Senate
3 May 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2. IS p.m., and read prayers.

page 1321

PETITIONS

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1978. The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at the 30 June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $ 1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

-I present the following petition from 46 citizens of Australia:

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a futher term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1 978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at 30 June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $ 1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 22 citizens of Australia:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Laws Controlling Drug Use

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 102 citizens of Australia:

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

Their concern as regarding the proposed easing of the laws pertaining to the use of Drugs, especially as regards the use of marijuana and other allied drugs. ‘

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should- not agree to the easing of the Laws controlling the use of drugs in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the Citizen forces:

The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the Citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance service.

This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:

The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognized by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:

Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive and historic Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Citizens Military Force (Army Reserve) and Citizens Air Force.

Petition received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 9 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned members and ex members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces:

The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services:

This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:

The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:

Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory: Proposed Bus Interchange

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 1 30 citizens of Australia:

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

. We support the construction of the City Bus Interchange as part of the plan to upgrade Canberra’s public transport system.

The facility will provide bus users with long overdue protection from Canberra’s extreme climate.

It will also provide an information bureau and other amenities for bus users and drivers.

That the proposed site at the corner of London Circuit and Northbourne Avenue is the most central for the majority of bus users.

The site also gives the speediest bus access to Northbourne Avenue, the major traffic artery.

It is envisaged that the Interchange, by encouraging greater use of public transport, will help to reduce car congestion, noise and exhaust pollution in Civic.

We support first class landscaping around the buildings to ensure they blend in with the present environment.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate take urgent action on the construction of the City Bus Interchange.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 9 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned members and ex members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Ali Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces:

The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognises the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services:

This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:

The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognised by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:

Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force.

Petition received.

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 54 citizens of Australia:

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants ( Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1 974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at 30 June 1 977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 to $ I with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned members and ex members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the Officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces:
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognizes the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services:
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia:
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognized by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces:
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force. by Senator Lajovic.

Petition received.

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

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

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at 30 June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 197S under the Chairmanship of the Rev. K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government’s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Lajovic.

Petitions received.

page 1324

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1324

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator BROWN:

– I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Is it correct that this morning Mr Hamer, the Premier of Victoria, wrote to the Prime Minister complaining in very strong terms about the measures proposed by the Federal Government for uranium mining? I am given to believe that in the letter Mr Hamer stated:

I am concerned at the possible future implications which could be far reaching in many other fields if the attempt to extend Commonwealth jurisdiction by such indirect means into areas for which it has no specific head of power were to be seen as a precedent.

What action does the Government propose taking as a result of the complaints from Mr Hamer?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have not seen any such correspondence between the Premier of Victoria and the Prime Minister. If the wording that Senator Brown has quoted is from an official and public document I would be happy if he would give it to me so that I would have some common ground to work upon. Without that evidence I cannot say whether in fact the Premier has written in such a way. I do know that the Premiers have been invited to express their views. As to the second part of Senator Brown’s question, the Commonwealth will be having discussions with the Premiers. The result of the discussions on this vital matter will represent a co-operative effort between the Commonwealth and the States.

Senator BROWN:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister be good enough to pursue the substance of my question and give me a reply in the Senate at the earliest opportunity.

Senator CARRICK:

– Certainly, and particularly if Senator Brown can give me the source of his information.

page 1324

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORTS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. I refer to a report that out of a European Economic Community beef quota of 140,000 tonnes annually Australia has provided less than 100,000 tonnes. Is this report correct? If so, what is the reason for the shortfall?

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

-I regret that I do not have that information with me. I shall attempt to obtain it for the honourable senator before the end of Question Time.

page 1324

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question to Senator Carrick follows on from the question asked by Senator Brown. Were the States consulted in relation to Commonwealth proposals for uranium mining? Did I correctly hear the Minister say just now that the Premiers have been invited to express their views? If that was the case, when were they so invited? Is he not aware that the Acting Premier of South Australia has written to the Prime Minister objecting to the Australian Government proposals? Are we to understand that the legislation and the statements which have been made by the Government have been produced without prior consultation with the States? Is the Minister aware also that the Premier of Tasmania has requested that no action be taken by the Government in respect of uranium mining until such time as the matter is discussed at the next Premiers Conference?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Wriedt ‘s questions raise matters of administrative detail or detail of correspondence between the Prime Minister and Premiers of which I do not have first hand information. I shall seek it and let him know. I am not aware of the reactions of individual Premiers but I shall seek the substance of them and let him know. He asked whether consultations were initiated by the Commonwealth and, if so, when. They are specific matters on which I shall get information for him and let him and the Senate know as soon as possible.

Senator WRIEDT:

-May I clarify the matter by asking the Minister this question: Is he not able to inform the Senate that the Premiers were invited to express their views on the Government’s proposals on uranium mining some time before last week, for example? Is he able to be as specific as that?

Senator CARRICK:

– I do not have that information in terms of dates. I am aware that there is dialogue at the moment between the Commonwealth and the States. I am not sure of the date of its initiation but, as I said before, I shall seek the information and let Senator Wriedt have it.

page 1325

QUESTION

WOMEN’S REFUGES IN QUEENSLAND

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to a joint Press statement issued on 28 April by the Commonwealth Minister for Health and the Queensland Minister for Welfare which related to funding arrangements for women’s refuges in Queensland. It was stated that- the arrangements were based on a Commonwealth subsidy of up to 50 per cent and a State subsidy of up to 25 per cent for approved capital costs, the balance to come from a source other than the State or Commonwealth. It was stated that there would be further subsidy for operating costs of 75 per cent and 12’A per cent respectively from the Commonwealth and State. Does the Minister recall that the Press statement also included a statement that grants may also be made to local authorities, charitable and community purpose organisations and incorporated non-profit groups? Can the Minister clarify the position and state that in the case of those organisations specifically mentioned the grant will be on the basis indicated earlier in the statement of 50 per cent and 25 per cent from the Commonwealth and State respectively?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I do clarify the position to the extent of saying that a statement was made by the Minister for Health on the agreed arrangements for the funding of women’s refuges and, as was stated by Senator Martin, there is now an arrangement between the State and Federal governments to fund this welfare measure. The fact that grants may be made to local authorities and others is something that can take place in the future. I believe that the subsidy arrangements that have now been concluded are satisfactory inasmuch as there was difficulty in the early stages of the community health program in getting the co-operation of the Queensland Government in the funding of refuges of this kind.

page 1325

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING LEGISLATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to Senator Carrick. I refer him to a card which- is distributed to all honourable senators and which describes him as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. I take it that that description is correct. If that is the case, am I to understand from the answers he has given to Senator Brown and Senator Wriedt that he was not consulted in connection with the uranium legislation that is now before the Parliament, despite the fact that he is the Minister in this place who represents the Prime Minister in relation to federal affairs?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On none of those grounds would Senator Georges have reason to reach that understanding. It is true that my second responsibility is as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Indeed, on all such matters I am consulted in terms of policy and principle. It is true that I, as a member of the Cabinet, took part in all of the deliberations relating to the decisions on uranium. I was asked something of the details of correspondence- as to the dates of correspondence- concerning the approach of the Prime Minister.

Senator Georges:

– No.

Senator CARRICK:

– That was the substance of the previous questions to me. I was asked questions relating to the approach by the Prime Minister on a particular day or days and about the particular methods of so doing, whether verbally or by letter, and my response was that 1 would get that information. They were not approaches that were made directly by me. They were, of course, matters which would be at a Prime Minister to Premier level. Where Premiers are approached they are approached at the Prime Ministerial level.

page 1326

QUESTION

ATMOSPHERIC MONITORING STATION, TASMANIA

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Science in a position to advise the Senate of the extent of proposed works for the atmospheric monitoring station at Cape Grim on the north-western tip of Tasmania? Can he advise the Senate of the likely extent of the staffing of the project and what will be the likely period of development?

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

– Questions have been raised from time to time in the Senate about the Baseline Air Pollution Station. Honourable senators should recognise that there was an undertaking to establish a Baseline Air Pollution Station as part of a global network under the aegis of the World Meteorological Organisation. That work has been in progress for some time. As the honourable senator knows, the BAPS has been temporarily established at Cape Grim in his State of Tasmania. It may be considered to be basically a research enterprise that is encouraged to measure atmospheric constituents. That has been discussed in the Senate previously.

The honourable senator has asked what is the extent of the proposed works at the moment. This matter mainly falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. The Department of Science basically is responsible for the management of the station, which is carried out with the assistance of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation scientists. My understanding is that the likely staffing of the station would be approximately 10 individuals. It would be of interest to the honourable senator that Smithton is the closest town to the proposed station. The expected capital cost of the works is about $1.6m and there would be an on-going cost to maintain the staff, about half of whom would be scientists.

It is expected that there will be some development in Smithton itself, which will assist in the monitoring work at Cape Grim. I am unable to say exactly when the Government may adopt the expenditure involved but if the figure involved is about $1.6m, the matter would not have to be examined by the Public Works Committee. I certainly hope that the project will be developed. I think it is a particularly important program and something which Tasmania requires.

page 1326

QUESTION

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the Minister aware that, whilst pensions and benefits have risen by some 70 per cent in the last three years, the unemployment benefit for people under 18 years of age has not been increased? Is the Minister aware that many of these young people have been out of work for many months, that they have been without home support while travelling in search of jobs, particularly from rural centres, and that they have been facing the same rising costs as those faced by people over 18 years of age? Is she further aware that State welfare departments and voluntary agencies are reluctant to help such single people, preferring to allocate their meagre funds to families? What action does the Minister intend to take to alleviate the position of young people who cannot live at home while they look for work?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is a fact that the rate of unemployment benefit for those under 18 years of age has not been increased since the former Government froze it. Whilst increases for all other pensions and benefits have been made each six months, the rate of unemployment benefit for those under 18 years has remained at the same rate of $36. 1 am aware of rising costs that affect the whole of the community and I am aware of the difficulties faced by some young people in obtaining employment. It is believed that many young people under the age of 1 8 are living at home and have the support of their families in their transitional stage between school and employment and it has not been thought fit to increase that rate.

