to obtain markets for beef, but I say that it has not done enough. Recently the British Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr John Silkin, visited Australia. He was here only two months ago. He said that there was no chance of the European Economic Community ‘s common agricultural policy being changed and no chance of Australia getting the considerably greater access that it needs to that market. The Government sent John Howard to Europe as Minister for Special Trade Negotiations. I think it has to be said that he has come back empty handed; that the door was closed in his face. He was quoted in the Australian newspapers as saying on his trip back to Australia several days ago that there are some prospects- that is about all that is being said- of getting access to markets overseas. That is not enough. We were told during the last election campaign that the present Government would get access to export markets. It has failed dismally to do that.

The Government also promised to restructure the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. It has failed to do that. It has failed to make it a dynamic, vigorous marketing organisation. It has left that organisation with its hands tied behind its back, without the effective powers that are needed to increase the domestic consumption of meat and to allow it to become more active and competitive in world markets. We note that the Government belatedly has provided funds for the introduction of carcass classification. Those are matters which have been on the agenda for a number of years, as you will concede, Mr President,

The plight of the beef industry has been getting noticeably worse, and the industry leaders and those in the industry itself have constantly put forward proposals which at least would have provided some chance of improvement in the economics of the industry. Now we are asked to approve a very minor step, and we do that; but we suggest to the Government, as we have done time and time again, that if it will come forward with a scheme to alter drastically the whole structure of the industry, a scheme that will bring stability to the industry and provide funds and encouragement to enable it to survive, it will have the support of the Opposition. In those circumstances, the Opposition is not prepared to do more than offer constructive criticism and support for the Bill.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

– I rise to support the two measures before the Senate- the Brigalow Lands Agreement Amendment Bill and the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill. In my area, the two are matters intrinsically linked. The brigalow area was founded around Rockhampton with schemes 1, 2 and 3. Schemes 1 and 2 have been going for some considerable time and some of the participants in them have been able to get established in a small way. Unfortunately, in the brigalow 3 area the story is not quite so rosy because the participants were not able to get on their feet before the disastrous beef slump hit them. Queensland might not be the largest beef producing State, but it does have the largest number of specialist beef producers, and therein lies a peculiar problem for Queensland. Whereas in many other areas the beef producers also produce grains and wool and are able to exploit seasonal conditions in order to get a quick return from a cash crop, the specialist beef producers do not have the luxury of those alternatives. The brigalow beef producer has a peculiar problem in that a large amount of capital was invested to enable him to go on to his block. Large areas of land had to be cleared and fenced and improvements had to be made in order to make him viable, Because of those factors the brigalow beef producers were not able to get their heads above water before the disastrous slump hit them.

In this legislation the Government has recognised that it does have some responsibility. It has been said that these people did not have their arms twisted to force them to go on to the settlements, but they were encouraged by both the State and Federal governments. In this legislation the Government is accepting some responsibility and recognising the need to provide assistance by declaring a moratorium on repayments and interest rates in order to help them over their problems. At the same time, assistance is being provided to all beef producers under the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill. A cash grant will be made, and the cash wil be payable when they take certain measures,* such as upgrading their herds or spaying females up to two years old so that the large cattle numbers in Australia can be brought down.

Both these measures are quite practical. They will be of immediate assistance and, we hope, will give a bit of heart to these people and help them to stay on the land and become viable producers. As this Government said when it took office in 1975, its main aim was to reduce the inflation that was inbuilt in our economy. Any help that we might have provided would have been negated if we had not reduced costs. It would have been eaten up completely. The Government took a very hard Une but a responsible position in relation to inflation and the Australian economy. At long last we are starting to see those actions bear fruit.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Thirteen per cent?

Senator COLLARD:

– I do not know where the honourable senator got his figures. The internal statistics are far different from that. At long last we are starting to see our efforts bear fruit. Not only are we giving assistance but it is real assistance because the cost structure is starting to come down. At long last beef producers will start to have a bit of heart. It must be quite devastating when one is probably a third or fourth generation beef producer to see aU one’s efforts and the efforts of one’s forefathers dissipated completely through no fault of oneself; not through bad management or bad seasons but just through some quirk of fortune which is completely outside one’s control. That is what has happened to this industry.

I think it should be pointed out that rural producers generally do not have any control over the price they get for their product. They cannot total up their cost, put on a profit margin and say:

That is what we should be receiving’. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. They are affected by the vagaries of the market and the seasons. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is to be congratulated. He has copped ridicule during the last few years but things have been completely out of his control as he and his Government have grappled with the situation to try to get viability back into this industry. We all admit that these are small measures but they are designed to assist within the overall strategies and policies of this Government which are directed towards getting our country viable again. We have pulled it back from the brink. We believe it is on the way up. I commend these Bills to the Senate and congratulate the Minister and the Government for the measures they are taking to try to give heart to people and to get viability back into industry.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate, in a cognate debate, is debating the Brigalow Lands Agreement Amendment Bill 1977 and the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill 1977. 1 shall confine my remarks to the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill. Today we are faced with the situation where we have 17 Bills on the Notice Paper plus two Appropriation Bills. Whilst many people in the Government claim time and time again that this is a House of review, we find that all of this legislation will be railroaded through the Parliament today. As Senator Gietzelt has pointed out, quite a number of those Bills deal with primary industry. When we rose for the winter recess the honourable senator made the same comments. All the primary industry Bills were left until the last moment. Of the 1 7 Bills on the Notice Paper, apart from the two Appropriation Bills, six of those Bills deal with primary industry.

I am forced to relate my comments on this Bill to the Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong. I wanted to raise this matter during the debate on the Appropriation Bills but it is quite evident that those Bills will not be debated today so I have to raise this matter now. I can link up my remarks with the words in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) when he said:

The purpose of the Bill -

That is the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill- is to provide for incentive payments to be made to beef producers who carry out certain recognised animal health and husbandry procedures.

He also went on to state:

Provision is made for the Minister to accept other disease control measures as recognised procedures. This will enable approval of procedures not specifically mentioned but which fall within the spirit of the Bill.

In 1974 when the Australian Labor Party Government was in office Mr Whitlam made an announcement on 2 April to the effect that the Government had allocated $57m to construct an Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong in Victoria on land owned by the Government. I had reason to raise this matter in the Senate on 1 5 March this year. I directed my question to Senator Webster. He said that he would attempt to obtain some information for me during the day. Then, on 31 March, I had to speak on the adjournment debate. I referred to a letter that Senator Webster had written to me giving information which he had received from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). In my speech I also referred to the primary industry section of the policy speech of the Liberal and National Country parties announced in November 1975. Under the heading ‘Animal and Plant Diseases’, the policy states:

The eradication of disease, diseases and insect pests and the difficulties of chemical residues is a national problem requiring co-ordinated control from Federal and State governments. This will receive a high priority through the Australian Agricultural Council. Quarantine: We support the establishment, at an early date, of a Maximum Security Laboratory and Quarantine Station for exotic animal diseases.

The Labor Government had already set this proposal in train. Mr Whitlam made an announcement to this effect on 2 April 1974. Of course, three years later I had occasion to question the present Government as to what it had done about it. Senator Webster in his reply had this to say to me:

Dear Senator McLaren:

You will recall your question without notice on 1 5 March, seeking information about the proposal to construct an animal health laboratory at Geelong, Victoria.

I now have additional information from the Minister for Primary Industry, who has the responsibility for construction of the laboratory.

He advises me as follows:

Construction of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong was not commenced last year. It has not yet commenced, as the project was deferred early in 1976 because of the need for the present Government to institute deliberate and careful restraints on all forms of expenditure. The position will be reviewed again this year.

Existing arrangements with reference laboratories overseas are being maintained to ensure that we have support if necessary to aid in diagnosis of any introduced exotic animal disease.

Although a statement was made in the LiberalNational Country parties policy speech put down on 25 November 1975 that a high priority would be placed on this matter, Senator Webster said that the Minister for Primary Industry had advised him that early in 1976, just a few months after this Government had been elected to office, the Liberal and National Country parties did not propose to proceed with the animal health laboratory at Geelong. So this is another promise that has been broken.

We are now faced with the situation in which not a penny has been allocated in this year’s Budget to construct the laboratory. Furthermore, it is feared that bluetongue disease has been located in the Northern Territory. This matter is of great importance to beef producers in the Northern Territory. We have been informed that the virus cannot be analysed in Australia. We have had to send the virus over to a laboratory in South Africa to be examined before it can be ascertained whether in fact the disease is present in Australia. I understand that the disease was located at the Government’s Beatrice Hill Research Station out from Humpty Doo in the Northern Territory, which I have had the pleasure of visiting on more than one occasion. I must compliment the people there on the manner in which they perform their work. I must compliment them also on being able to locate this disease. I hope that we can do something to prevent it from spreading to other parts of Australia.

Of course, if the laboratory had been constructed at Geelong we would not have to wait for months to find out whether in fact this dreaded disease is in the Northern Territory. We would not be placed in the position that New Zealand now bars our animal imports as was reported in the Sydney Sun of 4 November. The article stated:

The director of the Agriculture Ministry’s animal health division, Dr G. H. Adlam said today Australian scientists had located the virus in insects from the Northern Territory.

There is no evidence that the disease is present in Australian farm animals’ he said.

But the animal health authorities have sent samples of the virus to the world reference laboratory in South Africa to establish whether it is pathogenic for animals.

If a laboratory had been constructed at Geelong, it would have been practically operative now and we would not be faced with having to rely on a country such as South Africa with which we do not have very good relations to examine and process this virus and to send us back the report.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The Country Party has those key portfolios.

Senator McLAREN:

– I know it has. As I pointed out before Senator Mulvihill came into the chamber, one of the promises the Government made in its policy speech was that it would give a high priority to the construction of this laboratory at Geelong, a project which had been set in train by the Whitlam Government. Whilst we on this side of the chamber are often criticised by honourable senators opposite for having no interest in primary producers, there are many facets of interest to primary producers which we set in train when in government but which have been delayed by this Government. This laboratory is one of the most important of them. Our Government intended expending $S7m so that Australia had a laboratory which could examine any of the viruses which could be catastrophic to Australian primary industry.

I hope that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) when he replies can give some assurance that the Government intends constructing this laboratory. It will be no good the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and Mr Anthony saying in their policy speech next week that they will place a high priority on the construction of this laboratory because that is what they said two years ago. So far as I am aware, and according to the answer which Senator Webster gave me in March this year, nothing has been done. There is nothing in the Appropriation Bills currently before the Parliament, which we will not be able to debate fully, to indicate that one cent will be spent on the construction of this laboratory. I hope that the Minister can give us some definite indication to which the Government can be held if by some chance it is returned to office on 10 December.

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

– in reply- One is always fascinated to hear observations by members of the Australian Labor Party on what is wrong with the Government, what the Government does not do to help primary industry, what ought to be done or how much more could be done and how much more they would do. However, one always remembers its time in government as one largely comprised of promises, cost expansions, inflation being put beyond bounds and people in primary industry being driven almost to their knees. So most of the Opposition’s propositions are pretty hollow. In recent times we have had a lot of evidence of union troubles on the waterfront, dislocation of shipments of primary produce such as wheat, beef and, from time to time, mutton. Yet we did not hear from the Opposition then about its attempts to overcome those problems or that it was trying to persuade its union colleagues to do something about the problems and to be much more active about those things. Therefore one tends to regard the Opposition’s comments as being, to say the least, very hollow and not very practical.

This is another case in point. The Opposition does not oppose the Bills. In effect, it supports them but makes some noise off the stage as the Bills go by. However, the animal health project which was mentioned by Senator McLaren deserves serious comment. It is a matter of concern. I agree with some of the comments Senator McLaren made about the importance of animal health. From time to time there is need for diseases to be identified. In my lifetime of association with primary industry there have been many scares that did not become great scares but which caused some measure of concern. I know the Government is anxious to move ahead with the animal health laboratory- it is anxious about animal health generally- but when it became the Government it was forced to look at the quantum of government expenditure and to bring it down to more sensible levels consistent with what the community could afford. There were many measures that were not able to be proceeded with because the resources were not there. However, honourable senators can take it from me that the Government is serious about this project and regards it as urgent. It has looked into it seriously, and the Senate can expect to hear from the Government in due course about it.

In relation to the Brigalow Lands Agreement Amendment Bill, Senator Gietzelt said that the Government had moved only after a vote of no confidence in the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) had been carried in Toowoomba. The fact is that the offer to the Queensland Government was made many weeks ago, but legislation could not be proceeded with until the Queensland Government had agreed to accept the offer, and this occurred only last week. When we talk about export markets, their problems and the need to expand them we ought perhaps to remind ourselves that we had a record level of beef exports this year- over 650,000 tonnes. The expansion of the Japanese quota will be of considerable help to us. Our requests in this regard have been continuous and have been going on for quite a long time, and the recent decision by Japan to raise the quota has to be regarded as being due to the pressure applied by the Minister and the Government.

The general considerations of the brigalow land scheme are well known to honourable senators and were covered in the second reading speech. It is a Queensland scheme which is supported by the Commonwealth Government. Till June 1975 $ 18.6m had been committed to the scheme. The assistance given by the Commonwealth is on the basis of a loan repayable over 20 years, with interest at the long term rate applicable at the time of borrowing. The money is used to survey and provide acquisition resources, to construct access roads, to develop ballot blocks and to make loans to holders of ballot blocks. Altogether 360 blocks were involved. The financial difficulties of many of the people involved in the brigalow scheme have resulted from the recession in the beef industry. This occurred before they had a chance to establish themselves fully.

The Federal Government and the Queensland Government feel that they have a responsibility to those settlers because both governments were involved with them. Therefore this Government has set out in this measure to discharge that responsibility. The purpose of the Bill is known to honourable senators. As I have said, the Queensland Government has indicated its willingness to enter into the agreement. There are two major proposals contained in the Bill. Firstly, Queensland will receive a one year moratorium on its repayment commitments to the Commonwealth. The principal repayment will be deferred for the year and spread over the balance of the period of the loan. The interest payment for the year will be waived. This provision has been included in the legislation on the basis that Queensland will pass on the same concessions to needy settlers for an average period of two years. Some settlers will receive those concessions for a longer period and some will receive them for a lesser period. Secondly, the Government is extending the repayment period to the Commonwealth from 20 years to 27 years. That condition will be viable to the Commonwealth only if the State grants the same concessions to the settlers.

The Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill 1977 has been the subject of much discussion and much debate- much more so in the other House than in the Senate. I think that its principles are well known. It is hoped that the Bill will allow producers to do more about animal health. I agree that both animal health and husbandry are critical factors in beef production. The Bill should help producers with their cash flow problems. It should help to maintain the national animal health levels. The scheme relates to procedures and performance during the oneyear period from 23 September 1977 to 22 September 1978. The eligibility criterion is the ownership of 50 or more cattle kept for beef production as at 30 June 1977. Eligible persons may be paid $ 10 for each head of cattle up to a maximum amount of $2,000 for recognised procedures which include dipping and other treatments for external parasites and drenching and other treatments for internal parasites. Such treatments would include tuberculate testing, blood sampling and vaccination for brucellosis and the spaying of female cattle less than two years of age. Under the provisions the Minister is allowed to accept other disease control measures as recognised procedures. The Bill provides that partnerships, companies and trusts will qualify for a payment as if they were individual owners engaged in the bona fide activities covered in the two Bills. I suggest that, as the Opposition does not oppose these two measures and as the time available is very limited, the question that the Bills be read a second time should be put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2383

AUSTRALIAN RURAL BANK BILL 1977

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-The Australian Rural Bank Bill 1977 is now before the Senate and I move the following amendment to the motion ‘That the Bill be now read a second time’:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate asserts that:

1 ) The Bill dishonours the Prime Minister’s November 1975 election promise, repeated as late as 1 1 September 1977, to establish a Rural Bank under a statutory corporation;

The Bill does not comply with the policies of farmer organisations for a specialist financial institution freed from ‘lender of last resort’ restrictions; and

The Act should be substantially amended in the next session of Parliament to provide direct lending facilities through a division of the Commonwealth Development Bank to consolidate rural debt, free of lender of last resort’ restrictions’.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Mcintosh:

– I second the amendment, Mr President.

Senator GIETZELT:

– This is the sixth Bill dealing with the rural sector which has been dealt with in this dying day of this session. Without wanting to place less emphasis on some Bills than on others, I would say that this Bill is an important piece of legislation and it ought to have been debated a great deal more in the

House of Representatives as well as in the Senate. It does not speak well of the Government that debate on this Bill should be placed in such a restricted time slot. This legislation has far reaching consequences for the economy and the rural sector. In making that assertion I draw on a

E retry good authority. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the last paragraph of a letter from the honourable member for MacKellar, Mr W. C. Wentworth a copy of which was circulated to honourable senators today, which reads:

I remind you that the Bill was forced through the House at midnight last night, without adequate debate. When I endeavoured to point out its implications and to get it amended; I was gagged’.