As far as State welfare departments are concerned, it is entirely their decision as to where they give assistance. I am aware that one State government has offered assistance by way of transport facilities to people who are seeking employment. I am also aware of the fact that young people who are under the age of 1 8 years are not generally required to leave their homes in order to seek employment, as would be required by the Commonwealth Employment Service for those who are over the age of 18. Increases in any rate of pension or benefit are always matters for Government consideration and announcement at an appropriate time, but the rate for those under 1 8 years of age has remained at the rate at which it was frozen when the former Government was in office.

page 1326

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BILL

Senator BONNER:

– Can the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate what has happened to the Criminal Investigation Bill which was introduced by his predecessor? Does the Minister intend to re-introduce the Bill and, if he does, when?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– As recommended by the Law Reform Commission, the Criminal Investigation Bill was introduced last year by my predecessor for the purpose of obtaining comment upon it. It was not introduced as a Government Bill to be put through the Parliament in the terms as drafted. There has been an enormous amount of comment on the Bill. My Department, and to some extent I myself, have been concerned in giving consideration to that comment. At this stage I am not in a position to say what the Government proposes to do in relation to that Bill, in relation to any alternative Bills on that subject or in relation to matters covered by the Bill but I can assure Senator Bonner and the Senate that the matter is under continuing investigation and discussion in my Department.

page 1327

QUESTION

QANTAS BUILDING

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it true that the Qantas building, which has been under construction in Sydney since 1972, is not expected to be completed until 1982? If this is true- I concede that industrial troubles have been responsible for some of the delay up to now- is the prime cause of the long building time a fundamental defect in the original architectural design? Is it also a fact that Qantas does not need the building for its own use and will probably never occupy it?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the details that the honourable senator seeks. Since his question must be answered in detail, I would ask him to put it on notice and I will obtain the information for him.

page 1327

QUESTION

SALES TAX: PRE-PAYMENT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-My question to the Minister representing the Treasurer relates to the collection of sales tax. I would preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that companies which collect sales tax for the Commonwealth must pay that tax by the 21st of the month following the sale of the goods, yet rarely receive the tax from their customers until the last days of that month, even if the customer does not put off paying the amount for yet another month. In other words, the companies must finance and pay such sales tax before they receive it, which can be an embarrassment to some organisations. Will the Minister ask the Treasurer to examine this matter so that a more equitable situation can be determined?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware that there are instances in which pre-payment must be made by a certain deadline. I will ask the Treasurer, if such have occurred, to direct his mind to seeing whether reforms can be effected that will obviate the problem.

page 1327

QUESTION

ASSETS OF ABORIGINAL SETTLEMENTS: BULK INSURANCE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: In view of the fact that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1975 commenced considering bulk insurance for assets on Aboriginal settlements and received an inventory of all such assets in 1976, has the Government made any decision on whether bulk insurance is preferable to, or cheaper than the existing system under which each settlement arranges its own insurance? If so, why has the Government not implemented a bulk insurance program?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of Senator Cavanagh ‘s interest in this matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I can’t get an answer on it.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am aware of some of the previous questions that he has asked with regard to it, and also my undertaking to seek an answer to a question that he had placed on notice. I am unaware of the facts that may have been provided to him but will seek from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs information on the question of bulk insurance in general and whether any decisions have been taken on it.

page 1327

QUESTION

EDUCATION: SEMP PROGRAM

Senator WALTERS:

-Can the Minister for Education inform the Senate whether the section on alternative life styles in the social education materials program is intended by the originators of the project for the education of 17 and 18- year-old students? I believe Mr Jones indicated this recently in a television program. If so, what control can the Minister suggest to safeguard 14 and 15-year-olds from the use of this material by teachers who would use it unselectively in the high schools? I realise that this controversial section is a very small percentage of the total family area, but I do consider it an important one that needs to be treated very sensitively.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-In order that there should be an understanding of this matter, let me first say this: The part of SEMP that deals with the family is the one that would contain the section on alternative life styles. That section was designed, supervised and finally approved by the Independent Conference of Headmasters in New South Wales, under the chairmanship of the headmaster of Riverview College, who would be very well known to honourable senators. Those who would know the members of the Committee would know that there could not be gathered in Australia a body of people who were more interested in the need to understand the priorities that should be accorded social values, the need not to permit social engineering through the distortion of such values but equally and consistent with honesty and accuracy, the need to report in documents that there are alternatives that a percentage of the community may favour.

To understand the SEMP material, one must understand this: It does not come directly into the hands of individual students. It must first of all be approved by the State Department of Education concerned or by the independent school sector -

Senator Georges:

– Or not approved.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, or not approved. It must also be approved by the headmaster or the headmistress in the school and equally, of course, by the teacher concerned. But having said that, wherever social education is dealt with, it is profoundly in the hands of the teacher who projects the material. I think the answer to the honourable senator’s question is this: It is a matter of value judgment on the part of the department, its headmasters and its teachers to relate the material concerned as accurately as possible to the age group that can understand it and can respond to it.

It is fair to say that in the hands of that minority of teachers who must always be present and who may be immature in such matters or who may hold views other than those normally held by the community, there is some risk; there must be some risk. The material was very responsibly designed. I think all honourable senators saw it on display. All honourable senators, I think, would agree, that if one were to look at any one page, as one might in an anatomical text book, one might find it a little naughty. I suggest that it be looked at as a whole and if the family section of SEMP is looked at as a whole, it will be found to be balanced. Nevertheless, I put the caveat on it: We are in the hands of those who teach social education. Thank goodness most of them are highly responsible people. We will try to improve on that.

page 1328

QUESTION

METRIC SYSTEM

Senator JANINE HAINES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science, arises out of a statement on 14 March issued jointly by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the Minister for Science. The statement relates to proposed restrictions on the importation of measuring devices not acceptable within the metric system. I ask the Minister: Is this statement an admission by the Government that there is enough opposition to metrication among some sections of industry and the community to make it necessary for the Government to force this iniquitous conversion on industry and individuals by such measures as actively restricting the importation of measuring devices marked in imperial units? Can the Minister say which representatives of industry, commerce and consumer groups mentioned in that statement have actually supported the introduction of such controls? Is the Minister aware that some industries involving heavy machinery, for example the metal trades industry and sections of the building industry involved with additions to homes built before the introduction of metrication in Australia, are finding the Government’s insistence on making everything in this country divisible by ten both uneconomic and impractical? Finally, what are the ‘special circumstances’ referred to in the statement under which exemptions will be allowed?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am afraid I did not follow all of the questions that the honourable senator asked. The main thrust of her question was whether it was our intention to prohibit nonmetric measuring devices. A statement has been made by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and me. That basic statement, as I recall it- I do not have it before me- was made with the intention of alerting the community to the fact that some overseas countries were disposing of their old fashioned imperial measuring devices at very cheap rates. This Government, as did the previous Government- and I take it that the proposal has the full support of every honourable senator- aims to convert to the metric system as the sole system of physical measurement in this country. The honourable senator will agree that it would be wise to alert the community to the fact that after a future date it will not be practical or permissible to import imperial measuring units. There will be exceptions to that, of course, because it will be well into the future before metrics are totally used in the community. It will be recognised in regard to international measurements that other countries are slower in converting to the metric system.

The honourable senator will be pleased to know that more than 94 per cent of the world’s population is in countries which are converting or have converted to the metric system. There is no reason why we should not follow that general trend throughout the world. Indeed, if we were not to do so it would be to our great disadvantage, as was shown by a Senate select committee chaired by former Senator Keith Laught who came from Senator Haines’ own State. Generally, industry is very much in favour of metric conversion and supports the action that the two ministries have taken. The honourable senator may know that all metric conversion in industry has been carried out on the advice of metric groups, and where there has been advice from groups in, say, the retail trade or the metal trade the Government has generally followed that advice. Indeed, metric conversion has saved this community and industries many millions of dollars.

page 1329

QUESTION

TAX INCENTIVES FOR ON-SHORE EXPLORATION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the need to increase Australian oil and gas reserves and the great upturn in off-shore exploration as a result of the Government’s tax incentive policies for off-shore exploration, will the Government apply the same tax incentives to onshore exploration to further encourage on-shore exploration for hydrocarbons and at the same time give greater encouragement to Australian investment in these activities?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I recall receiving a somewhat similar question in recent weeks. All I can say now is what I said then, that is, that matters such as this are matters which governments take into consideration when framing a Budget and it would be quite improper for me to comment on this subject before the Budget is presented.

page 1329

QUESTION

TOURIST PROJECT IN QUEENSLAND

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by remarking that many Queensland residents are concerned about the proposed Iwasaki project in Queensland. One of the areas of concern is how the sale of Australian land to foreigners is likely to affect Australia’s defence. I therefore ask: Has the Government given any consideration to the possible defence implications of the Iwasaki project? If so, what conclusions have been reached? If not, will the Minister raise the matter for Government consideration?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As I understand it, it is a project somewhere on the coast of Queensland.

Senator Georges:

– Yeppoon.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is a project at Yeppoon which will be financed by Japanese money. It is proposed to turn the area into a tourist resort. I should imagine that if there is to be such foreign investment in Australia it will have to run the gambit of the Foreign Investment Review Board.

Senator Georges:

– Has it?

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not know. I am not ministerially responsible for that. If the honourable senator wishes to know I will seek that information for him. As to whether there are defence implications in a Japanese national being allowed to build a tourist resort on the coast of Queensland, I will make inquiries from my colleague the Minister for Defence.

page 1329

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs aware of the anxiety expressed by local government associations for .the Federal Government to implement its election promise of December last to increase local government’s share of personal income tax receipts from 1.52 per cent to 2 per cent? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that unless the increase is introduced next financial year, local government in South Australia will lose $10m over the three-year period to 1980-81? In view of this urgency, will the Minister stress to the Government the importance of making this increase available to local government in the next Budget?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I could not escape being aware that about 930 local government bodies in Australia are eager that the Federal revenue supplement to local government should be increased and that the Federal Government’s promise to phase it in during the three-year period should be carried out in the first year. I am equally aware of the fact that the greatest single reform that can happen to local government in terms of its finances and its capacity to do things, to employ more people, to construct more and to abate rates, will come with two great reforms of this Government- the continued reduction of inflation that is now proceeding and, significantly, the lowering of interest rates which is now proceeding.

Senator Jessop will well know that there was a paradox in 1974-75 that local government and Australia should never forget. That was a period when local government was given far more money by way of indirect and direct grants than it had ever thought of in its life. Yet because of the inflation and the high interest rates engendered it was able to do less than meet its basic requirements although, on average, local government rates were raised by 30 per cent. At present there is an abatement of inflation and interest rates. General local government rates have dropped to the point where last year I think the increases averaged the rate of inflation. That was healthy. Of course, I shall put to the Government that, consistent with its budgetary policies, it should do all it can to increase the money allocated to local government. I appreciate South Australia’s interest in this matter and also the interest of those unincorporated areas which are now to be incorporated.

page 1330

QUESTION

CHRYSLER AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It refers to the motor vehicle industry and, in particular, to a government backed censure motion against Mr Hayden yesterday during which the Government spokesman said that the motor vehicle industry is sound and improving. He talked about the stability of Chrysler Australia Ltd. Does that statement represent the views of the Government? If it does, is he aware that this morning Chrysler’s management in Adelaide told union representatives that over the next 18 months 1300 workers will be retrenched and that 100 clerical workers and 200 line workers will be put off before the middle of May? Can the Minister indicate whether the arguments put forward by the mover of the motion during the debate were supported by any departmental references to the viability of Chrysler? Is he able to say to what extent Chrysler may be helped in this situation to avoid the retrenchments that have been forecast?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of the details of any debate in another place although I have some nodding acquaintance, through the headlines, of what occurred in the debate to which Senator Bishop referred. I think that the honourable senator is more interested in knowing the aspects of the Chrysler situation. As I understand it, the Minister for Industry and Commerce has been given some direct information by Chrysler. I think Senator Bishop indicated that that information has now been made public by the company. Broadly, the Chrysler company has decided upon a program of rationalisation and restructuring to improve productivity and efficiency and to achieve greater competitiveness in the market place. It proposes to place less emphasis on some aspects of its production- in particular, I gather, panel pressing- and to allow a run-down to occur in other operations. Certainly, there is to be a reduction in the work force. The figures I have indicate that there will be a total reduction of 1 , 100 positions over the period of this year and next year. The reduction in the number of employees will be a slow process.

Chrysler has made a number of requests to the Government in relation to its future operations under the motor vehicle plan. These requests are presently under close study by the Government. However, in its latest announcement Chrysler has not made any particular request to the Government in relation to the present rationalisation program. The company has taken its decision purely on a commercial basis. The significant point that arises out of the latest announcement by Chrysler is, as I have said, that it has taken this decision purely on commercial grounds, in response to changes in the industry and the market place, in an endeavour to place the company in a stronger competitive position with the other motor vehicle producers in this country. The other matter that needs to be stressed is that the Chrysler company is clearly of the view that its viability as a company and the viability of its operations are not at risk. Rather, it is seeking to strengthen its competitive position. The Government will continue to keep in close contact with the Chrysler company and will, as I have said, continue to give close consideration to the requests that have been made to it.

page 1330

QUESTION

DIOXIN

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Science or the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It relates to the use of the herbicides 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T and their effect on the health of humans and animals that come into contact with them. Is the Minister aware that these herbicides are the most widely used in Australia, being employed in a number of agricultural pursuits, and that the heavy use of such herbicides in the Yarram region of Gippsland in Victoria has been claimed to be a reason for the abnormally high level of birth abnormalities and infant deaths in that area? Are these herbicides the same as the ones that were used by the American Army as defoliants during the Vietnam war and were they then alleged to have caused a number of serious illnesses to villagers coming into contact with them? What inquiries have been made by the Minister’s Department, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or the Commonwealth health authorities to ascertain, firstly, whether the herbicides are contaminated with the highly toxic chemical known as ‘Dioxin’ and what systematic checking is done to ensure that this contaminant is kept below dangerous levels; secondly, the extent of available overseas investigation and reports and in particular the evidence which caused United States District Judge Otto Skopil on 7 March 1977, to grant an injunction against the United States Forest Service restraining the use of phenoxy herbicides, including 2, 4, 5-T, in the Siuslaw National Forest and whether such ban of its use has since been extended to all 19 forests in the States of Oregon and Washington; and thirdly, whether the authorities are aware of the claims by Kevin Twigg a Kyabram dairy farmer, of illnesses suffered by him through the Victorian Lands Department’s use of such herbicides on his property in Victoria in 1976? Does the Minister consider that, in the interests of public health and safety, he should now recommend the suspension of the use of such herbicides in Australia, at least until authoritative scientific studies have been completed?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator has raised a matter that has the attention of the news media at present. Indeed, it is an important matter. He referred to the use of 2, 4-D and 2, 4, 5-T herbicides. Both herbicides have been widely used in Australia and overseas since the mid- 1 940s. Wide media coverage has been given recently to possible links between the use of these chemicals and birth abnormalities in the Yarram district in Victoria. A commission of experts appointed by the Victorian Minister of Health to investigate the matter announced recently that it could find no basis for such a link. The herbicide 2,4,5-T as used by the United States as a defoliant in the Vietnam war, in conjunction with 2,4-D, contained significant concentrations of dioxin, an impurity virtually eliminated in Australian production between the mid-1960s and the late 1960s. So, in actual fact, at the present time dioxin is not a part of the herbicides that we use. The alleged effect of the defoliants on the health of villagers was investigated by several independent scientific missions but no evidence was found to substantiate claims which had been made.

Since 1971 Australian manufacturers have consistently kept the level of dioxin impurity in 2,4,5-T to less than 0. 1 part per million. This corresponds with the standard established by the Standards Association of Australia and with recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. Systematic sampling by the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry, in conjunction with various State departments of agriculture, has shown that all 2,4,5-T herbicides available in Australia in fact meet this standard. The 2,4-D herbicides cannot contain a dioxin impurity because of the fundamental difference in manufacturing chemistry in this country. I have information relating to the comments of Judge Otto Skopil Perhaps I might be able to give that information at the end of Question Time.

page 1331

QUESTION

CHRYSLER AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and follows the question asked by Senator Bishop concerning Chrysler Australia Ltd. I ask the Minister: Is it the Government’s information, as stated by the Minister in that reply, that the viability of Chrysler Australia Ltd is not considered to be at risk? Is he aware that last year Chrysler Australia made a loss of $27m, Chrysler in the United Kingdom made a loss of £ Stg2 lm, which brings their total accumulated United Kingdom losses up to f Stg 1 1 7m, and the parent company in the United States made a loss of $236m? Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that there are no grounds to believe that Chrysler Australia Ltd is in trouble and that claims that it is in trouble have no credibility?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The views that have been expressed by the Prime Minister and by me in answer to a question in relation to the viability of Chrysler Australia Ltd are based upon the views very firmly held by the company itself as to its commercial position. I would have thought that that company might have known a little more about its commercial position than the Leader of the Opposition or even Senator Bishop. I have had an opportunity of having a closer look at the statement that has been issued by the company today in relation to its future operations. As I indicated in answer to Senator Bishop, a reduction in the work force employed with that company is contemplated in its restructuring program, but the company has said that upon completion of the restructuring program Chrysler Australia Ltd will continue to employ in excess of 4,000 people. It is quite clear from reading the statement that the company is quite confident of the success of the restructuring operations embarked upon, and of strengthening its competitive position in the Australian market and it is clear that it will continue to make a significant contribution to employment in Australia.

page 1332

QUESTION

TASMANIA: TRANSPORT OF GOODS

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport been drawn to the agreement by the Tasmanian Government to provide a guarantee of $ 15m to the proposed Tiger Line shipping operation across Bass Strait from Westernport to Devonport? Is it a fact that there are three basic needs in providing an effective, efficient and competitive transport system for goods to and from Tasmania by sea? Is it a fact that the first need is regularity and frequency of service, the second is an over-capacity to allow for demand surges, and the third is a freight equalisation scheme to make it comparable and competitive with other forms of transport? Is it not a fact that those three basic needs now exist and that with the exception of some aspects of the freight equalisation scheme the system is working extremely well? Has any approach been made to the Commonwealth Government for any form of assistance in this Tiger Line project? Does the Commonwealth regard the introduction of this extra service as likely to improve Tasmanian shipping by added competition or rather as likely to disrupt an existing and satisfactory situation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Rae’s question, I think, has five aspects to it. I will deal first with the second and third parts of the question as I noted them. He asked whether the three basic needs of any sound sea transport system to Tasmania are regularity, over-capacity to cope with extra demands and freight equalisation. Clearly the answer must be yes. He asked whether the needs have been met in recent times and whether the system is working properly. My understanding and advice is that the needs have been met and that the system is working properly. I am not aware of any approach to the Commonwealth Government concerning this new proposal. Therefore I am not aware of any analysis by the Federal Government as to whether the proposal would be good or bad in terms of a sea transport service. The honourable senator is correct in indicating that the nature of such a service is a highly sensitive thing. If such a service is put out of balance harm can result. I will refer those aspects of his question about which I do not have specific knowledge to the Minister for Transport and get the information for him.

page 1332

QUESTION

RADIATION

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity. In view of the increasing amount of information coming from the scientific investigation of the effects of radiation on the human body, which shows fairly conclusively that the dose of radiation that may produce cancer is less than half the amount allowed in industry in Australia, is the Government considering as a matter of urgency initiating an inquiry into the conditions of workers who have worked in such industries over the last 30 years with a view to producing safeguards for workers who are currently subject to radiation in their place of employment?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I do not have any information on the question that Senator Melzer has asked. I will refer the question to the Minister for Productivity and endeavour to obtain an early answer for the honourable senator.

page 1332

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES: STUDENT UNION FEE PAYMENT

Senator PETER BAUME:

-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Does the compulsory student union fee payment at the University of New South Wales include a contribution to the Australian Union of Students? Does the University of New South Wales restrict conscientious objections against payment of this fee to certain strictly defined religious grounds and to nothing else? What are these grounds? Does the University allow conscientious objection on grounds narrower than those applicable to membership of trade unions generally?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Each of the universities and colleges of advanced education appears to have different approaches on these matters. I must pick my way a little carefully in speaking about this matter, because there has been a court case. I am not sure whether an appeal is current. 1 am unaware that an appeal has been lodged, but one may have been lodged. I hope the Senate will pardon my walking a little tenderly. At the University of New South Wales student fees are payable by all students. They comprise fees for membership of the university union, the sports association, the students union and a miscellaneous fee. My advice is that for full-time students the amount involved is $90, which includes $ 14 for membership of the students union. For a new student there is an additional university union entrance fee of $25. The charge required for affiliation of the Students Union with the Australian Union of Students is made from the resources of the Students Union itself which is dependent for its income on the fees collected from students by the university. I think that relates to the first question asked by Senator Baume.