That is the way in which the Government handles its legislative program. It announced an early election and set in train a last minute rush to deal with a momentous legislative program. A senior member of one of the Government partiesa founding member of the Liberal Party who resigned from that Party in protest against the way in which the Prune Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) is running the Government and ruining the country- has criticised the Government for not giving the Parliament an adequate opportunity to discuss this important Bill. We are expected to deal with a Bill of this momentous nature at half past three on the last day of this session.

Senator Chaney:

– Talk about the Bill.

Senator GIETZELT:

– We are expected to deal with a piece of legislation without being permitted adequate time to discuss it in the Party room. This legislation was not given adequate time in the other place and it is not being given adequate time in the Senate.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– You are wasting time.

Senator GIETZELT:

– A man who was a senior member of one of the Government partiesa man who now has some very great differences of opinion with the Liberal Party about the way it is running its affairs and the affairs of the country- has asked the Senate to give mature consideration to this legislation.

Senator Baume:

– Will you vote for him in the Senate?

Senator GIETZELT:

– What are we forced to do? We are forced to deal with the legislation in a matter of minutes instead of hours. Of course, one of the honourable senators who interjects has spent his time and his staff’s time recently in trying to succeed to Mr Wentworth ‘s important electorate of Mackellar. Maybe honourable senators opposite have time to do those sorts of things, but they ought to give us time to deal with this important legislation and to deal with the very important questions which Mr Wentworth raised in his letter, a copy of which has been circulated to honourable senators.

Mr Wentworth ‘s fears are not shared by me, but they certainly would be shared by those apostles of free enterprise who sit on the other side of the chamber; those who say that there should not be any limitations upon the powers of the Parliament. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack spoke earlier this year about the growth of executive power in the Parliament. Where is he today to express the doubts and observations of W. C. Wentworth? He is not even here. The Party, the all-powerful Party, the one party state, has expressed itself, so not only the Party but also the Parliament has to fall into line.

What does this Bill seek to do? It seeks to establish a company, not a statutory corporation. Its behaviour is to be governed by a memorandum and articles of association. The Prime Minister promised in November 1975 that he would transform this country. He was going to rectify all the ills and deficiencies of the economy. Where is the economy today? There is more unemployment. Inflation is still at double figures despite the Government’s rhetoric and despite what the Government believes which is contrary to the opinion of the economic forecasters who say that we do not have business confidence.

In 1975 Mr Fraser promised that he would establish a national rural bank. The rural community saw this as a means to overcome the dramatic increase in debt that faces the rural sector. We are forced to deal with the Bill to establish a national rural bank. What did Mr Fraser have to say in the Press release of his electorate talk issued by his office on 1 1 September? He said:

In the last Budget -

I refer to only one part of his Press release- the Government announced that it would set up a National Rural Bank. It will be a statutory body established by legislation which will be introduced this session.

We are dealing with this matter in the last hour of the parliamentary session. Is the bank to be a statutory corporation? Is it to be the statutory body that was promised by the Prime Minister? Not only was it promised by the Prime Minister, it was also referred to on several occasions by Senator Cotton, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. He was asked a question by Senator Devitt on 25 October. That is not so very long ago. It is within the last fortnight. Part of his reply was:

As I said at the beginning and have said subsequently the Government is at the moment studying carefully with the Bank and the Australian Industries Development Corporation the most preferred method of funding, and when in consultation with the banking people and with AIDC that has been decided, the decision will be announced.

That decision was to establish a corporation. Senator Cotton replied in a similar fashion to a question by Senator Walsh on 13 October. Senator Walsh had asked whether the proposed national rural bank would be a statutory body established by legislation. In the reply which Senator Cotton gave there was every indication that that was the approach to be followed. We do not get a statutory body; we get an Australian Rural Bank which is to be a company. The Government has not explained completely or adequately to either House of the Parliament who will be on the Board of the Bank. All that is known is that the board will comprise a chairman appointed by the Treasurer, a government nominee, also appointed by the Treasurer and two persons representing primary producers to be appointed by the Treasurer.

Questions must be asked. Who else will be on the board? Will there be a representative of all the trading banks or of each of the trading banks? What will be the size of the board? Will the other members of the board be able to out vote the Treasurer’s nominee or will the Treasurer have the power of veto? The Government seems unsure about what it is trying to achieve because this is legislation by haste. This is legislation that is ill thought out. This is legislation that seeks to fool the rural community that its demands for more adequate access to rural finance will result from this piece of legislation. We are not told why the Government decided in favour of a re-financing institution instead of the Commonwealth Trading Bank proposal for the removal of the lender of last resort provisions, and permission for the Development Bank to act in its own right. Anyone associated with agriculture will know that it is the lender of last resort provisions which are the key to the problems associated with the sector of the rural community that wants access to finance.

The proposals to which I am referring have the support of the primary producers organisations. Is it any wonder then that Sir Samuel Burston, President of the Australian Woolgrowers’ and Graziers’ Council- I am sure he would not be concerned if I was to say that he is a person who can be regarded as a supporter of the Governmenthas issued a statement criticising the Government’s proposals. He said:

While welcoming the establishment of the Australian Rural Bank, it is most disappointing that so many of the details are still vague and undefined.

He went on to say:

  1. . specific details were not provided in either the Bill or the Treasurer’s Second Reading Speech.

He added that details had not been provided about the interest rates to be applied, the criteria to be used for lending, the guarantee of increased skills of loan appraisers, the facility for producers to approach the Development Bank direct, without first being referred by trading banks and the terms and conditions of loans. Thus, the Council expressed its doubts about the validity and the direction of this legislation. Sir Samuel Burston has been adequately supported by the Austraiian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation and the Australian Farmers’ Federation.

The Opposition takes the view that the Development Bank has the expertise and the branch structure to handle direct relations with primary producers. Use of the Development Bank would appear to coincide with the Government’s intentions to assist small businesses. In what way does the Government see this refinancing institution as making any tangible contribution to the problems? Do we set up a rural bank or do we use the resources that are already available to us. Who will be able to assess the viability or otherwise of those who want access to finance in the rural sector? Who will be able to make a judgment about that? Will it be the existing private trading banks or the other lending authorities which in many cases can be regarded as usurers in the way they handle their financial relationships with rural producers? The Government has taken some steps in respect of small businesses but does not seem to have been able to co-ordinate its thinking in financing small businesses in the rural community. Therefore, the Opposition has come to the conclusion that the Government has accepted the trading banks’ compromise- after all, the trading banks originally opposed the establishment of a national rural bank during the term of the Labor Government as they have done under this Governmentwhich will go no way along the road to providing the sort of financial relief and debt assistance that is now so vital to the survival of Australian agriculture.

Time does not permit during the debate on this matter to do more than just make passing reference to and criticism of this piece of legislation. The bank will be a furphy. There is no other way to describe it. It will be a phoney. This is a plausible piece of legislation which is not going to contribute a great deal to the very fundamental, deep seated structural problems faced by our rural sector. It will be basically ineffective but the Opposition would not want to be shown to be more than pointing out the deficiencies in the legislation. Therefore, the Opposition moves the amendment which, after all, supports the establishment of a rural bank but points out the hypocritical way in which the Government has introduced the legislation. Finally, in respect of the matters which we have been debating at short notice and for such a short time today, each time the Opposition raises what it considers to be valid criticisms of the legislative approach to the rural crisis, we get the inevitable bucket from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) and from Government supporters about inflation as though the Labor Party invented inflation. In the period in which we were in government we had an unfortunately high rate of inflation. It was part of a world-wide trend. It was not within the capability of that Government to control the rate of inflation, having regard to the extensive trading relations with other countries that preceded the election of the Australian Labor Party Government in 1972, the revaluation of the currency which flowed from the mining boom of the 1960s and the capital that poured into the country at that time.

Honourable senators opposite say that there was too much money chasing too few goods. That there was so much money in circulation was the result of the disastrous policies of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Yet in the period from 1972 to 1975 when we were in government, farm incomes were at a record high level. Mr Whitlam has been very severely misquoted and misjudged over his statement that ‘farmers have never had it so good. ‘ I suggest that Government supporters should examine farm income and projected income for the years 1976 and 1977 and compare that with the income which farmers actually received in 1973, 1974 and 1975. That misquoted statement of Mr Whitlam can be shown, in the historical context of the period in which it was made, to be true.

Senator McLaren:

– The graph shows that.

Senator GIETZELT:

– The graph shows very dramatically that he was speaking the truth in respect of income in those particular years. I am sick of hearing Government supporters, and sometimes the Minister, trying to make out that every ill, every deficiency and everything that has ever gone wrong can be traced back to those three brief years, 1972 to 1975. If honourable senators examine properly the Budget Papers of that period and the present Budget Papers they will find that the three years of the Labor Government contributed $850m in direct aid to the rural sector. That aid has fallen away dramatically in the 1976 and 1977 Budgets. That amount of $850m compares very favourably with the amount of assistance that was given in the three years before the Labor Party came to office.

It is about time there was some recognition of the fact that the problems that beset the rural community are structural. They are inherent in the economy of this country. They are inherent in the economy of every other agricultural country of the Western world. The problems will not be solved by cheap and nasty gibes and rhetoric which so often characterise the debate of Government supporters when dealing with the more fundamental problems that face Australian agriculture. The Opposition does not oppose the setting up of the Australian Rural Bank. We on this side do not believe that it will solve the debt problems that face farmers in this country. The rural indebtedness is something in excess of $3,500m. That indebtedness has been with us for a considerable number of years. It is the small farmer and the middle sized farmer who need assistance. There is nothing in this legislation that indicates that any more money will be available at cheaper rates of interest. That is why I conclude by saying that it is a phoney piece of legislation. It is window dressing legislation designed to try to fool and hoodwink the Australian farmers into thinking that this Government believes in giving them assistance. The Government has not done that and it will fail miserably to do it.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– We have just listened to 20 minutes of the usual diatribe from the Opposition. Senator Gietzelt started off by complaining about the lack of time in which to debate this Bill but he spent about five minutes of his 20 minutes talking to the Bill, and the other IS minutes were a complete waste of time. Whenever the honourable senator speaks he wastes time, so he should not have spoken at all. I support the legislation and reject completely the amendment moved by the Opposition. The first point of the amendment says that the Bill dishonours the November election promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). I will read that statement in full later.

The Bill agrees entirely with the Government’s policy statement made at that time. The Opposition says that it would set up a rural bank as a statutory corporation. This is a rural bank. It is being set up by statute and it will be an organisation. I will deal with the last two matters at a later time, when I refer to the Commonwealth Development Bank submission to our Government. I will read only portion of our policy statement because of the limited time remaining for this debate. The Government’s policy statement of 1975 on primary industry reads:

We see the need for a special institution for this purpose as there are many types of investment in primary production which require a variety of medium to long term lending arrangements. With long term finance the producer is best able to avoid unpredictable price variations due to varying seasonal conditions or world demand for agricultural products. With this in mind, we intend to establish a National Rural Bank in conjunction with trading banks and other lenders in the rural sector to provide rural credit to cover the investment in land.

The bank will also finance machinery, plant, stock and farm equipment, lend for farm development projects for the expansion of existing projects and refinance existing short term rural debts. The terms of lending would be appropriate for the purpose of the loan. Interest payable would be at bank interest rates for medium term loans and marginally better for long term loans.

It is envisaged that the bank would function by relending through existing financial institutions but may be involved in direct lending in some instances. As a refinance institution, staff would be kept to a minimum and security and other documentation held and processed by the onlending financial body.

Nothing in the legislation before the Senate conflicts with that policy statement. The planning for this national Rural Bank began in 1 976, after our election to office. Unlike the Opposition when it was in office, we do things very carefully and thoroughly. I was fortunate to be a member of a sub-committee of the rural committee that was appointed to research this matter. The honourable member for Ballaarat, Mr Jim Short, was the chairman of that sub-committee. We received many submissions from many organisations and had meetings with them. We kept in touch with officers of the Department of Primary Industry and of the Treasury. We received many dozens of submissions and had meetings over many months. I am happy to say that this Bill reflects the recommendation of our rural committee.

The need for this Rural Bank is amply demonstrated in particular by a Bureau of Agricultural Economics publication called Rural Credit in Australia dated 1972 and a document called Rural Policy in Australia dated 1974. Both set out quite clearly the need for long term finance for the rural sector. Among the points that are underlined in those documents is the fact that returns are far slower in rural industries than in most other industries and in the short term returns often are quite unreliable. In many rural industries there is a slow turnover of money in regard to the capital that is involved. I am aware- I am sure most honourable senators also are aware- that because short term finance is available at the moment many producers have been forced into a high interest rate situation.

Senator Gietzelt in his speech and the Opposition in its amendment have supported the proposition put forward by the Commonwealth Development Bank. This proposition was considered very thoroughly by our committee and by the Government. It was a well prepared case, and I congratulate the Commonwealth Development Bank on the work it did. Our committee rejected the suggestion, however, for two reasons. The Commonwealth Development Bank is regarded by many primary producers as a bank of last resort. Once they have gone through the normal banking institutions and have been rejected, the Commonwealth Development Bank is regarded as the last resort, second last only to the rural adjustment organisation. If a rural bank were set up under that proposal a farmer whose application for finance was rejected would have nowhere else to go. Under the legislation before the Senate a farmer can go from bank to bank. If he gets an unsatisfactory reply from one bank he can go along to another bank. Much, of course, will depend on the recommendations of the local bank manager.

We on this side of the chamber believe in private enterprise. We would be most unhappy to see a very large proportion of rural lending being carried out by an instrumentality with government control. Many rural producers expected, quite unnecessarily, that this banking institution would offer highly subsidised interest rates. I am sorry that that expectation came about. Certainly nothing the Government said led them to that expectation. Personally I would be very much against highly subsidised interest rates. One of the direct effects would be higher land prices. Certainly very few farmers want that. Because of lack of time I refer honourable senators to the comments of the honourable member for Moore, Mr Hyde, who touched on this point in the other place.

The provisions of the Bill allow for the establishment of the company called the Australian Rural Bank Ltd. The shareholders will be, by consent of the Treasurer, the existing lenders to rural industries. These will include the Commonwealth Bank and the Treasurer himself. The

Commonwealth will provide funds to this Bank. The funds will be appropriated by Parliament. The Bank will also use funds from the income equalisation deposit trust account and will attract loan funds from many other sources as well. The Rural Bank is designed to lend money to shareholders who will on-lend to primary producers. The primary producers include those engaged in the fishing and forestry industries. This facility will be particularly important to the fishing industry with the pending extension of our fishing limits to 200 nautical miles.

The term of the loans will be for up to 30 years. I emphasise ‘up to 30 years’ because each application will be treated on its merits. As an example, on some projects it would not be feasible to lend for a period anywhere near that length of time. A big problem at the moment is faced by many rural producers when they receive finance for, say, a shearing shed which will last for 100 years. The present lending institutions expect them to repay the loan within three or four years. The Bank will demand that normal commercial conditions of viability will apply. This will be judged by the local people. It is to be hoped that the Bank will attract experts in rural lending. These people are fairly thin on the ground at the moment. It is to be hoped that this Bank will attract people who are expert in the knowledge of farming and in the knowledge of farm finance. One of the big advantages in setting up this Rural Bank in this way is that it will retain the traditional banker-client relationship which is so valuable. There is nothing to stop a client if he is rejected by one bank from making an application to another bank. Finally, I wish success and a long and happy life to the Australian Rural Bank.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-The Australian Rural Bank Bill 1977 which is currently before the chamber is a Liberal-National Country Party gimmick. It was gestated by the private trading banks, dictated by them to the Government and aborted by the premature election which we are to have in a little more than four weeks. We are to have the premature election following the dissolution of the Parliament tomorrow notwithstanding the fact that the Appropriation Bills have not yet been passed and that the electoral laws at the time the Governor-General agreed to the dissolution were in a state of anarchy and in fact had to be twice amended to legalise the election which the Governor-General had approved. I return to the Bill and to the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Gietzelt. The amendment is worth repeating. It states that the following words be added to the motion that the Bill be read a second time:

  1. The Bill dishonours the Prime Minister’s November 1975 election promise, repeated as late as 11 September 1977, to establish a Rural Bank under a statutory corporation;

There can be no disputing that statement. This action repudiates the Liberal-National Country Party election promises. It repudiates the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his electoral broadcast on 1 1 September last when he said that this ‘will be a statutory body established by legislation which will be introduced this session’. The legislation has been introduced this session but it does not establish a statutory body. Clause 4 of the Bill authorises the establishment of a company by the name of the Australian Rural Bank Ltd.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Set up by statute.

Senator WALSH:

-It is to be set up by act of Parliament. I was hoping some legalistic casuist on the other side would come in with that interjection. It was established by statute but as this term is understood by the people to whom it applies, the farmers, a statutory corporation is a body like the Australian Wheat Board or the Australian Wool Corporation which operates independently of private institutions which may already be established in the field. This institution authorised to be established by this Bill does not do that. All it does is provide a source of funds- a fairly puny $45m at that- as a source of finance for the private banks and for other lenders who are not stipulated to lend on to farmers. To legal casuists it may be superficially true that this is statutory because it is established by statute but it is not a statutory corporation as the term is generally understood by the people to whom it applies. It certainly cannot be compared with such statutory corporations as the Australian Wheat Board and the Australian Wool Corporation. The Bill does not remove the obnoxious lender of last resort provisions which currently hamstring the Commonwealth Development Bank. Senator Thomas correctly stated that most primary producers see the Commonwealth bank as an unsatisfactory institution because it is only a lender of last resort. These provisions will still apply to the finance provided by this legislation.