He asked about the question of conscientious objection. I had cause recently to study the enabling Act. I understand that in special cases the registrar of the university may grant exemption on religious grounds from membership of the Students Union subject to the payment of the prescribed membership fees to general university revenue. I think that the grounds are relatively narrow and that I would be correct in sayingbut I would need to check it- that the conscientious objection grounds are more narrow than those applying to trade unions. As to the general trend of Senator Baume ‘s question, the Government has been in the process of discussions with universities and colleges on this matter. The Government is considering the matter in the light of a number of court cases that have arisen exposing certain difficulties in relation to legislation. I think almost all States have such legislation in process one way or another. Generally speaking the Government would take the view that whilst it ought to be competent and obligatory for all students to pay those recreation and sporting fees required to run the orthodox services and amenities, nevertheless students should have an opportunity in terms of general conscience, on whatever grounds, to opt out. That kind of viewpoint has been expressed widely.

Senator Georges:

– You cannot extend that to other people.

Senator CARRICK:

-I take it from Senator Georges’ interjection that he is opposed to any such principle and that the Australian Labor Party therefore is opposed to allowing individuals expressions of conscience.

page 1333

QUESTION

PASSPORTS SYSTEM

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to Senator Withers, the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It concerns our passport issuing system. In view of the lengthy interdepartmental committee meetings that have been held to devise a system that will be less vulnerable to white collar criminals, has he, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Department officials seen the Bulletin of 25 April in which is displayed a report on a documentary glorifying British bank robber Ron Biggs? It appears to give certain clues about the people who helped to circumvent our passport laws. I further ask the Minister: Will he interview the producer of this documentary? The victim of this crime, a British locomotive engineman, died shortly after it had been committed and his wife is getting much less in pension than will be received in the way of profit by the producer of this film.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– My colleague, Mr Peacock, has advised me as follows: Yes, there was an article in the Bulletin of 25 April referring to the possible misuse of passports by one, Ronald Biggs. I am further advised that whilst no specific interdepartmental committee has been formed to devise a passport system which will minimise the incidence of unlawful alteration or the forging of passports the Department of Foreign Affairs maintains a continuous review of passport issuing procedures for this purpose. The Department has recently undertaken a revision of the passport issuing process and an on-line computer system which is presently being introduced will improve the security of passport issuing. Legislation is currently being prepared for consideration by Parliament which will provide a more effective legal basis to administer the Passports Act. One of the main considerations will be to extend the range and definition of passport offences and to prescribe new and more severe penalties. Any additional information arising from the documentary on the Biggs case will be investigated to ascertain whether any offences have been committed under the Passports or Crimes Acts.

page 1333

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM PROJECT

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. There is considerable concern in many areas of the Northern Territory community that developmental work in the so-called uranium province of the Northern Territory may be held up to such a degree that most necessary work may not be carried out this ‘dry’, the ‘dry’ being from now until about November. As the Commonwealth Government is responsible under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to negotiate agreement with the Aboriginal Northern Land Council and as it is a partner in the Ranger project, what action is being taken to resolve the existing problems and to bring about the commencement of work?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– As has been announced previously, the Government is committed to the development of the Ranger uranium project. As the honourable senator would know, the Aboriginal land rights legislation requires that there be agreement between the Northern Land Council and the Commonwealth on the Ranger project. I understand that negotiations are scheduled to commence in Darwin next Monday, 8 May.

page 1334

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES TO CHINA

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. It concerns the sale of 3 million tonnes of wheat to China that was announced by the Australian Wheat Board on 4 July 1977. The contract was to be filled over the 12 months to August 1978. I understand that the price was $93.30 per tonne for Australian standard white. I ask: Were Chicago grain futures exchange net prices for Australian standard white above $93.30 per tonne at the time the contract was announced? Does, or can, the Wheat Board trade on the Chicago futures exchange? Do any discounts apply which could reduce the announced price of $93.30 per tonne?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I doubt whether I can accurately answer the three questions that the honourable senator has asked. I have before me a statement relating to the Australian Wheat Board sales which were referred to in, I think, the Australian Financial Review of today. To which board did the honourable senator refer?

Senator Walsh:

– The Chicago exchange.

Senator Wriedt:

– Have you ever heard of it?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Yes, I have heard of it. I think the answer that I have would be too long and Senator Wriedt would be bound to intervene before I was able to complete it. I think the wisest thing for me to do would be to get an answer from the Minister whom I represent. I will attempt to do that later today.

page 1334

QUESTION

RADIO FREQUENCY SPECTRUM

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of representations made to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications by the Wireless Institute of Australia in August last about illegal transmitting operations throughout the radio frequency spectrum and, in particular, those parts affecting the amateur service? Has the Minister for Post and Telecommunications yet responded to those representations? Can the Minister indicate what action, if any, is being taken to police frequency spectrum usage to prevent interference with legal radio activities?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think there is a growing realisation in Australia of what an important resource, and indeed a scarce resource, the frequency spectrum is. I think that many Australians do not realise just what kind of traffic the spectrum carries and how much we need a police force to police it if we are to get the best use out of it over the whole range of the spectrum. The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is that I am aware of the representations that have been made to the Government by the Wireless Institute of Australia and also by many amateur radio operators expressing concern about the large number of alleged illegal radio operators. It is acknowledged that there is such a degree of usage and that, of course, is highly concentrated in one part of the spectrum, that is, the 27 megahertz region.

The introduction of what is called the community or CRS band has put great demands on the licensing and inspection areas of the Department, resulting in an acute shortage of staff. Honourable senators who attended the Estimates committee hearings yesterday would have had some understanding of the increase in the CRS area. The review of the staffing position has been made and it is expected that in the near future it will be possible vigorously to police the spectrum usage and to prosecute unlicensed operators. The present Wireless Telegraphy Act and Regulations contain no provisions relating to import sales restrictions. There is a possibility that such restrictions will now be reviewed by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. In general, the Government is concentrating on seeing whether it can achieve a more orderly usage of the frequency spectrum itself.

Senator CHANEY:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister’s answer was very full, but there was one small area on which he did not touch. That was whether the Minister for Post and Telecommunications had responded to the representations made to him in August which, as far as I know, were certainly not dealt with for at least five or six months. I wonder if he knows whether his colleague has yet replied in that regard?

Senator CARRICK:

– I do not know whether there has yet been a specific reply, but I will obtain that information and advise the honourable senator accordingly.

page 1334

QUESTION

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister for Social Security by reminding her that some considerable time ago she convened an interdepartmental committee on South Sea Islanders. Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the report of the Committee has been completed and, if so, when it is likely to be presented?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that the report. has been completed. I will inquire as to its status and, if it can be tabled, will see that that is done as soon as possible.

page 1335

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw to the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Gallery of a delegation from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, led by the Honourable Song Wong- Young. The delegation has been in Australia for the past 12 days and has visited five States. I had the pleasure and privilege of receiving them at home in South Australia last week. On behalf of honourable senators I welcome our guests to the Parliament and trust that they have found their visit both interesting and rewarding.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 1335

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORTS TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Earlier today, Senator Sim asked a question concerning a report that, of an European Economic Community beef quota of 140,000 tonnes annually, Australia has provided less than 100,000 tonnes. He asked whether that report was correct and, if so, what was the reason for the shortfall.

I have been advised by my colleague in the other place as follows: Total Community imports of frozen beef from all sources in 1977 are reported to be around 140,000 tonnes. Australian suppliers fared badly during 1977, and our exports fell to 12,700 tonnes. This compares with 17,500 tonnes in 1976.

The reasons for Australia’s limited opportunities to sell in the market arise from the EEC’s variable levy scheme, which adds to the landed price of Australian beef a levy of up to $2,800 per tonne. This makes our beef sold under the levy system uncompetitive in that market. The only real opportunity for Australia to sell in the EEC is under the so-called special quotas operating outside the normal levy scheme.

At this stage, it appears unlikely that Australian suppliers will be able to improve significantly on their export performance to the EEC last year. Very high import levies are continuing to exclude Australian beef. In addition, the Community has limited imports, under balance sheet quotas, to only 50,000 tonnes (carcass weight) and has imposed the additional restriction of making these quotas conditional on prior purchases from Community intervention stocks.

This situation is clearly unsatisfactory. Australia is continuing to press the EEC, both bilaterally and in the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva, for more liberal access to their beef market. This is one of the grievances which the Minister for Special Trade Representations is taking up during his current visit to Brussels and capitals of the member states.

page 1335

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND-AUSTRALIA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Archer asked me a question concerning recent discussions under the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I have been advised by my colleague in the other place as follows:

The Minister for Trade and Resources and the Minister for Industry and Commerce had discussions with New Zealand Ministers in Canberra on 18 April 1978 to review developments under NAFTA. In these discussions no changes were made to arrangements in trading with New Zealand under NAFTA affecting Australian producers of cheese, vegetables, timber and paper pulp. However the discussions did canvass some issues which would be of direct interest to the industries concerned.

Australian Ministers drew the attention of their New Zealand counterparts to representations received recently from the Australian industry in connection with imports of cheese from New Zealand. It was agreed that this question would be referred to appropriate authorities for consultation.

The Ministers noted that questions related to forest products continued to play a very important role in developing the NAFTA trading relationship. The concern of the New Zealand Government at reports of possible development of major additional capacity in the Australian newsprint industry was discussed and it was agreed that officials should watch closely developments in this area and report regularly to Ministers on implications for the NAFTA relationship.

The attention of New Zealand Ministers was also drawn to Australian industry concern regarding imports of frozen peas and beans from New Zealand. It was agreed a further meeting of the Joint Pea and Bean Industry Panel could discuss this question. Since that time further discussions have been held with the Australian industry in the Australian Pea and Bean Industry Panel. The industry has requested an exchange of views between Australian and New Zealand officials before a further meeting of the Joint Industry Panel is held.

page 1336

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES: STUDENT UNION FEE PAYMENT

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Earlier today Senator Baume asked me a question on student fees and particularly their relationship to conscientious objection as it applies in trade unions. I can now advise him that an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in 1 977 provides that where a person satisfies the Industrial Registrar that his conscientious beliefs do not allow him to be a member of a trade union, the Registrar shall issue to the person a certificate to that effect. Conscientious beliefs are defined as:

  1. . any conscientious beliefs, whether the grounds for the beliefs are or are not of a religious character and whether the beliefs are or are not part of the doctrine of any religion.