As for private enterprise, if this Government really believes its own rhetoric about private enterprise of course we would not have seen the Bill in the first place. The Government would have left this field to the private enterprise banks which, by its own tacit admission in introducing this BUI, are not doing the job they are supposed to do. They will not do it in the future either of course because they still effectively control government policy in this area as they control and dictate policy to the Government in the area of meat marketing. The legislation authorises the recruitment of $45m of capital, some from the trust fund established for income equalisation deposits. It does not specify who will hold the shares in this company, other than that the Government may hold some. It does not specify how many the Government will hold, who the other shareholders will be or what portion of the equity other shareholders will hold. It stipulates the people who are empowered to appoint four of the directors but it does not state how many directors there will be. It does not state who will appoint those other directors or by what method they will be appointed.

Senator McLaren:

– Harry Miller will be one.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, Harry Miller is very likely to be one. That well-known National Party hack, Harry Miller, who has already been given 15 sinecures by this Government- which said there would not be any more jobs for the boyswill probably be appointed as a director of this institution as well. This establishes the point I made at the outset. This legislation is a gimmick, the form of which has been conceived by the private banks and dictated to this Government by the private banks. It has been aborted by this premature election. If it is not aborted, if it is not premature, why are not these facts spelt out? Why are not these vital provisions stipulated in the legislation? Who will subscribe the share capital- the equity capital- as distinct from the finance? Who will effectively control the company? Who will be the directors? How many directors will there be? Who will appoint them?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– You will not be one.

Senator WALSH:

-No, I certainly would not expect to be appointed as a director to a financial institution like this when there are so many boys waiting for jobs to be appointed as sinecures by their Liberal-National Country Party mates in this Parliament. The Harry Millers and the Paul Gerbers and all those people who were apologists for the Liberal and National Country Party m November 1975 and since are just waiting to cop their rewards for services rendered and services anticipated. Insofar as it has any meaning at all, what this institution will do is pick up the bad risks that the private trading banks are not willing to take on. It will not do that very successfully with a lending capacity of $45m.

As my colleague, the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean)- I think he is still the honourable member for Melbourne Portsobserved in the House of Representatives two days ago, when the aggregate farm debt is in excess of $3 billion, the finance provided by this legislation amounts to a little more than one per cent of that figure. So in that context we can see how significant the lending capacity of the bank will be. Of course, if an amount greater than $45 m is provided for this institution, as was suggested by way of interjection by some National Country Party members of the House of Representatives, it begs the question which the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) keeps posing in a different context: If more funds are made available or are recruited for a particular purpose, what effect will that have on interest rates in general? This legislation, I repeat, dictated to this Government by the private banks, just as the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation legislation was dictated by the meat exporters, follows that consistent pattern which the Government has established. The second clause of the amendment moved by my colleague, Senator Gietzelt, states that the Bill does not comply with the policies enunciated quite clearly by farm organisations. I do not intend to refer to all of them. I shall refer to an announcement by the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council which certainly would be regarded by its own members as a politically conservative organisation, normally aligned with one of the two conservative parties represented in this Parliament. On 3 November the President of that organisation issued a statement criticising this legislation. He said:

While welcoming the establishment of the Australian Rural Bank, it is most disappointing that so many of the details are still vague and undefined.

That is an understatement, if ever I heard one. The reason why the details are vague and undefined is that this Government wants to fool the people at whom this legislation is directed. That is the major reason. The second reason is probably just the time factor- that is, the legislation was aborted by the premature electionand the Government’s need to be seen to be doing something for the farm or rural community which has suffered a fall in net income of more than 20 per cent in the two years that this Government has been in power. The AWGC listed about seven specific items of criticism. One was that the Government did not stipulate the interest rates which were to be applied or the criteria for lending which were to be used; also the legislation did not provide the facility for producers to approach directly the Development Bank without being referred by trading banks. As I interpret the legislation, there is no way in which producers can approach the bank directly. If there is a way in which they can do that, I would be grateful if the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) would point it out in his closing remarks. I cannot see any provision for that in the legislation. The legislation specifically refers to providing funds for banks and other lenders who are not stipulated. Presumably, they are stock and station agents- or stock firms, as they are known in some parts of the country- who in north-western Tasmania and probably in other areas are charging from 16 per cent to 18 per cent interest on carry-on finance.

There is a case for the establishment of a specialist financial institution for the rural sector but not- as I regret to say some people seem to believe- some institution which will provide unlimited amounts of finance at nominal rates of interest. There is no case for the establishment of such an institution, in my view, but there is a case for the establishment of a specialist institution providing a full range of banking services with provision for longer term lending than is normally available from commercial banks and seasonal finance in lieu of that frequently provided by stock and station agents at exorbitant rates of interest This legislation does not achieve either of those worthy objectives. It will provide finance under lender-of-last-resort conditions. It will not provide carry-on finance on a seasonal basis. It may provide finance to the stock and station agents to lend as they have in the past.

What this Government should have done and what the third clause of the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Gietzelt seeks to have done in the next session of Parliament is to expand the facilities of the Commonwealth Development Bank or to set up separate wing of the Commonwealth Development Bank. That Bank already has established the branch infrastructure which is necessary to provide such facilities. It could set up a special section to provide direct lending facilities and a full range of banking services free from lender-of-last-resort restrictions. This legislation provides nothing that is worth while. It is another pre-election gimmick.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-I support the Australian Rural Bank Bill which to the rural industry of Australia is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been established since Federation. Honourable senators opposite who criticise it show their abysmal ignorance. It provides a broad framework within which to give long term loans of capital to the people of the great primary producing areas in Australia.

From that viewpoint and the viewpoint of the rural communities this Bill is the best piece of legislation since Federation.

I pay a tribute to the rural industries and to the acumen, initiative and determination of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who has come under criticism today in the discussion on the Beef Industry (Incentive Payments) Bill. Although the establishment of a national rural bank has been a major plank for many years in the platform of the party which I am privileged to represent in this chamber, it is the efforts of the Minister for Primary Industry which have brought it to fruition before the Parliament. Of course I couple with him the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), who introduced the legislation into the Parliament.

This Bill is another example of the fulfilment of the policies which were projected in our rural policy speech prior to the 1975 election. It has been said that the Government has not honoured its election promises. I have to lay that canard to rest. It was said in the lower House and it has been repeated in both Opposition speeches in the Senate today. My colleague Senator Thomas dealt with it. He quoted from the policy speech. Because of the exigencies of time, I refer the Senate to page 30 1 1 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 7 November 1977, which reports the Minister for Primary Industry as saying:

I see the Australian Rural Bank in this form as completely identical with the undertaking given by us in our rural policy speech prior to the 1975 election. That document of November 1975 stated:

We intend to establish a National Rural Bank in conjunction with trading banks and other lenders in the rural sector to provide rural credit to cover the investment in land.

That is precisely what this Bill does. The Minister went on to quote three other paragraphs of our rural policy. The next one states:

The Bank will also finance machinery, plant, stock and farm equipment, lend for farm development projects for the expansion of existing projects and refinance existing short term rural debts.

That is provided for in the legislation. The next paragraph states:

It is envisaged that the Bank would function by relending through existing financial institutions but may be involved in direct lending in some instances.

That is provided for in the legislation. The policy document also states:

As a refinance institution, staff will be kept to a minimum and security and other documentation held and processed by the on-lending financial body.

That is provided for in the legislation. The Minister went on: . . it is completely identical with that promise. I believe that this legislation is in a form that will be beneficial to primary producers.

In introducing the Bill the Treasurer said that it was the product of the most extensive processes of investigation and consultation and that the Bank would be unique in many respects. He said that it will be the first financial institution set up by the Commonwealth for the sole and specific purpose of facilitating the provision of finance to primary producers and that it will provide an excellent example of a partnership between the Government and the private sector financial institutions.

You see, Mr President, honourable senators on the other side of the chamber cannot stand private enterprise. I is like waving a red rag at a ull. Senator Walsh was his usual vitriolic self today when speaking about the private enterprise system and the private trading banks. Whenever one talks about the private enterprise sector, which is responsible for 75 per cent of the employment in the community Opposition senators sound off with their socialistic policies. That is all they can espouse. They were rejected in 1975 for that and I suggest that they will be rejected in 1977 for that reason and for other reasons.

One of the great problems over the years about providing finance in primary industries in rural Australia has been the difficulty of developing properties to a stage of better production on the one hand, while being saddled with repayments of capital on a short term basis on the other hand. This in a very real sense has stultified the development and extension of our great primary industries. It has been the cause of great concern to the primary producing industries. It is pleasing to note that the definition of ‘primary producer and ‘primary production’ in the legislation is very wide. It covers all aspects of producing. It covers not only the normal run of wool, wheat, sheep, beef, fruit and so forth, but also fishing and forest operations. So the whole of the primary industry sector is covered by this broad, umbrella piece of legislation which will be of tremendous importance to the future development of this nation.

When we add drought, bushfires and other natural hazards such as the waiting period in the case of grain crops, from the sowing of the seed to the harvest of the crop, together with the uncertainty of seasons and overseas markets, to the factors I have mentioned which compel the necessity of long term finance in primary industry, surely it can readily be appreciated by those who want to understand that there is a great need for legislation of this kind. As I have said already, people on the Opposition side do not want to understand. They want primary industry socialised. They do not believe in the private enterprise sector coming into this area and we must make allowance for this fact. Everyone else must appreciate that there is a great need for an institution of this type to cover the purchase and development of primary industry properties, particularly in the case of young people who are starting off in life.

It is not contended that this piece of legislation will solve all the problems of primary industries. That has never been said. What we do say is that this legislation is a framework which gives hope to the great primary industries of this nation. All I suggest is that the legislation be given a trial, that it be seen in operation. I am certain it is going to make a great and practical contribution to the future development of the great primary industries of this nation.

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

– in reply- I do not have a lot of time to deal with this very important matter. I did enjoy listening to Senator Thomas and Senator Tehan whom I thought spoke remarkably well. Therefore one would have liked to have heard them longer. If people on the other side of the House had not talked so much we could have heard more useful comment from both honourable senators.

Various references were made to what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had said. I did interject over one particular reference but nobody took any notice of me at the time. What the honourable senator was quoting, I believe, was what the Prime Minister said in regard to financial help for small business. Somebody made some comments about the trading banks. I do not have the names of the honourable senators concerned written down but I made notes as they made their comments. It was pointed out that the trading banks, despite the way in which people on the Opposition side abuse them from time to time, are the major lenders to primary producers, and have been traditionally so for a very long time. They ought to be, and I believe are, in the best position to judge the financial needs of the primary producers with whom they have done banking business for perhaps as long as primary industry has been m existence in Australia. I think it is appropriate, indeed sensible, that they should be participating quite directly in the activities of the rural bank. There are many other aspects of it, such as the way in which it has been involved with other lending institutions and with the Government itself as a shareholder. In short, it seems that an admirable institution has been put together.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill having expired, I put the question:

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

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The time allotted for the consideration of this Bill, the Australian Rural Bank Bill 1977, and the following urgent Bills has expired:

Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977 Australian Shipping Commission Amendment Bill 1977 Transport Planning and Research (Financial Assistance) Bill 1977

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1977 Environment (Financial Assistance) Bill 1977 Defence Force (Retirement and Death Benefits Amendments) BUI (No. 2) 1977 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1977-78-In Committee Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1977-78

The question now is:

That the remaining stages of the Bills be agreed to and that the Bills be now passed.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 23

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a third time.

page 2392

QUESTION

INCORPORATION OF DOCUMENTS IN HANSARD

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I crave the indulgence of the Senate to have a number of documents incorporated in Hansard. I am seeking to do so due to the late arrival of the immigration report. I have spoken to the Government Whip, Senator Chaney, about the matter. I will identify the documents and then ask that they be incorporated in globo. The first document is a telegram concerning the case of a Uruguyuan citizen who is seeking political refugee status. The second document deals with a Chilean citizen. It involves simply a matter of the Latin American community in Sydney wanting parity with the over solicitous treatment accorded to South Vietnamese refugees. The third document concerns an article in the London Guardian. Apparently our immigration office in London was making one reference to a British migrant who was involved in a criminal activity and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) was saying something different. The fourth document concerns an article in the Canberra Times about a deportation case involving a New Zealand migrant in relation to which I sought information on the current policy. The next document concerns details from the Portuguese community about the failure to have adequate Portuguese translators at the office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Sydney. The next document concerns a response to a question about why someone was deported without a particular member of Parliament and me being advised.

I also refer to a complaint concerning Senator Keeffe and me from the Reverend Alf Clint at the Church of England Board of Missions at Tranby’, Glebe, New South Wales about a solicitor, Peter Kaiser Simpson, over some misunderstanding’. I ask that all those documents be incorporated in Hansard and that

Senator Guilfoyle refer them and the other matter to Mr MacKellar in anticipation of a speedy response.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The documents read as follows -

page 2392

CAA057 = P168 = SYDNEY NSW 42/40 10.46A

Msgr Senator Tony Mulvihill Parliament House Canberra ACT

Request your inquiry of Minister for Immigration re Mr Rafael Copelo reference 77/86811 who applied for residence ministers reply 14/6/77 stop Mr Copelo anxious for answer as wife under political duress in Uruguay

page 2392

MARION GRACE

page 2392

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

N76/504782

19 September 1977

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I am writing in reply to your representations made on behalf of Mr Hector Benjamin Tapia Gallardo of 3/65 Chaleyer Street, Rose Bay, concerning the migrant entry from Chile of his brother Mr Juan Tapia Gallardo.

The Government’s immigration policy provides for the admission of immediate family members of persons resident in Australia comprising spouses, dependent children and parents. Persons not in these immediate family groups may be approved if they meet occupational and personal criteria.

The occupational criteria are designed to ensure that, in the current employment situation, only persons with occupational qualifications and experiencein short supply in Australia are approved as migrants.

Unfortunately Mr Gallardo is not eligible for sponsorship as an immediate family member and his occupation as an electric welder is not one which is currently in short supply. Furthermore, the offer of employment submitted by F. R. Pulford and Son Pty Ltd, does not in itself create grounds for eligibility. In the circumstances I am sorry to say that his application for entry to Australia cannot be approved.

Yours sincerely, (G.W.AUSTEN) Regional Director

Senator T. Mulvihill Australian Parliament Offices Australian Government Centre Chifley Square, SYDNEY NSW 2000 (The Guardian, 25 September 1977)

page 2392

PASSAGE BARRED TO BOTANY BAY

by our own Reporter

A LEGAL impasse was reached last week when the Australian Government announced that it would not be party to a sentence imposed by a British court.

Mr Roy Rossiter, aged 37, last week admitted tampering with the brakes of a car belonging to the lover of his former wife. He was bound over for five years, and freed on condition that he fulfil his intention to emigrate to Australia within two months.

The days of transportation ended in the last century,’ Mr Michael McKellar, Australian Immigration Minister, told the Canberra Parliament. ‘Mr Rossiter is a person found guilty of a serious offence. I am not prepared to agree to migrant entry or extended temporary residence for somebody with a recent conviction for such a serious offence. ‘

Where this leaves Mr Rossiter was legally unclear. The consensus seemed to be that if Mr Rossiter tried in all good faith to get to Australia, but was refused entry, the courts would find it difficult to send him to prison.

It was stressed at the Old Bailey last week that Mr Rossiter was a menace only to his former wife and to those around her. He had not yet accepted that his marriage had ended, his defence counsel told the court.

It was this which made the emigration ‘sentence’ so superficially attractive- even though there was no guarantee before the court that the Australian Government would show the same understanding.

A job as a fitter had been arranged for Mr Rossiter by relatives in Australia, and his first inquiries at Australia House last week gave no hint of the difficulties he now faces as a result of the Ministerial decision. Mr Rossiter used his skills as a fitter to sever a brake fluid pipe on the car. Fortunately, the driver saw the brake fluid on the ground and decided not to drive the vehicle.

No decision has been taken on whether the courts can or should resummon Mr Rossiter for a new sentence. Judge Hines, Q.C., who imposed the sentence last week, said in court that he was ‘taking an exceptional course, in the hope that your life in the future will be happier than it has been ‘.

A Law Society spokesman could recall no precedent for the confusion, where the will of an English court has been frustrated, not by a foreign court, but by an executive decision by a foreign power which shares the same Head of State.

There was some hope that Mr McKellar’s statement to the Australian Parliament contained one loophole. He said he would not approve entry ‘on the information available to me.’ The implications of transportation have clearly damaged Australian pride. It is likely that the first legal efforts on Mr Rossiter ‘s behalf will be to provide a great deal of further information to Mr McKellar, and then to stress that no implications of Botany Bay were ever intended.

page 2393

HYPNOTIST TO BE DEPORTED FOR RECORD

Sydney: Mr Barry Stephen Palmer, a hypnotist known as Mr Magic, who won an appeal against rape charges, has been arrested and will be deported.