So quite clearly Senator Baume is correct in saying that trade unions have a wider opting out provision for conscientious objection than would a tertiary institution relying on religious beliefs only.

page 1336

QUESTION

DIOXIN

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Earlier today Senator Missen asked me a question which related to herbicides. Further advice I have is that information is being sought by the Department of Primary Industry on the circumstances surrounding the injunction by the United States District Judge Otto Skopil on 7 March 1977 against the use of phenoxy herbicides by the United States Forest Service. Information is available on numerous similar injunctions sought and several granted against the United States Forest Service prior to this date for failure to conform with a National Environmental Policy Act requirement for the filing of environmental impact statements. The toxicity or hazard of 2,4,5-T, per se, was not the basis for the ruling in any of these cases.

The Department of Primary Industry has no knowledge of claims made by Kevin Twigg of Kyabram, Victoria, of illnesses suffered by him resulting from herbicide usage. The issue appears to be more properly the province of State health authorities. Mr Twigg is, however, a member of the Australian Community Health Civil Rights Association and has made representations to a number of Commonwealth and State authorities seeking the banning of certain herbicides.

Extensive scientific investigations by overseas authorities have been evaluated by appropriate expert committees in Australia and is has been judged that the currently approved uses of phenoxy-acid herbicides including 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, do not represent a hazard to health or the environment. Under current circumstances there appears to be no justification for further restricting the availability of these materials. The matter is, however, being kept under continuing review and appropriate action will be taken should new scientific evidence become available requiring a variation of current practice.

page 1336

QUESTION

PELICANS: DISEASE

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Yesterday Senator Keeffe asked me a question relating to Newcastle disease in certain birds, and I now wish to answer his question. Following the slaughter out of a Cairns bird park involved in the illegal parrot importation from which a Newcastle disease virus was isolated in September 1977, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries has been monitoring the disease status of wild birds, including pelicans, as well as sentinel flocks of poultry in areas close to the bird park. The continuous monitoring has not shown any evidence of the spread of Newcastle disease virus from the bird park where stock was slaughtered. During the course of this monitoring, pelicans which have been examined have shown very heavy burdens of internal and external parasites. These parasite burdens have been heavy enough to cause death. The increase in the number of pelicans in the area is a result of migration of these birds from the drought affected hinterland. Following a recent incident where a member of the public took a sick pelican to a local private veterinarian, the Department of Primary Industries in Cairns searched the area where the bird was found. There were approximately 35 wild pelicans but there was no evidence that any of them were sick. A continuing watch will be kept on these birds.

page 1336

QUESTION

MERINO RAM EXPORTS

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have to hand an answer to two questions raised by Senator McLaren relating to the ban on the export of merino rams. Senator Walsh also asked a question about this matter yesterday. The answer is lengthy and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The answer read as follows-

For most of the time since 1 3 April the Minister for Primary Industry has been out of Australia, so that the Australian Government could hardly be expected to reach a decision on a matter such as the relaxation of the restriction on the export of merino rams. However, before his departure the Minister directed that certain matters relevant to this issue be investigated by his departmental officers and there have also been arrangements made for further discussions between other parties interested in the issues. As indicated by the Minister in a Press release dated 10 March 1978, the Government would hope that a resolution of the issues relevant to this matter could be reached prior to the ram sales in July.

It is relevant that the Minister has been advised by the Australian Wool Industry Conference that that body is in favour of relaxing the ban to permit the export of a limited number of rams each year and with arrangements for a review of the effects of the exports of rams. Mr Sinclair himself believes there is a sound reason for lifting the merino ban to a limited degree and on a trial basis as recommended by the AWIC.

The history of the current restrictions on the export of merino sheep dates back to 1929 when the government of the day imposed an embargo on the export of breeding sheep of all breeds. Some 5,000 merino breeding sheep left the country just before the ban was imposed, an immeasurably greater number than has been exported before or since. Over the years the embargo has been relaxed so that the export of breeding sheep of all breeds except the merino is now permitted. This includes the export of corriedale sheep which have some 50 per cent merino blood and of polwarth sheep which might be regarded as having some 75 per cent merino blood.

The main opposition to lifting the merino ban comes from two quarters- some woolgrowers and some members of the Australian Workers Union which covers the shearing industry. There are some persons who suggest that allowing increased competition at ram sales will lead to increases in the price of merino rams for breeding. About 130,000 stud rams are sold each year by members of the Stud Merino Breeders Association alone. It is difficult to believe that the sale of 300 merino rams at auctions for export overseas will have any effect on the prices of those rams used in producers ‘ flocks.

Sales of stud rams at auctions conducted by the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders (AASMB) amount to about a thousand rams each year. It is the members of the Association who buy and sell the rams. It is members of the Association who could be called upon to bid higher prices at auctions if there was strong opposition from overseas buyers. The executive of the Stud Merino Breeders Association is examining the possibility of placing a surcharge on merino rams purchased at auctions which are subsequently nominated for export. This could negate any adverse effect on the prices of rams purchased by Australian stud masters. There is another view that the export of merino sheep amounts to selling some part of Australia ‘s heritage. This view seems to be in the minds of some unionists opposed to relaxing the export ban. Against that argument all the genes in the Australian merino were originally imported. Many stud sheep were exported prior to 1929 and there have been no infusions of new blood into the local stud since that time. In a sense, the horse bolted years ago.

Furthermore, it is well recognised that the merino sheep is the product of and is particularly adapted to the Australian environment and it has reached that stage through many generations of selection for the particular circumstances to which stud masters adapt their sheep. The merino in Spain is nowadays, I understand, mainly prized as a meat sheep. The Russians are reported to have used the merinos they purchased during the relaxation of the ban in the early 1970’s for crossing with local sheep with both meat and wool characteristics in mind. It is interesting that most of the sheep purchased in the period 1970-73 were of the big framed type producing the broader styles of fleece, almost certainly purchased with the prospect of breeding a meat producing animal in mind.

There has been a series of discussions between the AASMB and the unions in an attempt to reach a consensus on this issue. Even though a consensus has not been reached the discussions have, I understand, been undertaken between men of goodwill and on the basis of reasoned argument. These discussions are continuing. It seems that union representatives would raise no objection to the relaxation of the merino export ban if yet another referendum were to be held on the issue. This is in accord, as I understand it, with current Australian Labor Party policy. To conduct a similar referendum of all woolgrowers is estimated to cost in the vicinity of $500,000 today and would probably result in a similar fiasco to the 1973 referendum.

All commercial woolgrowers were entitled to vote at the 1973 referendum. Because of partnership arrangements some small properties had several votes while very large companies had one. Less than 50 per cent of those entitled to vote did so and the embargo was retained on the basis of about a 26 per cent Yes vote of those entitled to vote in 1973. 1 agree with Mr Sinclair that it is difficult in these circumstances to accept the referendum as an equitable representation of the industry’s point of view. I believe that any reasonable union member would probably have to concede that point of view as well. The stud merino breeders have till now not pushed a case for the immediate lifting of the ban to the extreme because they have been attempting to reach consensus with the unions. They point out that the stud industry is a labour intensive one and employs many AWU members. They also point out that they are one of the few groups in the country not permitted to sell their goods freely- they are in the one basket with opium poppy and marihuana growers.

They also point out that the dollar price of stud rams is no better now than 10 years ago, although their costs have increased drastically in the meantime. They feel that if the stock they have to maintain are so valuable people should be prepared to assist them to cover their costs, because they have been having a very thin time for over a decade and are not normally in situations where it is possible to diversify their production. Studs are being dispersed and this will become more common unless something is done to help their profitability.

The 1967 White Paper of the then Australian Wool Board referred to by Senator Walsh on 2 May did not include the notion that increased wool production would lead to higher wool prices. In essence it states that ‘it is improbable that gradual changes in the nature of the world wool supply will depress price’. These views are supported by recent Department of Primary Industry studies.

page 1338

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Grimes proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The damage to community relations and the reputation of our system of justice resulting from the conduct of the authorities in the alleged social security frauds in Sydney.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the Sessional Orders having risen in their places-

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– It is for several reasons that I raise this matter of public importance, namely, the damage to the community relations and the reputation of our system of justice resulting from the conduct of the authorities in the alleged social security frauds in Sydney. The proposal is worded in this broad way because we believe that many problems have arisen out of this scandal which began one month ago. We believe that there is a section of the community which is concerned that it has been treated in a discriminatory manner and has not received justice in the sense that it has been accused of being guilty rather than presumed to be innocent. It has been concerned about how it will be treated in the future. We believe it is time that the Government, through its Ministers, made a detailed statement to this Parliament and that this Parliament has the right to debate the circumstances which have arisen.

I shall briefly go through the history of the matter. On Friday, 3 1 March, and on the weekend, 1 and 2 April this year, 83 people, including five doctors and four people who were described as recruiting agents, were arrested and charged in Sydney with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth by wrongfully obtaining sickness benefits and invalid pensions. Since that time there have been further arrests and at the moment we believe that the number charged with conspiracy has increased to 176 people. In addition it has been reported that approximately 1,000 or more people are involved. In the Age of 4 April 1978, Chief Inspector Don Thomas, the police officer in charge of the case, is quoted as saying outside the Central Court of Petty Sessions in Sydney that the police had identified more than 1,000 people involved in the alleged conspiracy’ and that ‘hopefully all 1,000 of these people will be charged’. Almost all those charged are of Greek descent.

On 19 April 1978 the Director-General of the Department of Social Security reportedly told Miss Isabel Lukas, who is the ethnic reporter for the Sydney Morning Herald, that more than 500 people of Greek origin had had their pensions or benefits suspended pending investigation. At a meeting called by the Greek Orthodox community held in Paddington on 20 April 1 978, the Acting Director of the New South Wales Branch of the Department of Social Security told those present that some 500 or more people had had their benefits suspended, that they had been notified in writing in English and that, in any case of hardship resulting from this, the Department would sympathetically consider restoring the benefit or pension.

As is well known, the arrests and the charges did not come as a surprise to many honourable senators on both sides of this chamber, or to many members of the Greek community itself. It is not suggested by the Opposition or by the Greek community that there is no justification for any of the charges or the investigations, and I make no comment on the guilt or innocence of those who have been charged. Of course, that matter should be left to the courts. The Opposition knew there would be investigations and we on this side avoided comment because we did not want to interfere with the course of justice. However, aspects of the case, aspects of the conduct of the investigations and consequent events have caused considerable disquiet not only in the Greek community but also in the ethnic community in general and amongst concerned people in the community at large. The Opposition believes that these expressions of concern have not been answered by the Government or by any Minister of the Government. The matters of concern do not come under the heading of matters sub judice and I believe they should be answered in this Parliament, because it is important that justice is seen to be done, that hardship is not occurring and that the situation of people not born in Australia being treated as secondclass citizens should not be created or, if already created, should be eradicated.