Detectives acting on an Australian Government deportation order went to Mr Palmer’s flat at Kings Cross on Thursday morning and arrested him.

He is being held at Long Bay Jail.

He will be deported to New Zealand.

The Government made the order because of Mr Palmer’s record both in Australia and in New Zealand.

In June, 1 976, he was convicted of raping a young woman while she was under hypnosis at Bondi, and in November, 1976, an appeal was upheld because one of the experts called by the Crown was shown to have doubtful credibility.

Mr Palmer has a record of various proven offences dating back to 196S.

6.6.77

page 2393

MARIA ANDRADE

page 2393

SPONSOR MANUEL ANDRADE

4 Nemyss Street, Marrickville.

Sister in Lisbon. Medical papers written in Portuguese. Being sent to Health Department, Canberra for translation. We will be advised as soon as possible.

page 2393

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

N76/308626

18 October 1977

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I am writing in reply to your representations concerning Mr Goh Chek Kai, who wishes to remain permanently in Australia.

I wish to advise you that the Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has now considered Mr Goh’s case and has decided that Mr Goh should be deported from Australia. In this respect the Minister signed an Order for the deportation from Australia of Mr Goh Chek Kai on 6 October 1977.

Yours sincerely, B. M. O’Neill Acting Regional Director

page 2393

TRANSPORT

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to speak for a few minutes.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– Give him two minutes. You have taken almost ten hours away from us.

Senator Withers:

– Leave is granted, as long as it is for only two minutes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is granted.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I want to voice my protest. Three quite important transport Bills will not now be debated because of the circumstances.

Government senators interjecting-

Senator KEEFFE:

– Honourable senators opposite are attempting to take up two minutes of my time, and that is all that the Government is going to allow me. There will be a change after 10 December and Government senators will then be on the other side of the House. I want to voice those words of protest because this is supposed to be a democratic Parliament, yet we are forbidden the right to discuss important legislation which should have been discussed earlier in this session when we were doing nothing. Now we have slammed it through as though democracy had gone out the window.

page 2393

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Mr President, as the House of Representatives will be dissolved tomorrow and all our colleagues in the other place will go out, and as four of our colleagues in this place also will go out, may 1 be permitted to make a few remarks. Four of our colleagues face an election- four territorians and if they are not elected at the forthcoming election they will not come back. On behalf of Government senators I thank you, Mr President, for your patience and courtesy in presiding over us for almost two years. I also thank my ministerial colleagues for the support they have given me over that period. I would especially like to thank Senator Webster, who has carried an enormous amount of duty in the chamber while other Ministers have been engaged elsewhere. I thank my back bench colleagues for their tolerance of me and for their good temper over my sins of omission and commission. I thank them for the support they have given to me, to my ministerial colleagues and to the Government over the life of this Parliament.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) for his unfailing courtesy in this place. He has been a delight to work with. I also thank his Deputy, Senator Douglas McClelland, for his co-operation in the smooth running of the Parliament. I think that everybody in this Parliament is indeed grateful to the two Whips. As Senator O ‘Byrne, Senator Cotton, and all other distinguished ex-members of the Whips union know, this place will not work without a great deal of respect between the two Whips. They must trust each other, and in the life of this thirtieth Parliament I think we have seen whipping at it best. To my own Whip, Senator Chaney, to Senator Maunsell, who is not here, to Senator Georges, Senator Mcintosh, Senator Martin, and latterly Senator Baume, all of us express our gratitude.

I also thank the Clerks for their usual efficiency in making certain that the mediaeval rituals of the Parliament are totally preserved and that we have been able to get through the business of the Senate. I believe that I speak for all of us when I thank Hansard for producing our speeches in written form in an intelligent and grammatical manner. Hansard has an enormously difficult task. Its officers work well, and I am amazed at the speed with which the ‘pinks’ come back to us and the Hansard report is produced the next morning. Our thanks go also to the staff of the Parliamentary Library for their unfailing assistance, and to the members of the Joint House Committee.

One of our number is leaving voluntarily- our colleague and friend on this side. Senator Steele Hall. We have had our set-to’s in the past, but could I say that over the life of the thirtieth Parliament we on this side of the chamber could not have wished for a better colleague than Senator Hall. We wish him all the best in his election quest for Hawker. I conclude by wishing everybody a happy electioneering period. No doubt our paths will cross on the campaign trail. Whilst in the public arena no doubt we will be fighting for our respective causes with all the vigour which one ought to bring to promoting one’s side of politics, I trust that when we meet m a private capacity on the campaign trail the normal, unfailing courtesies which exist between honourable senators will be observed. In this chamber, in spite of our political differences, there is almost no personal bitterness between honourable senators. I am quite certain that, as I meet my friends, if not political colleagues, from the other side on the campaign trail, that friendliness which prevails inside the chamber will prevail outside. I wish all honourable senators happy campaigning.

Senator Melzer:

– And success.

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, I wish us great success. I must say that the Opposition has been quite good. It has not been as good as the Opposition I ran. I think it needs at least another three years training so that it might learn to be a little better.

Senator Georges:

– What are you going to do with Chipp in here?

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Georges is offering to whip for the Chippocrats, is he? We go forth to face our masters, our electors. I do not think any of us ought to be afraid to say to our electors that all of us in this chamber have tried to the best of our ability to serve those who sent us here. We hope that the electors will send all of us from this side of the chamber back again, plus a few more.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I support the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers). On behalf of the Opposition I express our appreciation to all the staff in Parliament House. We know that they are subjected to the same sorts of strains as we are in this place. I am sure we all appreciate what they have done. In those remarks I include the Clerks and yourself, Mr President, although you are one of our number. I cannot share some of the sentiments otherwise expressed by Senator Withers. I am quite sure that on 10 December the Australian people will make a judgment which will ensure that 1978 will not be the disaster which 1976 was and which 1977 has been. When we come back, of course, almost all of us will be here; but I am certain that after 1 July there will be some new faces, many of whom honourable senators now on the Government side will not find very welcome in the chamber. Then we may see some of the sorts of problems which existed here two years ago and then the smiles may be on the other side of the face. On behalf of the Opposition I express our best wishes to everybody during the Christmas break and our very best wishes for the success of the Australian Labor Party at the forthcoming election.

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

– On behalf of my colleagues in the National Country Party of Australia, I extend to all those who are going out to the election our very best wishes. A number in my party are facing the election in uncommon circumstances and there are difficulties ahead. To those who have assisted the Party during the past year- including the officers of the Senate, the staff of the parliamentary dining room, and those who assist in the Senate records office at all times of the day or night- I say thank you. Mr President, I say to you: Thank you very much for your aid and your generosity to my party during this past year. We nave greatly appreciated that from you. To all honourable senators, but particularly to my supporters in the National Country Party, I wish the very best as they go out to the 1 977 election.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank the honourable senators who have spoken, and all honourable senators, for their kindly and very generous expressions to me and to the officers who serve this place so well. I feel, honourable senators, that we are custodians pro tern of the system. Looking back over the time I have been in this chair through your grace and acceptance of me, it has become more and more emphasised to me in my thinking that we have an institution which we should and must maintain and are maintaining. It is the spirit of co-operation from every member of the chamber which has come through this place which I admire so greatly. Just as I do to you, honourable senators, I express appreciation to those splendid men and women who in all departments serve us so well. It will be very pleasing for me to convey the sentiments expressed to all those good folk to whom honourable senators have so kindly made reference. In particular I say personally that I am deeply grateful to the Clerk and his officers. Finally, I wish all honourable senators and their families a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.36 p.m. to a date and hour to be fixed.

page 2396

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Fuel Tax Collections (Question No. 921)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) What was the total amount of revenue collected in fuel tax in each year since 1960 in (a) Australia and (b) each State and Territory of Australia, including estimates for 1976-77 and 1977-78.
  2. What was the total amount of revenue from fuel tax returned to each State and Territory for use on road works.
Senator Cotton:
LP

-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) As I pointed out in my answer to Question on Notice No. 699, the figures available for collections in each State of excise revenue on petroleum products do not necessarily reflect actual tax payments in that State since the figures relate to oil company marketing areas which can overlap State and Territory borders. With that qualification, information on gross excise duty collected on ‘other gasoline’ (motor spirit) and diesel fuel in each State and Territory for the period 1960-61 to 1976-77, as provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, is presented in the following table. Comparable estimates for 1977-78 are not yet available.
  1. and (3) The funds provided by the Commonwealth Government to the States for expenditure on roads are not linked to the revenue raised in excise duty on fuel. The excise duty levied on petroleum products is regarded as a general revenue tax. The revenue collected is paid directly into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and is used to assist in financing the whole range of government outlays.

Commonwealth assistance to the States for expenditure on roads has taken two main forms-general assistance under the various Commonwealth Acts relating to Commonwealth assistance for roads, and assistance for specific road projects. Payments of the latter kind (such as for beef roads) were subsumed in the general program of roads assistance introduced in 1974-75. Details of general assistance provided to the States in the period 1974-75to 1976-77 and estimates for 1977-78 are published in the 1977-78 Budget Paper No. 7 Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1977-78 (Table 48, page 70 and Table 52, 7, ,A 73). Historical information for the years 1960-61 to 973-74 is contained in the 1975-76 Budget Paper No. 7 Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1975-76 (Table 142, page 228).

Commonwealth expenditure on roads in the Territories since 1963-64 and estimate for 1977-78 are set out in the table below (comparable data for 1960-61 to 1962-63 are not available):

Stamp Duty: Payments by Statutory Authorities (Question No. 1113)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

Do any Commonwealth statutory authorities not pay stamp duty on cheques which they issue. If so, why do they not do so.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Certain statutory authorities incorporated under Commonwealth legislation are exempt from payment of stamp duty on cheques which they issue, because of specific provisions of Commonwealth legislation or because their cheques are drawn on the Public Account. These authorities are shown in list A. I am also informed that a number of other Commonwealth statutory authorities, shown in List B, are not required by the operation of State stamp duty legislation to pay stamp duty on cheques which they issue.

page 2397

LIST A

Aboriginal Land Fund Commission

Aboriginal Loans Commission

Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation

Anglo-Australian Telescope Board

Australia Council

Australia-Japan Foundation

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation

Australian Atomic Energy Commission

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Australian Dairy Corporation

Austraiian Film and Television School, The

Australian Film Commission

Australian Heritage Commission

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies

Australian Institute of Criminology

Australian Institute of Marine Science

Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation

Australian National Gallery

Australian National Railways Commission

Australian National University, The

Australian Postal Commission

Australian Shipping Commission (ANL)

Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority

Australian Telecommunications Commission

Australian Tourist Commission

Austraiian Trade Union Training Authority

Australian War Memorial Board of Trustees

Australian Wheat Board

Australian Wool Corporation (a)

Canberra College of Advanced Education

Commissioner for Community Relations

Commonwealth Banking Corporation (b)

Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia (b)

Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia (b)

Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia (b) Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission

Controller of Enemy Property

Criminology Research Council

Curriculum Development Centre

Custodian of Expropriated Property

Darwin Reconstruction Commission

Defence Service Homes Corporation

Director of National Parks and Wildlife

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Health Insurance Commission (c)

Hospitals and Health Services Commission

Joint Coal Board

Law Reform Commission

Legislative Drafting Institute

Metric Conversion Board

National Capital Development Commission

National Debt Commission

National Library of Australia

National Standards Commission

Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, The,

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)

Pipeline Authority

RAAF Veterans ‘ Residences Trust

Reserve Bank of Austalia (b)

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation

Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority

Superannuation Fund Investment Trust

page 2397

LIST B

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Australian Egg Board

Australian Services Canteens Organisation Board of Management

Australian Wine Board

RAN Central Canteens Board

Trustees of the Services Canteens Trust Fund

Trustees of the RAN Relief Trust Fund

Trustees of the AMF Relief Trust Fund

Trustees of the RAAF Welfare Trust Fund

Overseas Travel by Ministers (Question No. 1116)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

  1. Which Ministers have travelled abroad, and to which countries, since 13 December 1975.
  2. What was the length of stay of each Minister in each country.
  3. Which persons accompanied the Minister concerned on each of the visits and what was each person’s designation.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. to (3) It is essential for Ministers, including a Prime Minister, to attend vital overseas meetings, to meet other leaders, and be in touch with and understand major international developments. There is nothing inherently wrong in Ministers travelling overseas and I see no reason for criticism of such travel provided it is restricted as my Government has restricted it to essential visits.

I therefore provide the following general information. During their period in office Ministers in the Whitlam Government undertook a total of 154 visits involving some 2,230 days overseas and costing some $2,800,000. At today’s prices the costs of these visits would be approaching $4m. By way of contrast Ministers in the present Government have completed a total of 79 visits involving 1,044 days spent overseas. Cost figures for these visits are not yet complete but their estimated total cost is around $ 1 , 050,000.

During his term as Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam undertook 14 overseas visits at a total cost of $1,510,000. At today’s prices these visits would cost more than $2m. Since becoming Prime Minister I have undertaken nine visits overseas at an estimated cost of some $450,000.

Aborigines: Education (Question No. 1314)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister for Educaton, upon notice, on 7 September 1977:

  1. How many of the 10 recommendations contained in the report of the Aboriginal Consultative Group to the Schools Commission have been acted upon.
  2. Which of these recommendations have been implemented.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The report referred to is ‘Education for Aborigines’ Report to the Schools Commission by the Aboriginal Consultative Group, June 1975 which contains a total of 37 recommendtions. Eight recommendations have been fully acted upon and a further six implemented in one or more of the States.

Thirteen recommendations are being actively pursued by the National Aboriginal Education Committee or respective authorities.

  1. The recommendations implemented are:

Recommendations 7, 8, 19, 20, 23, 24, 26, 35.

Taxation (Question No. 1364)

Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 October 1977:

  1. Is the Minister aware that the ambiguity of the Government’s taxation measures, tax averaging for farmers, the reversal, of an earlier commitment to full tax indexation, and uncertainty over the proposed resources tax and exchange rates are causing confusion in the community.
  2. Will the Minister provide revised estimates of personal income tax receipts to be expected in the 1977-78 financial year.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. There is no ambiguity or uncertainty as to the significance of the income tax reforms introduced by the Government. The decision announced in the 1977-78 Budget to introduce a standard rate system of taxation from 1 February 1978 will involve an estimated cost to revenue in 1977- 78 of $406m in addition to the cost of the second round of tax indexation that has applied since 1 July 1 977. In 1978- 79 the estimated cost to revenue of the new standard rate system will be $973m after allowing for the saving from halving the degree of indexation to take effect from 1 July that year. The decision to revise the income averaging provisions for primary producers, which was announced after the Budget, will have little impact on revenue this year but an estimated cost of $80m in 1978-79.

The Government is proceeding with all possible haste to remove any uncertainties which may exist concerning the introduction of a resources tax. Discussions have been held with representatives of the oil and uranium mining industries on the matter, and written submissions have also been received from many of the companies. A definitive statement will be made on this matter as soon as the Government has been able to consider the issues in the light of the views put by the companies.

On external account, the Government’s economic policies provide the basis for increasing confidence. For one thing, as Foreseen at the time of the Budget, the trade account has strengthened considerably in recent months. Secondly, the sharp deceleration in the rate of domestic cost and price inflation has been recently highlighted by the announcement of the September quarter Consumer Price Index. As these facts become more widely realised, and particularly as inflation is further reduced, a return to more usual levels of private capital inflow can be expected. In the meantime the Government has expanded its official overseas borrowing program to finance the period of temporary deficit.

  1. The revision of the primary producer averaging provisions is theonly relevant decision announced since the Budget. This decision, which will have little impact on revenue this year, gives rise to no variation in the estimates provided in the Budget Papers of personal income tax receipts in 1977-78.

Re-refining of Oil (Question No. 1414)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

Will the Minister make available to the Parliament copies of reports, on the re-refining of lubricating oil in Australia, which have been prepared by officers of his Department, and also which have been received from outside sources, within the last two years.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The honourable senator also made reference to this matter in the Adjournment Debate on 7 September and in a Question Without Notice on 15 September.

The position is still much the same as outlined by my colleague, the honourable Evan Adermann, in his capacity as Minister Assisting, in the letter of 7 July.

The Government’s general position is to favour the reclamation and recycling of waste lubricating oil in preference to burning and dumping. In fact, such re-refining operations take place in both New South Wales and Western Australia and two companies have announced their intentions to commence operations in Melbourne.

I understand the difficulties experienced by Leroc Oil Co. Pty relate to an inability to penetrate the market, combined with environmental factors. The latter is a responsibility of the State Government.

Against this background, while the Government considers the matter important, it obviously has to be seen in perspective. The Government has this year had a number of more important fuel and energy matters under consideration and it has been necessary to give these priority in the allocation of staff resources. However, my Department now hopes to be able to finalise its report on the recycling question in the near future but it must be recognised that wider issues affecting other authorities, both Commonwealth and State, may well be involved.

It is understood the question will also be given attention by the National Energy Advisory Committee.