It is now one month since the case first reached the public eye. How many more people will be arrested we do not know. But there is a situation of uncertainty in the community which needs clearing up. I along with all members of the Opposition, and I am sure all other members of this Parliament, have no sympathy for anybody who would exploit our social security system illegally. Equally we seek assurance that in the pursuit of such offenders- such people who illegally use our social security system- innocent people will not be affected directly or indirectly. I believe it is obvious that there is disquiet in the community. Two large meetings of members of the Greek community have been held to express their uneasiness at the situation. Spokesmen, including His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos and welfare workers in the community have expressed their concern about effects on individuals in the community. The Ethnic Communities Council, representing some 200 or 300 organisations, has written to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to ensure that he is aware of the fact that people are being considered guilty by the Department and by the Government before being convicted.

It is time that a statement was made to the community at large through this Parliament, answering the questions raised and explaining some of the events which have occurred. The first big question to be answered concerns the events preceding the arrests and the charges that were laid. We were told when I raised this matter in the Parliament previously that the alleged conspiracy occurred in 1976 and 1977 and may, in fact, go back to 1971. We were told by the Minister that members of the Greek community informed the Department and the Commonwealth Police of what was happening and initiated this investigation.

The first question is: How did a conspiracy of this size which, according to the Inspector concerned, involved more than 1,000 people who were largely members of one community in one section of a city, and which involved a handful of medical practitioners, concerning psychiatric illness and, allegedly, a large number of portable pensions, go undetected by officers of the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health? What steps to prevent further abuses were taken when members of the community informed the Department of what was happening? It is inconceivable to me and the Opposition that if any reasonable review procedures of the number of people receiving various pensions and benefits in the community were in existence these alleged people were not detected. What sort of review procedures existed then? What review procedures exist now? If they exist now, are they adequate to cope with alleged conspiracies of this type?

I now refer to the events which led up to the arrests. We are dealing with a group of people many of whom do not have a good knowledge of English and who have very little knowledge of our social security system and our system of justice. Their own country has a tradition of using a paid go-between when dealing with the bureaucracy. A further factor may be that for a time civil liberties were recently suspended in their own country. It was reported- to my knowledge it has not been denied- that telephone tapping was used in this investigation. In this country we are reluctant to accept the use of such methods except in cases of national security and serious crime. It is my information that such methods were used. Why were they necessary? To what extent was telephone interception used?

I turn to the arrests. Why was it necessary to make the arrests at the weekend? Why was it necessary to make them en masse on a couple of days early in the morning? Such tactics raise fears, not only in the Greek community but also in other communities in our country, of heavy police action. Senator Ryan will be dealing later with the Press coverage of this case. According to Press reports the raids on 3 1 March by the Commonwealth Police were made with Press accompaniment. According to the Sun newspaper in Sydney, observers accompanied the Commonwealth Police, saw their actions and reported on the arrests and on how people were taken from doctors’ surgeries. We believe that that is unusual. We want to know under what circumstances the press accompanied the police in this way. We want to know whether they were informed by the police of what was going on. According to other reports, and reports in the Sun itself, the investigations and the lead-up to the arrests were made in great secrecy, with great care, to avoid alerting the people involved to what was going on.

Allegations have been made by people who were arrested, by their lawyers and by responsible citizens, that houses and doctors’ surgeries were entered by police who had no warrants. If they had warrants they did not show them. Allegations were also made that people were not informed of their rights. If they were informed they did not understand them and in many cases they did not know what was happening to them. If these allegations had been made by Australian born Anglo-Saxon, members of our community they would have caused a considerable furore and would have resulted in an investigation. Further allegations were made by responsible citizens that the interpreters available to the people who were arrested and under investigation were Commonwealth Police interpreters or Commonwealth employees and that those charged felt intimidated by the absence of independent interpreters when they were being questioned and asked to sign statements. In the regulations of the Department of Social SecurityI concede that this was a police investigation and not an investigation by the Department of Social Security- it is listed that where possible independent interpreters shall be used when taking statements from people suspected of misappropriating benefits or pensions from the Department. How typical is the experience of Mr Michael Horafios of 42 Watkin Street, Newtown in New South Wales, who is one of many people who have complained? He has written a letter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. I am perfectly happy to table the letter after I read it. He wrote:

Dear Sir,

Two days ago I had a very bad pain in my spine. I was on compensation for an injury at work which I received one and a half years ago. I went to my doctor for this pain.

I arrived at the doctor’s surgery at 9.30 a.m. The secretary said the doctor was not working. But in the surgery there were Commonwealth police who asked if I was receiving sick benefits. I answered I was because they could see my name on the files anyway.

I gave them my doctor’s, solicitor’s and insurance papers as statement of my innocence of anything wrong. But they kept me in the surgery until 1 p.m. then took me to their office. I did not want to go but had no choice..

They asked me questions and took two photos of me. That concerns me because I am not a criminal. I must be sure that they will destroy those papers and photos.

They asked me to sign the paper of questions and answers. That was alright because I told the truth. But they asked me to say I had no complaints (see Question 30) and was happy with the treatment. Of course I had complaints. I was not happy, but I was frightened of them (there were three police with me) so I signed that too. I do want to complain. I was held by them all day and then they made a record of me although I am an innocent man.

I am very concerned about my sickness benefit because it is my only means of support.

Please advise and help me.

Thank you,

MICK HORAFIOS

That letter was dated 19 April 1978. I do not think there is any question, from investigations I have made, that Mr Horafios was held by the police from 9.30 in the morning until 5.30 in the afternoon. To my knowledge up until this morning he has not been charged with any offence. Many people were held for a long time and have not been charged in these circumstances. The letter raises a further complaint which has been made frequently by people involved in the case, that is that they were plucked out of the waiting rooms of doctors’ surgeries. They were removed from the waiting rooms because they were of Greek descent or had Greek names while others sitting in the surgeries were left and were not investigated. Arising from this is the fact that doctors’ records were seized from their files. An answer should be given as to who has had access to those files, what copies have been kept and where those files are now. The Australian Medical Association has expressed concern in this matter.

The events as I have outlined them and the allegations made, which at least give the appearance of police discrimination, cause some concern as to the protection of civil liberties in our country. These concerns should have been answered by now by more than general statements about the worthiness of the Greek community and platitudes about our desire to help migrants. I believe that when people such as His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos express concern it is appropriate that a member of the Government, not a public servant, should visit His Eminence. It is my belief that it would have been more appropriate for a supporter of the Government, preferably a Minister, to have attended the large meeting of the Greek Orthodox community which was held in Paddington than for several public servants to attend, as happened. Those public servants were, of course, limited in what they could say and how they could handle some of the questions that would obviously arise.

A further problem arises in this case in respect of the nature of the charges. I do not wish to speak at any length on this matter because I claim no legal expertise. The question of the use of the charge of conspiracy has been raised with me not only by lawyers in the Greek community but also by other experienced lawyers. The use of charges of this type has been frequently criticised by judges in our courts. As far back as 1930, which is as far back as I have been able to go, considerable criticism was made of the use of a conspiracy charge in cases such as the one we are now considering. The use of the term ‘conspiracy’ adds a further unfortunate aspect to the case because it has unfortunate connotations to people from Greece. The differences between the nature of a conspiracy charge in this country and the nature of a conspiracy charge in Greece have not been explained to or understood by the people in the Greek community. One can imagine the feelings of people in Greece reading in Greek newspapers that their relatives in Australia had been charged with conspiracy. That charge in that country implies conspiracy to overthrow the government. However, as I have said, that is a matter about which I am certainly not expert and into which I certainly cannot go in any depth.

I turn to what has happened in the period since the charges were made. Hardship has arisen from the charges being made. That hardship has arisen not only in respect of those who were deprived of their benefits because they had been charged but also in respect of those who were deprived of their benefits pending investigation and before they had been charged. Archbishop Stylianos who is the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox archdiocese of Australia, was given assurances by a senior representative of the Department of Social Security that members of his community would not be deprived of their benefits until charged. We have now been told by two senior officials of the Department that some 500 people have in fact been deprived of benefits pending investigation. They were informed by letters written in English that their benefits had been stopped. That was the first notification they received that their benefits had been stopped. The feeling in the community generally- not just in the Greek community- is that the Department has decided that citizens are guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty. This feeling is common among all ethnic groups and is the basis of a letter which has been written to the Prime Minister by the Ethnic Communities Council.

We are faced with the very real problem of benefits being suspended pending investigation of the charges and of those benefits being suspended on the say-so of a list of names given by the Commonwealth Police. In my presence at meetings of the Greek community the Department has assured members of the Greek community that it will consider all cases of hardship which arise out of this procedure. I believe that the Department should actually consider matters of hardship before pensions or benefits are suspended. I believe that the Department is dealing with the matter the wrong way around. The review of cases of hardship is a slow and difficult process in a department which is very busy at times of high unemployment and great social problems as we have now. We believe that if assurances were given to the Archbishop they should be kept. We certainly believe that the Archbishop was given assurances. I accept that the Department has restored some benefits, even in a couple of cases to people who have been charged. But we have no idea of and have not been able to obtain any information about how many people have had their benefits restored. I repeat that the procedure is slow. Social workers in the Greek communities in the Marrickville and Redfern areas of Sydney have been flooded with work from people who have been caught up in this investigation and the suspension of benefits. The Smith Family, the St Vincent de Paul Society and other groups have had to render assistance to people who are suffering hardship and to destitute families.

An unfortunate consequence of this case was that immediately after the blaze of publicity that arose, which all of us read in the Press and about which Senator Ryan will talk later, there was a reluctance and in many cases a refusal by doctors in some areas to see Greek patients or to issue them with sickness certificates. This situation still applies. Social workers assisting members of the Greek community have had to take patients to public hospitals and public health centres like the Marrickville Health Centre to ensure that they get treatment and service. For a time the public hospitals and health centres were the only places that would treat these people. On one occasion when I was with a group of social workers I was told that two of them had spent most of the morning finding out from local doctors who would see patients from the Greek communities and who would not.