The honourable senator’s interest in this matter has been noted and arrangements have been made for him to be informed of the Government’s decision when the results of the abovementioned studies are known.

Special Youth Employment Training Program (Question No. 1422)

Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many young people have been assisted with employment under the special youth employment and training program since its inception.
  2. How many individual employers or firms have employed people under the scheme.
  3. How many individual employers or firms have employed more than one person under the program.
  4. What is the average length of employment under the scheme.
  5. Allowing for those who have been employed for the full six-month training period, how many have continued in employment with the training employer.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1) In the 12 months to end September 1977 in which the Special Youth Employment Training Program has been operating, more than 20,000 young people have been assisted under the program.
  2. Information on the number of individual employers or firms which have employed and trained young people under SYETP is not readily available.
  3. Exact information on this question is not available. However, I can say that the bulk of trainees under SYETP have been trained in small firms, which have taken one trainee at a time. In order to ensure that a firm has the capacity to provide training the CES is instructed that no more than the following number of trainees may be placed with an employer at the same time: 10 per cent of employees in establishments having more than 100 employees; 20 per cent of employees in establishments having 100 or fewer employees and more than 20; 30 per cent of employees in establishments having fewer than 30 employees.
  4. The average length of employment training under the program is 4 months.
  5. Detailed information is not currently available on all those who have completed the full 6 months training period. However, a small sample of trainees ( 1 50) taken in four (4) States recently showed the following result seven (7) months after their commencement in SYETP.

Of the trainees surveyed 72 (49 per cent) completed the six (6) month period and remained with the same employer. 11 (8 per cent) completed six (6) months but did not remain with the training employer; 34 (23 per cent) withdrew from employment prior to completion of training period; 29 (20 per cent) were dismissed by their employer before training period completed.

In addition to the 72 who remained with the same employer and were in employment at the time of the survey, another 28 were in employment with other employers. Overall this means that 68 per cent ( 100) of the sample were in employment at the time of the survey.

Foreign Investment Review Board (Question No. 1439)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. Did the Treasurer, when announcing the establishment of the Foreign Investment Review Board on 1 April 1976, state that the Foreign Investment Review Board would establish appropriate liaison with State Government authorities.
  2. Has such liasion been established. If so, with which States and in what manner.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes. Since the Board was established on 8 April 1976 there have been contacts with all States. These have included discussions, as appropriate, on both general matters and specific matters of mutual interest and also the provision of assistance in the preparation of material for overseas visits by Ministers of State Governments.

Foreign-Controlled Businesses (Question No. 1440)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

To what extent and in what manner has the Foreign Investment Review Board kept in touch with the activities of foreign-controlled business already operating in Australia, as promised by the Treasurer when he announced the establishment of the Board in April 1976.

Senator Cotton:
LP

-The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Foreign Investment Review Board is in regular contact with foreign controlled businesses operating in Australia. The Board: initiates follow-up action on proposals which have been approved to obtain information on subsequent developments and where necessary to ensure that conditions agreed to at the time of the granting of approval have been fulfilled; obtains from foreign controlled real estate development and exploration companies annual returns of their past and projected activities; and seeks from companies placing proposals before the Government in accordance with the foreign investment policy financial statistics for each of the preceding four years.

In addition to these standard procedures, the Board has regular informal contact with industry associations, and senior executives of Australian and foreign controlled corporations. Through these contacts the Board encourages a two way flow of information and advice on matters relating to foreign investment in Australia.

International Year of the Child (Question No. 1441)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. Has the Australian Government made an official decision to participate in the International Year of the Child.
  2. Does the Australian Government intend to make a financial contribution to the limited Nations Secretariat for the International Year of the Child.
  3. What steps have been taken to set up an International Year of the Child Commission in Australia.
  4. What plans does the Australian Government have for the celebration of International Year of the Child in Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Government has made a decision to work with both State Governments and voluntary organisations in the celebration of the International Year of the Child.
  2. The Australian Government is considering the possibility of a contribution to the International Year of the Child Secretariat. The United Nations Secretariat is not involved in financing the administration costs of the Year.
  3. I announced initiatives taken in respect to Commonwealth Government involvement in a News Release on 20 October 1977. These included the provision of up to $30,000 a year up to and including 1979 to a special sub-committee of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Australia. This sub-committee will provide secretarial support to a national committee of non-government organisations interested in Australia’s involvement in the International Year of the Child. I also announced the establishment of a Committee of Ministers to supervise the Commonwealth involvement and referred to the coordination planned between the Commonwealth and the States at Ministerial level.
  4. Plans will be developed throughout the committees and co-ordination referred to in (3) above.

Australian Capital Territory: Occasional Care Centres (Question No. 1443)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister completed his review of the decision to replace the Teacher-in-Charge of the Manuka and Civic Occasional Care Centres with a Grade S public servant.
  2. What is the outcome of the review.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Minister undertook to review the staffing of the Centres if a change in their role occurred. There has been no change. The staffing rearrangements for the centres will proceed as originally planned.

Broadcasting: Draft Guidlines (Question No. 1463)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, on notice, on 1 8 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) In view of the Minister’s repeated statements in favour of public participation in broadcasting planning, will the Minister release the draft guidelines referred to in the Melbourne Age on Saturday, 8 October 1977, relating to public broadcasting.
  2. Will the Minister also release draft guidelines for the development of commercial broadcasting.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The proposals referred to in the Age report were drafts prepared for discussions with the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia. The Minister hopes to release guidelines for the planning of public broadcasting in the next few weeks.
  2. No guidelines for the development of commercial broadcasting have been prepared.

Frequency Modulation Radio: Northern Territory (Question No. 1467)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 18 October 1977:

Will FM radio licences be granted to the Darwin and Alice Springs Community Colleges. If so, when.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

FM radio licences may be granted only after the development of planning proposals by the Postal and Telecommunications Department and hearings by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The calling of applications for licences for Darwin and Alice Springs will be considered when planning proposals have been developed for these areas.

Unemployment: Aboriginal Community Settlements (Question No. 1485)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware that unemployment on many Aboriginal Community settlements is now between 70 and 80 per cent.
  2. Is the Minister also aware that work tests being applied prevent thousands of breadwinners from obtaining unemployment benefits.
  3. Are there any plans by the Government to ease work tests and/or to provide employment opportunities on the various Community settlements.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of Aboriginals not employed varies from Community to Community depending on a variety of factors related to the type and location of the Community.
  2. The work test being applied on Aboriginal community settlements is the same test applied to all other unemployed Australian citizens. I am not aware that the application of the work test has prevented thousands of Aboriginals from obtaining unemployment benefit. I am aware, however, that many eligible Aboriginals have difficulties in applying for unemployment benefit and subsequently completing the required income statements. The Department of Employment and Industrial Releations is to appoint additional vocational officers which should, inter alia, help alleviate this situation.
  3. As the work test does not appear to prevent eligible Aboriginals from obtaining unemployment benefit, there are no plans to ease it. The Government is taking active steps to provide employment in remote Aboriginal communiues. I draw your attention to the Community Development Employment Projects scheme which has commenced on a pilot basis in several Aboriginal communities.

United States Foreign Policy (Question No. 1488)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 October 1977:

  1. Did the Minister write to the United States Secretary of State, Mr Cyrus Vance, suggesting that considerable uneasiness exists in the South East Asian region, particularly in the ASEAN countries, regarding future United States foreign policy towards the area; if so, can the Minister inform the Senate of the contents of the letter.
  2. Was the Minister’s letter designed to put the views solely of the Australian Government or does it represent the views of other Asian countries, specifically those of the ASEAN nations.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Foreign Minister wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr Cyrus Vance, on 31 August about United States policies in South East Asia, in response to a request by Mr Vance for an elaboration of views expressed to him during the visit to Washington of the Prime Minister and the

Foreign Minister last June. As the letter was a personal and confidential communication it would not be appropriate to divulge its contents, beyond noting that it underlined again the well known view of this Government that a continuing positive role by the United States in South East Asia is important for the region’s peaceful development.

  1. The letter was designed to convey the views solely of the Australian Government.

Unemployment Benefit: Cost (Question No. 1492)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 November 1977:

What is the estimated cost for the year 1977-78 of paying unemployment beneficiaries during the first week of their unemployment.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

It is not possible to accurately estimate for 1977-78 the cost of paying unemployment beneficiaries during the first week of their unemployment. However, based on the number of grants of unemployment benefit in 1976-77 and the rates of benefit applicable from November 1977, it is estimated that the annual cost of the proposal would be about $50m. Additional costs would be involved if unemployment benefit became payable to all persons unemployed for seven days or less. There is no statistical data available from which to estimate this additional amount.

Lebanese Migrants (Question No. 1496)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 November 1 977:

  1. How many Lebanese have been accepted as migrants to Australia since the commencement of the war in Lebanon.
  2. What action is being taken by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to facilitate the settlement of these migrants in Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Since there may be some differences of view about the date of the commencement of the conflict in the Lebanon information is provided on migrant arrivals of Lebanese citizens for the period since the beginning of the1974-75 financial year. The figure for 1976-77 is provisional and the total for the first three months of the current financial year is a preliminary one based on a manual count of passenger cards.
  1. The greater proportion of the Lebanese admitted to Australia were approved under relaxed criteria operating in 1976 and the early part of 1977. Migrant entry criteria were relaxed to enable larger numbers of Lebanese to enter Australia on the basis of nomination by their relatives in

Australia. In the course of discussions with various Lebanese associations it was stressed that the relaxation of criteria was dependent on the sponsorship of relatives and their maintenance and accommodation by the Lebanese community in Australia.

Settlement problems affecting Lebanese migrants have occurred. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs through its Ethnic AffAirs Branch is co-ordinating action involving a range of Commonwealth and State Departments to deal with the special needs of recently arrived migrants from the Lebanon. Community organisations are also being involved. Urgent action is being taken to review the special needs of recently arrived Lebanese migrants and further action will be considered in the light of the results of the review.

Assistance for Handicapped Persons (Question No. 1497)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 November 1977:

  1. By what body, for what purpose, and at what price were premises and 300 Cotham Road, Kew, acquired with assistance for the Australian Government.
  2. For what period each week are the premises currently being used.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I am advised that the Sisters of the Good Shepherd purchased the property at 300 Cotham Road, Kew, in April 976 for $120,505.77 with the aid of a Commonwealth Government grant of $96,405 under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act.

The premises provide residential accommodation for 12 handicapped female adults.

  1. The premises are used to provide accommodation for its residents seven days a week. In addition, at no cost to the Commonwealth, the premises are used to provide a community service for small groups of other handicapped and aged people in the Kew area through recreational and social activities. This facilitates the social integration of the present residents.

Long Distance Telephone Calls: Automatic Message Accounting

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 24 August 1977:

When will Telecom be installing equipment so that subscribers can be automatically supplied with accounts that list any long distance calls- the number and the duration of each call? This will have obvious advantages for private subscribers, businesses and even State and Federal government Departments.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The unit referred to in recent newspaper publicity is privately owned equipment which is to be installed in the owner’s premises and be associated with his private automatic switch board. It is entirely different from the equipment which would be necessary in a national network providing automatic message accounting.

In regard to the question of Automatic Message Accounting (AMA), I refer the honourable senator to the answer to his question without notice on 22 September 1977 (Hansard, 15 February 1977, page 37).

Defence Projects: Inflation Factor

Senator Cotton:
LP

-On 15 September 1977 (Hansard, page 832) Senator Keeffe asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the rate of inflation and the inflation factor used in the costing of defence projects that are delayed. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am advised that officers of the Department of Defence do not apply 2 per cent a month compounding or any other standard inflation formula in the costing of delayed projects; rather, project cost estimates are adjusted on an individual basis having regard to pricing information specific to each project.

The initial response to the honourable senator’s question made mention of a current inflation rate of 10.2 per cent that appeared to be moving down. That figure was, in fact, the inflation rate over the year to the June 1977 quarter, as measured by increases in the consumer price index excluding hospital and medical services. However, more recent information published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that the CPI increased by only 2 per cent for the September 1977 quarter. That was the third successive Quarter m which the rate of increase in consumer prices was less than 2.5 per cent. Taken together, those three quarters show an annual rate of increase in the CPI of 9. 1 per cent, indicating a significant reduction in the inflation rate.

Frequency Modulation Radio: Guidelines

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, without notice, on 20 October 1977:

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether the Government has finalised plans to establish conditions and guidelines under which the operations of frequency modulation radio broadcasting stations may proceed? If such plans are uncompleted, can he inform the Senate when they will be finalised and when the expansion of FM broadcasting, especially into rural areas, can occur?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. A submission on planning the development of FM broadcasting is at present under consideration by the Government.
  2. The Minister expects to make a statement on this matter within the next few weeks.

Members of the Diplomatic Corps in Parliament House

Senator Withers:
LP

– On 26 October Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked me the following question without notice:

Having not been trained as a Senate questioner in the office of circumlocution, I ask the following question of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs My question is in two parts. It gives no information and it contains no ironical expressions, hypotheses or other matters. I ask: First, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs instruct the chief of protocol to inform the Diplomatic Corps that accredited members of the Corps have no more rights within the Parliament precincts than any other person except parliamentarians and the servants of Parliament? Secondly, will Ministers of State and chairmen of parliamentary committees involve themselves in the courtesy of seeing that those whose duty it is to meet members of the Diplomatic Corps who wish to move within the precincts of the particular areas reserved for members of the Parliament and their servants do perform this duty.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

I am sure that the great majority of the Diplomatic Corps is well aware of the limitations on access within the parliamentary precincts and would not knowingly contravene these limitations.

The second pan of the question relates to members of the Diplomatic Corps who are guests in the precincts and who need guidance as to where they may go. I would support the honourable senator’s request that all due courtesies be extended by those concerned.

Education: Teachers of Foreign Languages (Question No. 403)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 March 1977:

  1. 1 ) Do State Departments of Education allow teachers of foreign languages leave without pay to travel overseas for the purpose of improving their knowledge in the subject.
  2. ) Is such leave now being refused in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory on the grounds of financial stringency; if so, in what way would such leave impose additional costs on the Government.
  3. 3 ) If this is not the reason, will the Minister have the matter investigated immediately with a view to permitting leave of absence to teachers to travel overseas.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I am advised that the various State Departments of Education grant the type of leave specified by the honourable senator in the following manner

Queensland- All teachers may be granted study leave in certain circumstances. There are no special provisions for teachers of foreign languages.

New South Wales- Permanent teachers, having at least two years service with the Department as teachers, may be granted study leave without pay for one year with a maximum of two years to undertake language courses overseas.

Tasmania- All teachers may in certain circumstances be granted leave without pay after two years of professional service with the Department.

Western Australia- All teachers may, in certain circumstances, be granted leave without pay for one full school year. Special concessions may be granted at the discretion of the Director-General.

South Australia-Leave without pay may be granted for teachers of foreign languages accepting exchanges. Leave with pay may, in certain circumstances, be granted for short periods where scholarships tenable mainly during the school holidays are involved.

Victoria- Leave without pay may be granted to approved applicants. The Department grants leave without pay in special circumstances for a small number of foreign language teachers to take up positions as assistants overseas.

  1. and (3) There has been no ban on leave without pay being granted to members of the Commonwealth Teaching Service employed in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. Special consideration is given to those seeking leave for a short period or for special or compassionate reasons.

Government schools in the Australian Capital Territory are subject to staff ceiling arrangements in common with other areas of Commonwealth Government employment. When a member is granted leave withoutpay a position must be held open for him. Stringent priorities must be ap- plied to requests for study leave and leave without pay. In 1 976 no full-time study leave was granted; in 1977 twenty study awards were made. No special conditions apply for teachers of foreign languages.