Problems have occurred of discrimination at work based on the publicity that was given to this case, as I am afraid they always will occur in such circumstances. We always have people in the community who are only too happy to discriminate against various ethnic groups for their own peculiar reasons. Discrimination has arisen out of the sort of publicity given to this case. One understands from reports that the Commissioner for Community Relations has had before him several such cases which he is investigating and on which he is to take action. All the time that this case has been going on there have been no statements of support from the Government, apart from the statement by Mr MacKellar and a couple of assurances that the Government cares about migrants. There has been no more than that. There was no visit to the community which could have reassured the people in the community and helped them in the difficulties they face. Anyone who talks to the leaders of the Greek community cannot help but be concerned about the obvious unease that is felt at all levels of the community. This unease has not been ameliorated by the exchanges that have taken place between the community and the Government representatives who have been sent along. The Archbishop stated quite clearly on a television program that he was not satisfied with the explanation he was given by the representatives of the community.

I am certainly not suggesting and the members of the Greek community are not suggesting that all the allegations are correct. But I certainly have been impressed by the responsible and careful language used by those who have made those allegations. I have certainly seen evidence of hardship and examples of people obviously suffering disabilities from being left without pensions or benefits as a result of this situation. There is a distinct impression in the Greek community that its members have been put upon and singled out for special treatment. Nothing anyone has said has been able to relieve that feeling. There is evidence that the Greek community as a whole is suffering from the alleged actions of a few people. This feeling has arisen partly out of the unfortunate nature of some of the publicity this case has been given. But I believe it has been exacerbated by the failure of the Government to investigate the problems and to look at the difficulties which are obviously there. There is a feeling that the lack of response by the Government and the Department to the questions raised by the community illustrates a casual attitude at a time when it is believed that the Greek community has advanced a long way in getting acceptance in our multicultural society.

What is the present situation? We know that 1 76 people- perhaps more- have been arrested. We have been told that 500 people or more have had their pensions suspended but that some benefits have been reinstated. We have no idea how many. We know that the officer in charge of the investigation predicted confidently that 1,000 arrests were likely to be made. He said that 1,000 people were involved yet, one month later to the day, only 176 people have been arrested. We know that doctors are refusing to treat people of Greek descent. We know that serious allegations and questions have been raised about the conduct of the authorities and the Commonwealth Police in this case. There is an uncertainty and an unease in the Greek community in all sections and at all levels. There are allegations and undoubtedly there are cases of discrimination occurring as a result of this case. What is happening in fact is that a group of citizens in our community have a genuine feeling that they are being put upon and that they are being discriminated against. When they came to this country they were told that we have a British system of justice which believes that people are innocent until they are proven guilty. Yet they have seen members of their own community lose benefits without being charged and without being investigated on the say so of a group other than the Department which gives those benefits and without consideration of what hardship that may bring.

There are, of course, other aspects which have arisen and which will cause concern in the future. Members of other ethnic communities have expressed concern that they might be next. Is the Department going to go from one community to another investigating alleged rackets like this? Members of the Greek community, knowing of the prediction of 1,000 arrests, have waited a month for those arrests to be made, but they have not been made. They are, of course, on tenter-hooks and they have suffered disadvantages because of this case. We know very well that there is great difficulty and hardship in the community. One cannot but believe that the officers of the Minister’s Department in New South Wales and the welfare workers in New South Wales have not informed her senior public servants of what is happening.

It is a situation which cannot be allowed to go on. It is a situation which calls for the Government to investigate carefully the serious allegations that have been made, to review carefully the procedures of the Department and to review carefully the manner in which these people were investigated and arrests were made. It calls for a full statement to this Parliament of the details of the case from go to whoa. We call for a full statement on where we stand now and where the people in the Greek community stand so that their very real worries can be allayed and so that they, whether naturalised or not, can feel that they live in a country in which they will be treated on an equal footing with all other members of the community.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator Grimes has introduced this matter of public importance in which he has stated that he is concerned at the damage to community relations and the reputation of our system of justice resulting from the conduct of the authorities in the alleged social security frauds in Sydney. Senator Grimes stated that he presented a broadly worded motion so that he could encompass many matters in debating it. It is fair to say that he has done that, but also that he has made many allegations. In his original comments he referred to the matter as a scandal. He asserted also that a section of the community had been charged and was regarded as guilty until it was proven innocent. His motion refers to our system of justice. I remind him that no one who is charged before the courts in this country is regarded as being guilty until a decision is taken by the court itself. That is the first observation I wish to make about the matters that he has raised today. I point out also that the arrests and charges that have been laid follow procedures in the Australian courts. He should be aware that that is our system of justice. Senator Grimes preferred to call it a scandal and preferred to say that people are considered to be guilty until proven innocent, but in doing so he is disregarding the system of justice in this country.

Several matters have been raised by Senator Grimes specifically. I hope that during the time I have to speak on this matter I will be able to answer many of them. Before dealing with some of the matters on which I wish to make specific comments, I make the statement that I am assured by the Director-General of Social Services that there is no basis at all for the suggestion that persons with Greek sounding names are being singled out for discrimination. The fact that the arrests and the investigations that have been conducted have been predominantly concerned with people who would describe themselves as members of the Greek community arises from the nature of the alleged fraud against the social security system. It is alleged that a number of agents who have been working with members of the Greek community have sought out members of the Greek community who wanted or needed to obtain pensions to which they otherwise might not have been entitled and that these agents obtained large payments of money from these people for obtaining for them the award of a pension. It is alleged also that members of the medical profession were involved in this particular fraud. I know that is a matter that is being dealt with in the courts. Despite what Senator Grimes said about the matter not being sub judice, there are things that cannot be said in this debate today which have relevance to some of the comments made by Senator Grimes. I am somewhat constrained in what I can say on the matter of the obtaining of evidence- evidence which is held by the Commonwealth Police- and the way in which it will be presented in the courts in due course.

However, I do want to say that practically all those people who have received letters from the Department in conjunction with the review of their sickness benefits or their pension payments have been patients of one of the six doctors arrested in this case. The only cases to be reviewed are those where there is strong evidence to indicate that eligibility for a pension or a benefit may not exist. There has not been and there will not be any interference with payments to persons who have been granted benefits on the basis of medical evidence which is not under challenge. Therefore, I assert most strongly that there is not a general investigation of persons who can be regarded as being of Greek descent or who would class themselves as members of the Greek community. The cases where claims are to be reviewed are those where there is strong evidence to indicate that they may not be eligible for the pension or benefit which they now receive.

As far as the investigations themselves are concerned, they are being conducted by the Commonwealth Police. It is, of course, not within my own Department’s responsibility. However, I wish to present the facts which have relevance to this matter as they have been presented to me by the Commonwealth Police. If any evidence is held by Senator Grimes, or by anybody else who wishes to present it, that the normal legal practices have not been followed in any individual case, it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities and, in particular, the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) should be advised. The matter of suspension of payments is one that I should like to clarify, particularly in response to some of the comments that were made by Senator Grimes. Lists were provided to my departmental offices by the Commonwealth Police of persons who were under investigation, some of whom have been charged at this stage. A letter was sent to each person concerned- not to an indiscriminate group of people, but to people who should, in the opinion of the Commonwealth Police, be subjected to investigation because of the nature of the conspiracy which they were investigatingone letter to persons receiving sickness benefits and one to persons who receive the invalid pension. A Press statement of 19 April made it clear that if medical examinations could not be arranged before the next payment was due the pension or benefit would continue in the meantime. I think Senator Grimes has misunderstood the practice and procedure of the Department as he has outlined them in this debate today. The Press statement made it clear that if medical examinations could not be arranged before the next payment was due, that pension or benefit would continue in the meantime.

Senator Grimes:

– That did not happen.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Press statement made the additional point that no person who is in financial difficulty should fear that he would be left without income.

Senator Grimes:

– They were.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-There is a special benefit provision within the Department so that a person without income can receive a benefit. I take issue with what Senator Grimes said about that being after the event instead of before it, or something like that. He seems to overlook completely the eligibility requirements of all pensions and benefits. If the eligibility is not able to be sustained, special benefit is the appropriate way to deal with that need.

Senator Grimes:

– You are contradicting your own officers.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am relating to the Senate the advice on this matter that I have received from my Director-General. If Senator Grimes wishes to say that I cannot rely on the advice of my Director-General, let him make that statement more clearly than perhaps he is prepared to make it now. If at the interview stage of the people who have been subjected to review it becomes clear that they are not eligible for a pension or a benefit the entitlement is not restored. It could be that a person has an income which precludes him from receipt of a pension or a benefit. It could be that other matters which come within the ambit of eligibility have not been able to be sustained and the person does not receive restoration of his pension.

The Department has not at any time issued any statement or correspondence which could give the Greek community in general any cause for concern. That these frauds have been perpetrated by people who may be classed as members of the Greek community is a fact that has been highlighted by the Press. I have already referred with some regret to the way in which the presentation of the Press material could have led to a feeling of discrimination. That feeling has not been created as the result of statements that have been made by me or by anyone in my Department. I think it is regrettable that a feeling of discrimination has arisen from perhaps the way in which the matter has been reported in the Press.

I refer now to the handling of the welfare needs of the members of the community concerned. We have made arrangements with the Greek welfare centre in Sydney for it to have special access to the Department for prompt treatment of any needy cases that arise. I have certainly instructed my Director-General and the Department in general that assistance of the type that may be needed should be given without question.

Senator Grimes referred to medical examinations and the difficulties that some members of the Greek community have suffered in trying to obtain the medical advice and examination that they require. I am advised that arrangements have been made with the Department of Health to carry out as quickly as possible the medical examination of all invalid pension cases that are under review. In all, more than 100 examinations probably will be necessary. The Department of Health is ready to give assistance to determine the eligibility of all cases which are under review if any difficulties are being found with other medical people.

Senator Grimes:

– But they are knocked off before their eligibility is questioned.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The cases are being reviewed. The people concerned are not having their payments stopped until they have been medically reviewed. I would like to know of any cases Senator Grimes can bring forward of people who have had a pension stopped before their medical review has been carried out. It is quite contrary to instructions and to my understanding of the situation.

Senator Grimes:

– Well, that is what has happened.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Let us see the evidence, Senator Grimes, instead of just charges.

Senator Grimes:

– You will. The evidence comes from your own officers ‘ words.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Senator Grimes should bring forward the names of individuals. He should show me the evidence -

Senator Grimes:

– I am relying on your officers ‘ words now.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Would the honourable senator rely on the advice of the DirectorGeneral? I could arrange for the honourable senator to talk with him.

Senator Grimes:

– He was one of the people who said so.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think that the advice which Senator Grimes has been collecting all around the place may have been better based if he had gone to the Director-General or to my office to find out what information we could give on this matter. If he wishes to exploit the matter for his own ends I think it is regrettable. Sickness beneficiaries whose eligibility is under review are required to produce fresh medical evidence if they require their payments to continue. If any person has difficulty in arranging a medical examination for this purpose- some Press reports are alleging that private doctors are refusing to examine these cases- the matter should be reported to my Department which will arrange for a medical examination.