Statutory Authorities with Staff Employed Outside the Public Service Act (Question No. 1191)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:

Which statutory authorities employ their own staff outside the provisions of the Public Service Act.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

ACT Electricity Authority

ACT Fire Brigade

ACT Police Force

ACT Schools Authority(1)

ACT Totalizator Agency Board

Albury/Wodonga Development Corporation

Anglo-Australian Telescope Board

Australia Council

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation

Australian Atomic Energy Commission

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Australian Canned Fruits Board

Australian Canned Fruits Sales Promotion Committee

Australian Dairy Corporation

Australian Dried Fruits Control Board

Australian Egg Board

Australian Electoral Office(2)

Australian Film and Television School

Australian Honey Board

Australian Industry Development Corporation

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies

Australian Institute of Criminology

Australian Institute of Marine Science

Australian Meat Board

Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund

Australian National Airlines Commission (TAA)

Australian National Gallery

Australian National Railways Commission

Australian National University

Australian Postal Commission

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation

Australian Services Canteens Organisation Board of Management

Australian Shipping Commission ( ANL)

Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority

Australian Telecommunications Commission

Australian Trade Union Training Authority

Australian Tobacco Board

Australian Tourist Commission

Australian Wheat Board

Australian Wine Board

Australian Wool Corporation

Canberra College of Advanced Education

Canberra Commercial Development Authority

Canberra Public Cemetery Trust

Canberra Retail Market Trust

Canberra Theatre Trust

Capital Territory Health Commission(3)

Central Aboriginal Land Council

Christmas Island Administration

Christmas Island Police Force

Coal Industy Tribunal

Commonwealth Banking Corporation

Commonwealth Police Force

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission

Darwin Community College

Darwin Reconstruction Commission

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation

Health Insurance Commission

Joint Coal Board

Law Reform Commission

National Capital Development Commission

National Standards Commission

Norfolk Island Administration

Northern Aboriginal Land Council

Northern Territory Authorities(4)

Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia)

Pipeline Authority

RAAF Veterans’ Residences Trust Fund

RAAF Welfare Trust Fund

RAN Trust Fund

Reserve Bank of Australia

River Murray Commission

Services Canteens Trust Fund

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation

Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority

  1. Teaching staff employed under Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-other staff employed under Public Service Act.
  2. Staff generally employed under Public Service Act. Large numbers of temporary employees appointed under Commonwealth Electoral Act during elections and referenda.
  3. Clerical/Administrative staff employed under Public Service Act
  4. Northern Territory Authorities of a local State-type nature established under Northern Territory Ordinances are not included. Responsibility for these is being transferred progressively to Executive Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

Television: Wannon Division (Question No. 1240)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government decided to spend approximately $2m to upgrade television facilities in the Prime Minister’s electorate of Wannon.
  2. Did the Australian Broadcasting Control Board list 20 areas which it regarded as being of high priority for the upgrading of television reception.
  3. 3) Was the area of Wannon one such area.
  4. Has the Department been given instructions that the matter is to be proceeded with as a matter of priority; if so, why.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has decided to spend about $2m over a period of up to 3 years to provide and improve television reception in the western district of Victoria covering areas in the electorates of Wannon, Corangamite and Wimmera. This decision follows numerous representations by the member for Wannon extending back over 7 years. Following representations in December 1972, Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland, the then Minister for the Media, reaffirmed earlier advice that television reception in Western District areas was grossly inadequate and non-existent. He further advised that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board planned to carry out engineering studies to determine the grade of services available and possible means which might be adopted to effect improvements. In November 1975, the then Minister for the Media, the Hon Dr Moss Cass, informed the member for Wannon that preliminary field survey work had been completed by the Board and that final surveys would commence in December 1975. In the last 2 years the planning process for the provision of the badly needed television services in the Western District of Victoria has been progressed to a stage where definite procurement procedures have been set in train.
  2. and (3) I am not aware of an Australian Broadcasting Control Board listing of 20 areas which the Board regarded as being of high priority for the upgrading of television reception.
  3. No, but I have given instructions that the work is to proceed as quickly as possible.

Television: Gippsland Division (Question No. 1241)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government decided to upgrade television facilities in the Minister for Transport’s electorate of Gippsland; if so, what will be the likely cost.
  2. Did the Australian Broadcasting Control Board list 20 areas which it regarded as being a high priority for the upgrading of television reception.
  3. Was the area in Gippsland one such area.
  4. Has the Department been given instructions that the matter is to be proceeded with as a matter of priority; if so, why.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes; the likely cost will be $42 1 , 000.
  2. and (3) I am not aware of an Australian Broadcasting Control Board listing of 20 areas which it regarded as being of high priority for the upgrading of television reception.
  3. In regard to the preparation of plans for improving television coverage, the decision to proceed with Gippsland was made having regard to the relatively large number of people who would benefit from the scheme. In regard to the construction program there are certain irreducible timetables associated with the need to negotiate the purchase of suitable sites for the transmitting facilities, the design and construction of building and other civil works facilities and the specification and procurement of transmitting equipment. Within these constraints, and along with other projects which have been approved, I have instructed the Department to proceed with this work as quickly as possible.

Aborigines: Health (Question No. 1309)

Senator Cavanagh:

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

  1. 1 ) What further progress, other than consideration by an interdepartmental committee, has taken place in moving towards implementation of recommendations 9 and 10 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Health in the South West of Western Australia
  2. What progress has been made in the closing down of reserves as proposed in recommendation 1 1 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Health in the South West of Western Australia.
  3. What progress has been made in the provision of proper housing, as proposed in recommendation 13 (a) of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Health in the South West of Western Australia.
  4. Have funds been made available for the implementation of recommendation 17 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Health in the South West of Western Australia, or is the position still as the Minister advised in answer to question on notice 616.
  5. Have funds been made available for the implementation of recommendation 19 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Health in the South West of Western Australia, or is the position still as the Minister advised in answer to question on notice 616.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am informed that instructions have been issued by the Department of Social Security providing for payment of special benefit to claimants who are suffering from alcoholism. Notwithstanding the existence of legislative provisions enabling the payment of pension, benefit or allowance to a person other than the principal precipient in some cases, the policy of the Department of Social Security is that, prima facie, a person claiming benefit has the right to receive it himself. Only where it is shown that the beneficiary is misusing the benefit to the extent that his wife and children are suffering are the provisions invoked.
  2. $900,000 was provided to the Western Australian Department of Community Welfare in 1976-77 for a special housing program in the South-West of the State aimed at rehousing reserve-dwelling Aboriginals, who do not meet State Housing Commission criteria for tenancy in conventional houses within towns, and providing them with social support services.

Progress to date is as follows:

  1. Detailed information on housing needs is at present being collected and examined by departmental officers to determine the number and nature of houses required.
  2. The position is still as advised in answer to Question on Notice o 16.
  3. Funds have been made available to the following Aboriginal organisations for the purchase or lease of community centres which can be used for social and recreational activities: 1976- 77- Albany Aboriginal Progress Association

Tambellup Aboriginal Progress Association Narrogin Kooraminning Committee Gnowangerup Noongars 1 977- 78-Mt Barker Aboriginal Progress Association

Katanning Aboriginal Progress Association.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1326)

Senator Mcintosh:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in each Employment Office area in Western Australia at the end of August 1975, August 1976 and August 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females; (i) under 21 years of age, and (ii) 21 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Tasmania (Question No. 1327)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in each Employment Office area in Tasmania at the end of August 1975, August 1976, and August 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females) (i) under 21 years of age, and (ii) 21 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a Member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Ranger Project-Payment of Royalties (Question No. 1328)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 1977:

  1. Will all royalties collected by the Government for Minerals and extracted from Aboriginal lands be paid into the Aboriginal Trust Account, as required by section 63 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976; if so, what was the meaning of the statement in the paper on uranium mining by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that The equivalent of a royalty of at least 2Vi per cent will be payable by the Commonwealth Government to the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account for rnining within the Ranger area’.
  2. How will the Government increase uranium development revenue for use in solar energy research, if all royalties must be paid into the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Account.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The honourable senator has interpreted Section 63 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 incorrectly. Mining operations at Ranger will be carried on under the Atomic Energy Act which does not provide for payment of royalties. Section 63 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, however, provides for payment by the Crown into the Aboriginal Benefits Trust Accounts of amounts equivalent to royalties which would have been received if raining were carried out under the Northern Territory Mining Ordinance. The current level of such royalties in respect of Aboriginal reserves is 2 Vi per cent.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act further provides that, if a higher rate of royalty is prescribed, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs may determine what proportion of the increase shall be paid into the Trust Account. In the case of Ranger where rnining will be carried on under the Atomic Energy Act 1953, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provides that the determination of amounts, higher than the royalty rate prescribed by section 63 (5) (a) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, will be made jointly by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for National Resources.

These are the arrangements to which the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs referred in his statement on uranium mining.

With regard to revenue for solar energy research, the Deputy Prime Minister pointed out in his statement on uranium development that, as resources flow from the further development of uranium, additional funds will be provided to increase substantially our national effort on solar energy research.

Social Security: Special Benefit (Question No. 1330)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. Would Mr Kevin Dremmel, a Glenroy father of 14 children who earns a net wage of $112 per week, receive $2 1 6 per week with allowances if he were on unemployment benefit.
  2. Did Mr Dremmel apply to the Department of Social Security for special benefit to bridge the gap between his wage and unemployment benefit, rather than to leave his job and become totally dependent on social service benefits.
  3. Would a grant of special benefit still leave the family approximately 10 per cent below the Henderson poverty line, estimated at $240.80 per week for this family.
  4. Did the Department of Social Security refuse the application for special benefit.
  5. Was an appeal against this decision upheld by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in accordance with section 124 (c) of the Social Services Act 1947, which provides that a person may be paid special benefit if through*. . . domestic circumstances, or for any other reason, that person is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for himself and his dependants . . .’.
  6. Did the Director-General disallow the recommendation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal that special benefit should be paid to Mr Dremmel; if so, what were the grounds for his decision.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. to (6) Information relating to the personal details of persons who claim benefits under the Social Service Act is confidential and cannot be provided in response to parliamentary questions.

As explained in my answer to Senator Grimes in the Senate on 6 October 1977, special benefit has never been used as an income supplement for wage earning families.

Nuclear Safeguards (Question No. 1348)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government received complaints and objections from certain member countries of the European Economic Community concerning the nuclear safeguards policy the Austraiian Government announced on 24 May 1977; if so, what are these complaints.
  2. Do the main objections to the Australian nuclear safeguards policy relate to the application of the full International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, a ban of more than 20 per cent U308 enrichment, and the requirement of prior Australian consent to re-export and re-process Australian uranium.
  3. Do these three policy points form the backbone of the Australian safeguard system.
  4. How effective will the Australian nuclear safeguard system be if member countries of the European Economic Community will not accept these safeguards.
  5. Will the Australian Government continue to refuse to supply uranium to any countries which will not accept these safeguards.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. The Government’s policy on nuclear safeguards is a stringent one, and is recognised as such internationally. As I said in the House on 25 August 1977, some of Australia’, major potential customers for uranium would have preferred a more permissive Australian policy on reprocessing- but we have not received what I would describe as complaints and objections. The Government’s view continues to be that the policy announced on 24 May 1977 represents a practical, reasonable and effective package of safeguards measures to seek from countries wishing to import uranium from Australia
  2. See answer to (1).
  3. As I indicated in my statement of 24 May 1977, the Government’s safeguards requirements should be regarded as a package. The provisions for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and prior Australian consent to high enrichment reprocessing and retransfer are integral parts of that package, as are the other requirements which have been stated, for example, bilateral agreements with customer countries, proscription of diversion of supplied nuclear material to military and explosive uses and adequate physical security.
  4. and (5) The Government’s safeguards policy establishes conditions required to be met by countries wishing to import uranium from Australia. Where these conditions are met they will provide effective control over the use of the nuclear material SUpplies. Where they are not met uranium export will not take place.

Nuclear Safeguards (Question No. 1349)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister state in his policy statement of 24 May 1977 that ‘we would also expect responsible customer countries for Australian uranium to readily accept our safeguards’.
  2. Does the Government stand unequivocally by this statement; if not, why not
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In my policy statement of 24 May 1977 1 said that ‘we view adequate safeguards as a fundamental prerequisite of any uranium export which we would also expect responsible customer countries for Australian uranium readily to accept’.
  2. Yes.

Commission of Inquiry into Poverty: Recommendations (Question No. 1351)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 September 1977:

  1. 1) Does the Government propose to implement the second main report of the Henderson Poverty Inquiry relating to Law and Poverty.
  2. What discussions have taken place with (a) the Department of Social Security; and (b) the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs concerning the implementation of the report.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2)1 refer the honourable senator to the statement made by the Minister for Social Security in the Senate on 8 November 1977, on the progress that the Government has made in implementing the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. Discussions had previously taken place between my Department and the Department of Social Security and also with the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. In regard to matters within the administration of the last-mentioned Department attention will need to be given to Reports of the Law Reform Commission on its reference relating to insolvency and repayment of debts.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1434)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in each Employment Office area in Western Australia at the end of September 1975, September 1976 and September 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females: (i) under 21 years of age, and (ii) 21 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a Member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable seantor contact the Office rs-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Tasmania (Question No. 1435)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. 1) How many persons were registered as unemployed in each Employment Office area in Tasmania at the end of September 1975, September 1976 and September 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females; (i) under 21 years of age, and (ii) 21 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a Member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable member contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Australian Capital Territory: Occasional Care Centres (Question No. 1442)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

What was the nature of the advice received by the Minister from the Department of Education regarding the proposed removal of teachers from Occasional Care Centres in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The question of the removal of teachers from Occasional Care Centres in the Australian Capital Territory is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for the Capital Territory.

North Australian Railways: Entitlements of Former Employees (Question No. 1453)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

When will a decision be made concerning the transfer of air fare entitlements of former employees of the North Australian Railways.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The matter has been under consideration by Australian National Railways for some time and I have asked the Commission to review the situation at their next meeting.

Aboriginal Settlements: Air Transport of Liquor and Intoxicated Persons (Question No. 1457)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

Has the Department of Transport authority to take action, following complaints of Aboriginal Councils in the area, against operators of charter aircraft who carry liquor and intoxicated persons from towns in the Northern Territory to Aboriginal settlements; if so, what action can be contemplated.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Department of Transport has no authority under existing charter licences to take action against operators of charter aircraft who carry liquor and intoxicated persons.

Charter operators are licensed to carry persons and /or goods. The nature of the goods is not specified, and any goods may be carried within the operating capabilities of the aircraft so long as their carriage does not jeopardise the safety of the aircraft.

The Regulations provide that a person shall not while in a state of intoxication enter any aircraft, and a person infringing the particular Regulation commits an offence, for which he may be prosecuted

Also the pilot in command of an aircraft has powers relating to the safety of air navigation including to refuse the embarkation of, or to direct the disembarkation of passengers who for various reasons may adversely affect the safety of the aircraft.

Australian National Line: Intrastate Services in Queensland (Question No. 1476)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 October 1977:

Did the Australian Shipping Commission Authorisation Bill pass through aU stages m the Queensland Parliament on 5 October 1977; if so, when will the necessary complementary legislation be introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes, the Authorisation Bill passed through all stages of the Queensland Parliament on 5 October 1 977T

The complementary legislation was introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament on 2 November.

Education Commissions: Expenditures (Question No. 1502)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 November 1977:

What is the estimated total difference between the projected expenditures for 1978 and 1979 for the various education commissions under the guidelines announced on 26 May 1976 and 3 June 1977.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The estimated total difference is $25. 9m for 1978 and $34.7m for 1979 in December 1976 cost levels. As I stated when I announced the guidelines for 1978-80 on 3 June 1977, the Government in making its decisions, had to reconcile the aspirations at all levels of education with its policy of containing inflation, which necessarily involves restraint in public expenditure, and reducing the level of the deficit in the Commonwealth Budget.

Uranium Mining: Protection against Radiation (Question No. 118)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. What form of medical tests are applied to miners engaged in uranium mining operations at Mary Kathleen.
  2. 2 ) How often are such tests carried out.
  3. Do such tests encompass railway employees engaged in the carriage of this commodity.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

I am advised that the position is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) Mary Kathleen Uranium Limited (in the ownership of which the Commonwealth Government has a substantial equity) applies, on a voluntary basis, the ‘Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1975’ prepared by the Commonwealth Department of Health.

This Code provides, inter alia, for medical examinations of employees to be undertaken during their employment, as well as both before that employment commences, and after it terminates. In the case of those employees employed on duties involving prescribed levels of radiation exposure, such medical examinations during employment must take place at least once a year, or more frequently as determined by a medical practitioner, who also determines the extent of the examination.

No special medical tests are carried out by the Queensland Railways on its employees engaged in the carriage of uranium oxide by rail from Mary Kathleen. The method of packaging and transporting the material accords with the requirements in the ‘Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials’ issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

Child Care Centres (Question No. 1041)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 30 May 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many Federal Government funded Child Care Centres currently exist throughout Australia.
  2. How many places do such Centres currently provide.
  3. What proportion of places in Government funded Child Care Centres are currently vacant.
  4. What are the current criteria, applied by the Office of Child Care, in assessing the eligibility of new child care proposals for Federal funding.
  5. What surveys of geographical and socio-economic need for child care facilities are currently being conducted by the Office of Child Care.
  6. How many proposals for new child care facilities have been received by the Minister since January 1 976. ‘ (7) How many new proposals have been funded by the Minister since January 1976.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Federal Government funds two types of day care services for children under school age, viz: centre based day care and Family Day Care.

At 30 June 1977 there were 238 centre based child care services operating and receiving Federal Government recurrent assistance (including multi-functional centres); 114 Family Day Care Schemes operating and receiving Federal Government recurrent assistance.

  1. The total number of children estimated to benefit, at 30 June 1977, was:
  1. See attached Table.
  2. The Government ‘s policy is to emphasise the provision of care services for children who would otherwise be without basic, adequate care. In this regard, new applications are scrutinized to examine the need for a new service in a particular location, taking account of other existing services, if any, and the viability of the sponsoring body, given that considerable management and competence is required to run a day care service.

In planning services the Office of Child Care makes use of workforce data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. State Offices of the Office provide returns on the overall provision and use of day care services, including commercial services. The Association of Child Care Centres has been invited to provide regular data or usage patterns in commercial care services. Other child caring services, apart from day care, are supported on the basis of demonstrated need and the advice of State Governments and other reputable bodies.

  1. No special surveys are currently being conducted by the Office of Child Care.
  2. At 1 July 1976 there were on hand: 60 applications for centre based day care 6 applications for Family Day Care 20 applications for multi-purpose centres.

Between 1 July 1976 and 30 June 1977 there were received: 67 applications for centre based day care 34 applications for Family Day Care 32 applications for multi-purpose centres.

At 1 July 1977 there were held over, not yet investigated: 48 applications for centre based day care 10 applications for Family Day Care 19 applications for multi-purpose centres.

  1. Between 1 January 1976 and 30 June 1977 there were: 121 approvals for centre based day care (including multipurpose centres). 49 approvals for Family Day Care.

Some of the projects which received approval towards the end of the period have not yet commenced operation.

In addition further approvals have also been announced for a range of day care and related services. These approvals involve a total of approximately 120 projects estimated at some S3 million.

(3)

Constitutional Position of States and Commonwealth and United Kingdom (Question No. 1227)

Senator Harradine:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 August 1977:

  1. 1) Is the Prime Minister aware that on 17 October 1975 Mr Justice Murphy, in his written reasons for the decision in the case, The Commonwealth v. The State of Queensland, referred to and quoted from a dispatch sent by the Governor-General General to the Governor of Queensland concerning a petition to Her Majesty the Queen which had requested a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  2. Is the Prime Minister aware that an identical dispatch was sent by the Governor-General to the Governor of Tasmania on 30 January 1974.
  3. Is the Prime Minister aware that live days earlier the Clerk of the Privy Council informed the Solicitors-General of Queensland and Tasmania by cable that he was instructed to advise that Her Majesty had accepted the advice of her Ministers in the United Kingdom that the petition relating to offshore mining rights should not be referred to the Judicial Committee.
  4. Does the Prime Minister agree that there is an inconsistency between the dispatches sent by the GovernorGeneral to the Governors of Queensland and Tasmania and the advice conveyed by the Clerk of the Privy Council to the Solicitors-General of those States.
  5. Will the Prime Minister disclose the precise terms of a message from Her Majesty the Queen to the GovernorGeneral in January 1974 which indicated the decision not to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the petition by the Government of Tasmania concerning questions relating to the sea-bed adjacent to the coast of that State; if not, will the Prime Minister indicate whether the message expressly refers to any of the submissions made to Her Majesty by her Australian Ministers.
  6. Which were the submissions.
  7. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is in the public interest that all communications relevant to Her Majesty’s consideration of the petition be tabled in order that their constitutional implications might be properly evaluated.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  2. I am advised that an identical letter was sent by the Governor-General to the Governor of Tasmania.
  3. I have not seen a copy of the cable referred to by the honourable senator.
  4. I would refer the honourable senator to the reference to this matter contained in Her Majesty’s speech on the opening of the Commonwealth Parliament on 28 February 1974 where She said:

I inform honourable senators and members that I have decided not to refer to the Privy Council petitions addressed to me by the State of Queensland and the State of Tasmania concerning the rights to the seabed. My Australian and United Kingdom Ministers were agreed that the High Court of Australia is the appropriate tribunal to determine the issues raised in the petitions and, accordingly, that the petitions should not be referred to the Judicial Committee. ‘

  1. 5 ) Communications of this character are confidential.
  2. I refer the honourable senator to the answer to question 2 above and to the advice to Her Majesty by Her Australian Ministers as set out in the letter contained in the judgment of Mr Justice Murphy.
  3. Communications between the Queen and Her advisers and between Governments are confidential. The documents relevant to Her Majesty’s consideration of the petitions referred to by the honourable senator are those of a previous Commonwealth Government, the British Government and two State Governments. In accordance with the conventions which the Government observes in such matters it would not be for me to decide to make such documents available publicly

Roads: Funding (Question No. 1238)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 August 1977:

  1. Has the Federal Government reduced funds made available to State and Local Governments for road purposes.
  2. Have State Governments been meeting their responsibilities to local governments for road purposes out of general grants made available to them, or have they cut back on local government grants for road purposes.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1) No. The Commonwealth Government has legislated to enable it to provide Section 96 grants to the States for roads totalling $47Sm in 1977-78. This represents an increase of $38.3m (or 8.8 per cent) over the corresponding provision for 1976-77.

The bulk of local government roads fall within the Rural Local and Urban Local roads categories. Commonwealth allocations for these categories in 1 977-78 have been increased by 39 per cent and 81 per cent respectively over 1976-77 levels.

  1. At least two State Governments- Victoria and South Australia- submitted road expenditure programs for my approval which appeared to direct funds away from roads under local government control. I subsequently had discussions with the Victorian Minister of Transport, as a result of which it has now been agreed that the Victorian Government will direct an additional $2. 85m from its own funds for expenditure on rural local roads in 1977-78.

I am still considering the South Australian programs.

Education Assistance Schemes (Question No. 1250)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 August 1 977:

  1. 1 ) How many students, in the years 1974, 1975 and 1976, commenced studies under (a) the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme; and (b) the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme.
  2. How many students (irrespective of the year in which their studies commenced), in respect of assistance under these Schemes, ceased studies prior to completion of their courses in the years 1974, 1975 and 1976.
  3. Are students who receive benefits and fail to complete their courses liable in any way for benefits received.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Statistics of students commencing under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme, and of whether these students stop studying before completing their courses are not maintained. Students submit a new application for each year of study and their eligibility and the amount of benefits they are entitled to are determined annually. Statistics are compiled therefore only in terms of numbers receiving assistance in a particular year.

Within these limitations, some information is available on the number of students who, having qualified for assistance in a year, do not remain eligible for benefits until the end of the year. Some of these students undertake and complete short courses of one semester within that period. Others may continue with their study yet become ineligible or unqualified for assistance.

For example, a student may become ineligible because he transfers to part-time study or accepts another award, or he may lose his entitlement to benefits because his income increases during the year or he marries and the income of his spouse is too high. Included in the figure for students who become ineligible or unqualified for benefits would be a number who discontinued their study, lt is not possible, however, to separate this figure from the total of students who, for whatever reason, become ineligible or unqualified for benefits.

1 ) Total number who received assistance for all or part of the year (for TEAS, figures are of students who had received a .payment up to and including the final payday in midNovember):

For the reasons I have already stated it is not possible to discover accurately from the figures I have supplied in 1 and 2 the number of students assisted under TEAS and ASEAS who stopped studying before they completed their courses.

  1. No. Students may receive benefits while they are eligible and qualified, and are not liable to repay benefits properly received if they discontinue of fail to complete their courses.

Tertiary Education: Enrolments (Question No. 1251)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 August 1 977:

Can students who do not complete their courses be replaced by others who were unable to gain entry at the commencement of the course, once a course has commenced.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable senator, as far as it refers to courses offered by tertiary institutions, is not readily available.

Individual tertiary institutions determine their own policies on the admission of students outside normal enrolment procedures.

Tertiary Education: Withdrawals (Question No. 1252)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 August 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many tertiary students ceased their studies during or at the end of academic years 1974, 1975 and 1976, without completing their courses.
  2. How much per head do withdrawals add to the cost of educating those who remain in the courses, in underutilisation of staff, facilities and equipment
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable member is not readily available. There are considerable methological problems involved in determining whether a student has ceased studies and in accounting for students who move between institutions or recommence studies at a later date.

Tertiary Education, Canberra: Withdrawals (Question No.1253)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 August 1977:

How many students had withdrawn from studies at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education by the end of the first semester 1 977, from the original 1977 enrolment of 1st year students, 2nd year students, and 3rd year or later students.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable senator is not available to me at this stage. I will obtain the information and forward it to the honourable senator as soon as possible.

Unemployment Benefit: School Leavers (Question No. 1304)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 September 1977:

  1. How many applications for unemployment benefit during the 1976-77 school vacation were received in each regional office of the Department of Social Security.
  2. How many decisions against payment were made in each regional office.
  3. How many appeals against these decisions were lodged in each regional office.
  4. How many applications for special benefit were made in each office from claimants who were refused unemployment benefit.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. A breakdown of this information by regional office is only available for New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. A State total is shown for Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania.
  1. School leavers were not entitled to unemployment benefit during the school vacation. Special benefit was available during that period, however, to school leavers who were suffering hardship and who were taking reasonable steps to obtain work.
  2. 3 ) The required information is not available.
  3. A breakdown of this information by regional office is only available for New South Wales,Victoria and South Australia. A State total is shown for Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania.

Unemployment: Brisbane Area (Question No. 1322)

Senator Georges:

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

  1. How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Alderly; (b) Brisbane; (c) Chermside; (d) Fortitude Valley; (e) Indooroopilly; (f) Nundah; and (g) Redcliffe at the end of August 1975, August 1976 and August 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and ( b ) females: ( i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) in view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: North Queensland (Question No. 1323)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Cairns; (b) Innisfail; (c) Ingham; (d) Atherton; (e) Townsville; (f) Ayr, (g) Mackay; and (h) Mt Isa at the end of August 197S, August 1976 and August 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females: (i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age andover.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Queensland (Question No. 1324)

Senator McAuliffe:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Rockhampton; (b) Gladstone; (c) Bundaberg; (d) Maryborough; (e) Gympie; and (f) Nambour at the end of August 1975, August 1976 and August 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and ( b) females: (i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the dme involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Queensland (Question No. 1325)

Senator R E McAuliffe:
QUEENSLAND

fe asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and

Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Charleville; (b) Longreach; (c) Mermaid Beach; (d) Southport; (e) Toowoomba; and (f) Warwick at the end of August 1975, August 1976 and August 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females: (i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Queensland (Question No. 1335)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on IS September 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; and (b) males were in the following cities, towns or districts of Queensland at the end of each month since January 1975: Gympie, Childers, Bundaberg and Maryborough.
  2. What percentage of the total workforce in each city, town or district do these figures represent
  3. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city, town or district.
  4. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city, town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: North Queensland (Question No. 1336)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on IS September 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; and (b) males were in the following dues, towns or districts of Queensland at the end of each month since January 1975: Charters Towers, Ayr, Home Hill, Bowen, Mackay, Sarina, Collinsville and Proserpine.
  2. What percentage of the total workforce in each city town or district do these figures represent
  3. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each dry, town or district.
  4. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: North Queensland (Question No. 1337)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; and (b) males were in the following dues, towns or districts of Queensland at the end of each month since January 1975: Townsville, Ingham, Cardwell, Tully and Palm Island.
  2. What percentage of the total workforce in each dry, town or district do these figures represent.
  3. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city town or district.
  4. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Queensland (Question No. 1338)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the” Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; and (b) males were in the following dues, towns or districts of Queensland at the end of each month since January 1975: Duchess, Barcaldine, Gunpowder, Longreach, Winton, Hughenden, Richmond, Mary Kathleen, Julia Creek, Cloncurry, Camooweal, Mt Isa, Blackall and Greenvale.
  2. What percentage of the total workforce in each city town or district do these figures represent
  3. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each dry, town or district.
  4. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each dry, town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Central Queensland (Question No. 1339)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 September 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; and (b) males were in the following dues, towns or districts of Queensland at the end of each month since January 1975: Goonyella, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Mount Morgan, Mount Larcom, Biloela, Blackwater, Emerald, Saraji and Blair Athol.
  2. What percentage of the total workforce in each city town or district do these figures represent.
  3. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city town or district.
  4. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each dry town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: North Queensland (Question No. 1340)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 1 5 September 1 977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; and (b) males were in the following cities, towns or districts of Queensland at the end of each month since January 197S: Burketown, Normanton, Babinda, Mornington Island, Mulgrave, Kuranda, Irvinebank, Herberton, Croydon, Georgetown, Innisfail, Mount Molloy, Port Douglas, Dimbulah, Mareeba, Malanda, Milla Milla Atherton, Cairns, Mossman, Coen, Laura, Weipa, Cooktown, Almaden, Chillagoe, Ravenshoe, Mt Garnet, Mt Surprise, Einsleigh Forsayth, Gordonvale and El Arish.
  2. What percentage of the total workforce in each city, town or district do these figures represent.
  3. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city, town or district.
  4. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city, town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment an Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1). (2), (3) and (4) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Northern Territory (Question No. 1341)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on IS September 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; and (b) males were in the following cities, towns or districts of the Northern Territory at the end of each month since January 1975: Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, Darwin, Gove and Katherine.
  2. What percentage of the total workforce in each city, town or district do these figures represent.
  3. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city, town or district.
  4. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each city, town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations had provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Alice Springs Sewerage Scheme (Question No. 1346)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice, on 20 September 1977:

  1. Is effluent from the sewerage ponding area, which overflows at the rate of hundreds of thousands of gallons per day into El Papa Swamp, causing a rapidly growing health problem at Alice Springs.
  2. Are mosquitoes, including those which could cause encephalitis, breeding in large numbers in the El Papa Swamp, thereby causing considerable discomfort to both the Aboriginal and European populations in the area.
  3. Will the Government take urgent action to overcome these problems.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The discharge of effluent has contributed to the filling of El Papa Swamp in recent years and there is a continuing but not rapidly growing health risk from mosquito borne disease.
  2. ) A mosquito breeding area does exist and no doubt creates some discomfort to persons living in its vicinity.
  3. The Department of the Northern Territory, in conjunction with the Department of Construction and the Department of Health, nas been making intensive investigations into the problem which has been accentuated by a number of years of high rainfall raising the level of the water table and contributing to a situation of near permanent swampland. A consultancy report has recently been received from the South Australian Engineering and Water Supply Department and action is now being taken to design a scheme for the safe and satisfactory disposal of the effluent.

Department of Social Security: Staffing (Question No. 1353)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) On what dates in 1 976 and 1 977 did the Minister write to the Prime Minister requesting exemption from staff ceilings and the provision of additional staff.
  2. What numbers and classifications were requested.
  3. What approvals were given by the Prime Minister and on what dates.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) The honourable senator will be aware that staff ceilings are subject to continuing review and it is not the practice to publish details of the individual staff ceilings set at various times for each department and authority.

The reasons for this practice were outlined in the answer given on 26 April 1977 (Hansard, page 979) to a question without notice by Senator Douglas McClelland. The Government can see no reason to depart from this established practice.

Department of Social Security: Staffing (Question No. 1354)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 September 1977:

  1. 1) On what dates in 1976 and 1977 did the Minister submit to the Public Service Board requests for exemption from staff ceilings and the provision of additional staff.
  2. What numbers and classifications were requested.
  3. What numbers and classifications were agreed to.
  4. On what dates was information concerning numbers and classifications supplied by the Department to the Board.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. to (4) I refer the honourable senator to the answer I have given to question No. 1353 concerning staff ceilings.

Private Business Colleges: Fees Assistance (Question No. 1362)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for Edu cation, upon notice, on 22 September 1977:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister stated, since the decision to withdraw fees assistance from 18 private business colleges, that only 18 out of more than 100 colleges attracted fees assistance.
  2. Will the Minister provide: (a) the names and addresses of the 82 or more colleges which were not receiving assistance; (b) the total number of students enrolled at the 82 or more colleges; (c) the number of students who are undertaking courses comparable to those which met the criteria set down by the Department of Education for approval of fees assistance; (d) and the names of 30 or more private business colleges which made inquiries concerning, or unsuccessful applications for inclusion in the scheme, and the number of students undertaking comparable courses at these colleges.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I announced in the Senate on 4 November 1 977 (Hansard Pages 2102, 2103) that the Government has reviewed the question of fees assistance for private business colleges.

The Government has decided to continue the limited support of the existing private business colleges and interim funding will be provided in 1978 to those colleges currently receiving support on the present basis after making some allowance for cost increases. Consistent with this approach, full-time students in the colleges concerned will continue to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance Allowances.

Non-government Schools: Bendigo Division (Question No. 1369)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 September 1977:

  1. How many non-government schools are in the Bendigo electorate and into which level do these schools fall.
  2. What has been the expenditure on non-government schools in the Bendigo electorate for each financial or calendar year from 1972 to 1977.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are twenty-three non-government schools in the electorate of Bendigo of which two are special schools, seventeen are systemic schools and four are non-systemic schools and their level in 1 977 are:

    1. Girton Church of England Girls’ Grammar School, Bendigo- Level 4;
    2. St Vincent’s College, Bendigo- Level 5;
    3. Assumption College, Kilmore- Level 5;
    4. Sacred Heart College, Seymour- Level 6.

  2. Funds for non-government schools in the electorate of Bendigo in the period in question are made available under programs administered by the Department of Education and the Schools Commission.

    1. Programs administered by the Department of Education: Funds administered by the Department of Education were made available under the following acts:

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 1971

States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1 969

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1971

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972

Payments made under these acts are set out in reports which were tabled in the Senate in the dates listed below:

States Grants (Science Laboratories) Act 197 1: 27 October 1972; 12 December 1973; 28 October 1975; 4 May 1976.

States Grants (Independent Schools) Act 1969: 13 December 1972; 12 March 1974; 5 December 1974.

States Grants (Secondary Schools Libraries) Act 1971: 17 May 1972; 3 April 1973; 23 July 1974; 29 May 1975.

States Grants (Schools) Act 1972: 12 November 1974.