No particular reference was made by Senator Grimes to those people who are resident in Greece at present. There is a procedure for reviewing cases in Greece. It is along lines similar to those in Australia. Pensioners are being asked to attend for an interview and, if necessary, a medical examination is arranged. As I understand it, about 70 per cent of those interviewed have been found to be ineligible for invalid pensions following medical examination. The others are qualifying for an age pension under the requirements of the age pension provisions.

I said that I would give advice on many of the matters which Senator Grimes has raised and on which he has asked for specific information. I will read from a report on this matter that has been given to me by the Commonwealth Police. The Commonwealth Police state that the investigations into this large scale fraud on the Commonwealth commenced in October 1976. The investigation resulted from confidential interviews which were held in the Department of Social Security by members of the Greek community who advised the Department that they were aware of malpractices in the obtaining of invalid pensions amongst members of the Greek community in Australia. In March 1977 the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age published articles revealing that government departments and the Commonwealth Police were cooperating to investigate a multi-million dollar fraud involving a Greek doctor in Sydney. Whilst not naming people as ‘Greeks’ the articles went on to say that the doctor was alleged to have given hundreds of fraudulent medical certificates to migrants who had used them to secure social welfare benefits. The Commonwealth Police regard these articles as being printed in bad taste. They were certainly written without reference to the Commonwealth Police. They had the effect of bringing about a temporary cessation of the medical malpractice which by then was evident to the investigators. It was not until September 1977, following consultation with the DirectorGeneral of the Department of Social Security, that investigations could be recommenced. This followed receipt of information that the medical conspiracies had begun again.

The Commonwealth Police report goes on to refer to the people who have been charged and who have, through independent interpreters, made admissions involving themselves, gobetweens and one or other of the medical practitioners charged. This evidence is held by the Commonwealth Police. I do not wish to traverse it in the Senate prior to hearings in the court. The arrest operations were carried out in March and April. This resulted, as I advised in the Senate yesterday, in 176 persons being charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. These people were remanded on varying bail for hearings in June of this year. On each occasion Assistant Commissioner J. D. Davies attended the briefing of the police members engaged in the exercises and suitably instructed them as to the need for courtesy and understanding of the problems of migrants. Mr Davies was actually present on three of the six occasions when the larger groups of patients were brought to the New South Wales headquarters of the Commonwealth Police for interrogation. He made frequent visits amongst those being interviewed and those awaiting interview. In no case did he detect any police intimidation, harassment, breach of civil liberties or any irregularity whatsoever in police procedures.

Senator Georges:

– He would be the last to say so though, would he not?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am reading from the statement from the Commonwealth Police. It is stated that Mr Davies did not detect any intimidation, harassment, breach of civil liberties or any irregularity in police procedures. In many cases wives and friends accompanied the people who were being interviewed by the police. The matter of interpretation at these investigations ought to be subjected to some comment. Up to 12 official Greek interpreters- five from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and seven from the New South Wales Premiers Department’s interpreting panel- were made available from time to time as well as three Greek speaking members of the Commonwealth Police. In such cases, however it was arranged for an official interpreter to read over the records of interview to persons before they signed them. Senator Grimes’ comment that people were’ harassed into signing statements is therefore untenable. I do not find it sustained by the report I have from the Commonwealth Police.

Another claim made by Senator Grimes is that homes were entered without warrants. I am advised that the entry into the homes of pensioners was covered in detail at the Commonwealth Police briefings. The police were given strict instructions that in no instance where entry was refused should they attempt to intrude. They were instructed to leave that address and to go on to the next as they had large numbers of addresses which they had to visit. They were to obtain a warrant and go back at a later time to visit that particular person.

Senator Georges:

– Did they advise the people of their rights before they entered?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am advised that no forcible entry was made to any home and access in every instance was obtained by invitation. It was not found necessary to seek search warrants in respect of 160 homes that were visited. In the case of each medical practitioner where seizure of medical records was essential, search warrants were obtained and executed in accordance with the practice in this country. It has been claimed by some that passports were seized without court approval. I am advised that passports were not seized at any time throughout the investigation. Persons located at their homes were requested to bring their passports with them for the purpose of identification prior to interview. The interviewing officer was not the apprehending officer. Following the surrender of passports being adopted by the court as a condition of bail, possession of passports actually facilitated bail.

Things have been said in the Press that I understand Senator Ryan will criticise when she addresses the Senate later. Some of the things that have been said have been said by members of the Opposition. Judging by the advice that I have received on these matters some of those statements ought to be dealt with. There are allegations of telephone tapping. I am advised by the Commonwealth Police that no telephone tapping was undertaken.

Senator Grimes:

– Oh!

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– That is my advice. Senator Grimes may have relied on mistaken advice that was given to him. My advice is that no telephone tapping was undertaken by the Commonwealth Police. Other statements have been made to the effect that some of those charged were photographed holding placards bearing the word ‘Greek’ prior to being charged. I understand that the offenders were photographed holding a sign board bearing their name. Section 353a of the New South Wales Crimes Act, in conjunction with section 6 of the Commonwealth Police Act, provides the requisite authority. I am advised that the word Greek’ did not appear on any sign that was held by any person who had been investigated. As I understand it, Mr Hayden made a comment that there was a blatant abuse of civil rights. The evidence presented in court will show that there was no abuse of civil rights and that each offender was treated in accordance with his rights at law. I think it is important that that should be said. I have already dealt with the matter of illegal entry.

I am advised that no example has been given of police intimidation. As independent interpreters were present at all times in the interviewing area throughout the exercise and on the three days that Mr Davies made constant visits there, intimidation could not have gone unnoticed. In fact the 1 73 persons who have been charged have not made complaints to the executive of the Commonwealth Police up to the date of the report from which I am reading.

The Premier of New South Wales, made some comments. I understand that he has said that members of the Greek community alleged that there were arrests early in the morning and that there were not enough interpreters. Apparently Mr Wran was not aware that his Department had loaned seven of the 12 official interpreters used in the exercise. Perhaps Senator Grimes may accept that Mr Wran’s interpreters are a more unbiased group than he may have claimed that some of the Commonwealth department’s interpreters would be.

One of the things raised by Senator Grimes was how we got into this situation where such an abuse of the social security legislation could go unnoticed. Perhaps he has not read the statement of Mr Hayden, then Minister for Social Security, which was issued on 4 January 1973, almost immediately after the Labor Government took office, perhaps not understanding the requirements to sustain eligibility if pensions and benefits are to be paid. Mr Hayden then said that he had given his Department new instructions regarding sickness benefits. The Press statement reads:

  1. . from now on sickness beneficiaries would not have details of their illness recorded on medical certificates from their doctors when applying for these benefits.

Giving this information is resented by doctors and applicants alike ‘.

It infringes on the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship’.

The statement goes on to deal with the fact that the information will not be required in the future except where the illness is expected to last more than six months and in cases of injury where compensation is involved or where rehabilitation may be involved. That, Senator Grimes, was possibly the beginning of how such a fraud could have developed in the Department.

Senator Grimes:

– Nonsense. What about invalid pensions? They are all coming from the one doctor.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Many of the people who are receiving invalid pensions started off on sickness benefits by using precisely the procedure that was laid down by Mr Hayden in January 1973 when he obviously had no understanding of the need that may occur for eligibility to be determined with regard to pensions and benefits. That answers Senator Grimes’ first question as to how such a thing could occur and how a practice could develop in a department whereby a doctor could provide a certificate on which he gave no indication of the illness. There is no way that a Commonwealth medical officer can do otherwise than accept the certificate of a practising medical specialist, such as was the case in the charges that have been made. I think Senator Grimes would understand, from his own professional background, precisely what we are talking about.

Senator Grimes:

– Are you telling me that invalid pensions are given on the basis of a certificate without the illness on it? That is nonsense and you know it.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– If we are again to traverse the area of difficulty that we can have with regard to the court proceedings, I think those proceedings will show that many of the patients moved from receiving a certificate for sickness benefit, to attendance for psychiatric disturbance, to a specialist whose certificate was accepted by the Commonwealth medical officer.

Senator Grimes:

– Without the illness on it?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The practising psychiatrist dealt with the matter of describing his patient’s attendance with him. Payment of the sickness benefit is also covered in this discussion. They are not all cases involving invalid pensions. I think Senator Grimes would know, if the dissection of the figures were as shown, that many of the people involved in the proceedings about which we are talking commenced their activities by means of the sickness benefit practice which was introduced in January 1973 by the Honourable Mr Hayden.

Senator Grimes:

-It is all Bill Hayden ‘s fault?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– No, I did not say that. But Senator Grimes asked me how this could come about and I am just telling him how it can happen. It can happen by people not understanding what needs to be done. Senator Grimes ‘ second question was on telephone tapping. I have given him an assurance, based on the report that I have received, that there was no telephone tapping. He asked about interpreters and I have told him about the independent interpreters and the interpreters from New South Wales who were assisting in the investigations of the Commonwealth Police and who at all times were able to advise whether there had been discrimination or intimidation. Senator Grimes raised matters with regard to what happened in the waiting rooms of doctors’ surgeries. There are people who have found it difficult to find a doctor who will now attend to them. I have been advised that the Department will make special arrangements to meet the problem. The Commonwealth Department of Health is also ready to assist people to establish their eligibility for a pension or benefit. In relation to the nature of the charges, Senator Grimes asked why these people have been charged with conspiracy. Section 86 of the Crimes Act of Australia states:

  1. 1 ) A person who conspires with another person-

    1. to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth;
    2. to prevent or defeat the execution or enforcement of a law of the Commonwealth;
    3. to effect a purpose that is unlawful under a law of the Commonwealth;
    4. to effect a lawful purpose by means that are unlawful under a law of the Commonwealth; or
    5. to defraud the Commonwealth or a public authority under the Commonwealth, shall be guilty of an indictable offence.

That is the section of the Crimes Act under which such a charge islaid. I can understand that there could be some difficulty with regard to the interpretation of that charge in other places where people are not aware of our terminology and the charges that we lay. I only hope that all people who do understand the charge under the Australian Crimes Act will see that there is no misunderstanding in this country or in any other as to the nature of the charge. The concern of Senator Grimes with regard to our contact with the members of the Greek community is something that I feel should be understood. I spoke in Melbourne two weeks ago with members of the Greek community. I have