  1. Programs administered by the Schools Commission:

Payments for 1974 are set out in the document Report: Financial Assistance granted to each State in 1974’ (under the) States Grants (Schools) Act 1973-74 which was tabled in the Senate on 1 October 1975.

Payments for 1975 are set out in the document Report: Financial assistance granted to each State in 1975 (under the) States Grants (Schools) Act 1973’ which was tabled in the Senate on 30 November 1 976.

Payments are also contained in the following reports:

Report: Financial assistance granted to each State in 1974-75 (under the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972-74’ which was tabled in the Senate on 19 May 1976.

Report: Financial assistance granted to each State in 1975-76 (under the) States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 which was tabled in the Senate on 2 November 1977.

Details of grants made in the calendar years 1976 and 1977 are as follows:

Payment of Social Security Benefits (Question No. 1374)

Senator Primmer:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. Do administrative procedures within the Department of Social Security sometimes cause delays in payment to beneficiaries and pensioners.
  2. Can inquiries from country areas to the Department be made only by mail or through use of subscriber trunk dialling facilities, sometimes causing severe hardship.
  3. 3 ) Is the Minister aware that the New South Wales offices of her Department accept reverse charge calls but in Victoria some offices do not.
  4. Will the Minister extend this facility to all clients of her Department.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Procedures within the Department of Social Security recognise the need to effect payment to beneficiaries and pensioners as soon as possible. At the same time the exercise of authority for incurring expenditure requires that care be taken in establishing eligibility for a benefit or pension and finance and audit directions must be complied with. Every effort is made to process claims speedily and keep delays to a rninimum.
  2. The Department has a network of regional offices located in larger country towns to improve service to the public. Personal inquiries direct to these offices are encouraged. Where a person lives some distance from an office, then of course his methods of communication are limited to mail or telephone. The Department endeavours to deal with all inquiries speedily.
  3. As a general rule the Department of Social Security will not accept reverse charge calls. However, the acceptance and handling of such calls may be authorised in particular circumstances, e.g. to achieve or facilitate the transaction of departmental business with individual clients; to achieve savings in expenditure that would otherwise have been incurred; to avoid undue disruption, inconvenience or hardship to departmental clients; in cases of emergency or disaster.

Reverse charge calls are not normally accepted from representatives of organisations.

The Victorian office of the Department is not aware of any case in which there has been a refusal to accept reverse charge calls that fall within the approved criteria.

  1. It is considered that the existing criteria are adequate. In general, no individual in a remote area or who falls into

other categories will be refused a reverse charge call if adequate information is given.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1377)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 3 October 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; (b) males; and (c) persons under the age of 21 years were in the following towns or districts of Western Australia at the end of each month since January 1975: Wyndham and Kununurra.
  2. ) How many of these persons have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
  3. What percentage of the total workforce in each town or district do these figures represent.
  4. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district.
  5. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3), (4) and (5) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1378)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; (b) males; and (c) persons under the age of 21 years were in the following towns or districts of Western Australia at the end of each month since January 1975: Mount Tom Price, Hamersley and Mt Newman.
  2. How many of these persons have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
  3. What percentage of the total workforce in each town or district do these figures represent.
  4. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district.
  5. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1379)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; (b) males; and (c) persons under the age of 21 years were in the following towns or districts of Western Australia at the end of each month since January 197S: Derby, Beagle Bay, Broome, Halls Creek, and Fitzroy Crossing.
  2. How many of these persons have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
  3. What percentage of the total workforce in each town or district do these figures represent.
  4. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district.
  5. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3), (4) and (5) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1380)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; (b) males; and (c) persons under the age of 21 years were in the following towns or districts of Western Australia at the end of each month since January 1975: Port Hedland, Karratha, Dampier, Roebourne, Mount Goldsworthy and Whim Creek.
  2. How many of these persons have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
  3. What percentage of the total workforce in each town or district do these figures represent.
  4. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district.
  5. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information. I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1381)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; (b) males; and (c) persons under the age of 21 years were in the following towns or districts of Western Australia at the end of each month since January 1975: Geraldton and Carnavon
  2. 2 ) How many of these persons have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
  3. What percentage of the total workforce in each town or district do these figures represent.
  4. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district.
  5. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Western Australia (Question No. 1382)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 5 October 1977:

  1. How many unemployed (a) females; (b) males; and (c) persons under the age of 21 years were in the following towns or districts of Western Australia at the end of each month since January 1975: Albany, Norseman, Esperance, Kambalda and Kalgoorlie.
  2. ) How many of these persons have been unemployed for more than 6 months.
  3. What percentage of the total workforce in each town or district do these figures represent.
  4. How many persons have been or are being employed under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district.
  5. How many persons have applied for employment under the Commonwealth Youth Employment Scheme in each town or district and have had their applications refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information. I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Remission of Funds from Australia (Question No. 1392)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

  1. How many applications were received by the Reserve Bank of Australia for each working day in September by persons or corporations for the remission of sums in excess of Sim from Australia.
  2. How many of those applications were granted.
  3. What was the total value of funds remitted each working day in September from Australia to other countries.
  4. What was the name of each applicant to whom permission was granted to remit funds in excess of $ 1 m.
  5. Were any of the successful application for the remission of funds in excess of Sim wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or associates of (a) Deutsche Bank; (b) Credit Suisse; (c) Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.; (d) AmsterdamRotterdam Bank; or any other financial institutions which the Australian Government may have approached or proposes to approach to arrange overseas loans or stand-by lines of credit.
  6. Do any of the Australian Trading Banks have share holdings in any of the subsidiaries or associations mentioned above; if so, what is the size of each shareholding.
  7. What was the total daily value of applications for forward exchange cover for each working day in September. (8) what was the hedging rate for obtaining forward exchange cover for each working day in September.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) No comprehensive statistics are maintained on applications to remit funds overseas. To minimise delays in processing foreign exchange transactions, the Reserve Bank has delegated authority to banks, as agents of the Reserve Bank for exchange control purposes, to approve applications for most types of current payments overseas without reference to the Reserve Bank, provided they conform with exchange control policy. Approvals issued by banks for certain types of transactions such as documentary payments for imports conforming with exchange control policy do not need to be reported to the Reserve Bank.

However, the Reserve Bank informs me that, during September, approvals were granted for withdrawal of capital totalling $ 101m, of which twenty-four applications totalling $67m were for amounts in excess of $ 1 m.

Net outflows from Australia’s official reserves during the month of September, as a result of non-government transactions, totalled $447m, an average of $20m per working day.

  1. and (5) The Reserve Bank does not publicly release information about individual exchange control approvals, because it would be regarded as a serious breach of confidentiality.
  2. There is no requirement imposed upon banks by the Banking Act to supply the information necessary to answer this question. The information available to the Commonwealth is therefore limited to that contained in public documents. The honourable senator might like to consult the annual reports of the Australian trading banks which are available in the Parliamentary Library for any details in this regard that may be contained therein.
  3. Forward exchange contracts are written between traders and their bankers. The figures sought are not available.
  4. Trading banks make available each morning the rates at which they are willing to write forward exchange contracts with their customers in US dollars. Rates for other currencies are normally available on request. Rates can vary as between banks but I am informed that the mid-point in the rates for three months’ forward cover in US dollars, as quoted by the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia during September, involved a premium ranging from 5.1 per cent per annum to 4. 1 per cent per annum.

Loan Funds: Offers to Government (Question No. 1393)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1977:

  1. How many unsolicited offers were made to the Australian Government for the provision of loan funds from within Australia or overseas for each month since 1 January 1977.
  2. ) Have any of those proposals been acted upon or accepted by the Australian Government.
  3. What are the names of the persons or corporations making unsolicited loan offers since 1 January 1977.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. The number of unsolicited loan proposals involving overseas funds made by persons or companies on behalf of unknown or un-named principles or by persons or companies not well known in international financial markets since 1 January 1977 was as follows:
  1. No.
  2. It is not normal practice to disclose publicly the names of individuals or companies from whom loan proposals are received. Generally, those putting forward loan proposals regard them as being confidential and would not expect that confidence to be breached by the Government.

Unemployment: Brisbane Area (Question No. 1430)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Alderley; (b) Brisbane; (c) Chermside; (d) Fortitude Valley; (e) Indooroopilly; (f) Nundah; and (g) Redcliffe at the end of September 1975, September 1976 and September 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females; (i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: North Queensland (Question No. 1431)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Cairns; (b) Innisfail; (c) Ingham; (d) Atherton; (e) Townsville; (f) Ayr; (g) Mackay; and (h) Mt Isa at the end of September 1975, September 1976, and September 1977.
  2. What as the percentage of (a) males; and (b) females: (i) under 2 1 years of age, and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Queensland (Question No. 1432)

Senator McAuliffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Rockhampton; (b) Gladstone; (c) Bundaberg; (d) Maryborough; (e) Gympie; and (f) Nambour at the end of September 1975, September 1976 and September 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females: (i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment: Queensland (Question No. 1433)

Senator McAuliffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 12 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered as unemployed in the Employment Office areas of (a) Charleville; (b) Longreach; (c) Mermaid Beach; (d) Southport; (e) Toowoomba; and (f) Warwick at the end of September 1975, September 1976 and September 1977.
  2. What percentage of the persons was (a) males; and (b) females: (i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Defence Equipment Procurement Program (Question No. 1449)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. 1) Is the Minister aware of widespread public disquiet at reports circulating which have suggested that the Defence Department has wasted taxpayers money in its Defence Equipment Procurement Program.
  2. Is the Minister satisfied that his Department has always obtained the best possible return to the Australian taxpayer, or has the Department squandered public funds, as recently alleged in the National Times.
  3. Will the Minister indicate whether or not he intends to take steps to ensure that the Defence Department Procurement Program, especially the new five year rolling program emphasises the importance of minimising costs to the taxpayer.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2 ) and ( 3 ) During my term as Minister for Defence, I have announced the acquisition of a number of defence equipment items ranging from light trucks for Army, CI 30 aircraft for Air Force, to patrol craft for the RAN. On all such occasions I have sought and have been assured that in selecting an equipment, full consideration has been given, not only, to costs but also to such factors as performance, support and industry aspects of competing proposals.

In this, I am conscious that recommendations to Government on the selection of an equipment for the Services are based on a complex interaction of these factors. In some instances, an initially higher cost solution may be recommended because of long-term benefits for defence industry in Australia, or perhaps because of expected lower operating and maintenance costs during the life of the equipment

In relation to the cost aspects of an equipment acquisition, the Five Year Rolling Program by its very nature ensures that my Department continually reviews its existing and forward expenditure commitments in the light of financial guidance provided by the Government. Such reviews and the selection process just described are aimed at achieving value for money in its broadest sense.

Unemployment: Victoria (Question No. 1455)

Senator Melzer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 13 October 1977:

  1. How many persons were registered as unemployed in the employment areas of (a) Ballarat; (b) Bendigo; (c) Boronia; (d) Box Hill; (e) Dandenong; (0 Frankston; (g) Greensborough; (h) Mentone; (i) Moorabbin; (j) Morwell; (k) Oakleigh; (1)Ringwood; (m) Springvale and (n) Warragul at the end of (i) August 1975, August 1976 and August 1977; and (ii) September 1975, September 1976 and September 1977.
  2. What was the percentage of (a) males; and (b) females: (i) under 21 years of age, and (ii) 21 years of age and over.
  3. What were the principal work categories of the persons registered as unemployed.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable senator contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Unemployment and Special Benefits: School Leavers (Question No. 1462)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 8 October 1977:

  1. How many school leavers leaving school in 1976 to enter the workforce were paid unemployment benefit during the period of the school vacation.
  2. How many were paid special benefit for the same period.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No statistics are available to show the number of school leavers who received unemployment benefit during the 1976-77 long vacation.
  2. 122 school leavers were granted special benefit during the 1976-77 long vacation.

Superannuation (Question No. 1469)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 October 1977:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government intend to introduce legislation to amend the Commonwealth Superannuation Act 1922 to change the annual adjustment of superannuation payments from an adjustment related to the consumer price index figures to one related to average weekly earnings.
  2. Will adjustments to other payments such as pensions and benefits, which are currently indexed to the CPI, also be changed to relate to average weekly earnings.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to(l).

Allegations against Joint Intelligence Organisation Officer, Port Moresby (Question No. 1470)

Senator Gietzelt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1977:

  1. Has the Minister noted the remarks of Professor Brogan that a member of the staff of the Australian High Commission had approached him to act as an agent of the Joint Intelligence Organisation to collect information on Irian Jaya? If so, is it normal for public servants to act in such a capacity in friendly countries?
  2. What is the purpose of collecting information concerning Irian Jaya?
  3. Does this incident reveal that the Government is concerned by the activities of Indonesia in the region?

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

  1. 1 answered a question relating to this matter in the House of Representatives on 20 October,
  2. and (3) It is a normal and internationally-accepted function of diplomatic officers to keep their governments informed of developments in, or relating to, the country of their accreditation, which may be of significance to the interests of their own country. The Austraiian Government has no cause for concern over the situation in Irian Jaya, but it is in Australia’s interest that the Government remain informed about matters relating to developments in the region.

Australian Forces in Malaysia (Question No. 1493)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1977:

Are Australian military aircraft and personnel from the Special Air Service stationed at Butterworth being used by the Malaysian Government in support of Gurkha mercenaries on the Thai-Malaysia border.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Australian aircraft and personnel stationed at Butterworth are not used in any active military operations in Malaysia or Thailand. The RAAF presence at Butterworth is pursuant to the Five Power Communique of 16 April 1971, which related only to the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore.

There is no Special Air Services Regiment element stationed at Butterworth.

An Australian SAS Troop recently staged through Butterworth on route to and from an exercise with Malaysian regular forces in the southern part of Malaysia. They were in Malaysia for purely exercise purposes and were not involved in any counter insurgency operations. At no stage were they in the vicinity of the Thai-Malaysian border.

Nuclear Safeguards (Question No. 1498)

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources upon notice, on 3 November 1977:

How will the Australian Government ensure that Aus.tralian safeguards will be completely met by overseas takers of our uranium exports, in view of Mr Justice Fox’s report of 29 September 1977, recorded in a Foreign Affairs Departmental minute made public on 2 November 1977, that: (a) there is general opposition overseas to the United States and Canadian proposition that there could be no reprocessing of uranium supplied by these countries without the specific approval of supplier countries; and (b) there is concern overseas that the International Atomic Energy Agency may not be able to administer safeguards satisfactorily.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The answer to this question may be found in Hansard (Senate) of 3 November 1977, pages 2017 and 2018.

Wool Sales: Freight (Question No. 1500)

Senator Georges:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Australian Wool Corporation sell 20,000 bales of wool out of Flushing, The Netherlands, during the last two weeks without including the cost of freight from Australia to Flushing.
  2. Will the Corporation incur a loss of up to $600,000 on the sale of this wool.
  3. Is the fall in the wool market this week attributable to this section of the Corporation, which effectively undermined the reserve price.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.

Superannuation

Senator Cotton:
LP

-On 2 November 1977 (Hansard, page 1935) Senator Bishop asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question without notice concerning proposals to change the basis for updating pensions paid under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. The Leader of the Government undertook to obtain further information from Mr Robinson.

The Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Robinson) has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

During the Budget discussions the Government gave consideration to imposing a limitation on superannuation pension increases along the lines that had previously applied to pensions payable under the Superannuation Act 1922. Under this limitation, superannuation pension increases would have been related to the lesser of the increases in the consumer price index and the index of average weekly earnings.

The Government has decided that the limitation will not be proceeded with and that superannuation pension increases will continue to be related only to movements in the consumer price index.

Repatriation Pensioners: Fringe Benefits

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 2 November 1977 Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the following question without notice:

I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs. I preface the question by saying that no doubt the Minister recognises the importance which returned soldiers place on any fringe benefits which may be associated with any pension that they receive. This question relates to such fringe benefits. Could the cut-off level of fringe benefits be adjusted as pension rates increase, preferably with the cut-off level on a sliding scale and not fixed arbitrarily as at present? Also, could arrangements be made so that war disability pensions are not regarded as income when assessing eligibility for fringe benefits?

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

The Government appreciates the problems some pensioners face because of their ineligibility for fringe benefits. However, not only many Repatriation pensioners but also many recipients of Social Security pensions are faced with a similar situation. Any extension or indexation of the permissible income limits would, therefore, involve the Government in a great deal of additional expense, because of the many additional people who would become eligible. Further, unless the limits were abolished altogether, there would always be some pensioners who would fail to qualify.

To exempt any individual Repatriation disability pension from the income limits, would also be inequitable unless the Government was also able to exempt all such pensions and other compensatory type payments received by other members of the community.

To assist those people most in need, the Government decided in August 1976 to link pensions to the Consumer Price Index. Pensions were increased in November 1976 and May 1977 in line with increases in the Index. However, the Government’s first priority is the reduction of inflation and, for this reason, there is a compelling need to contain the rate of increase in Government spending, and to defer any further action to mitigate the effect of the income test in respect of eligibility for fringe benefits. You will appreciate that pensioners will benefit, as will all Australians, from the stabilisation of prices which is implied by a reduction in inflation.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 November 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19771109_senate_30_s75/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant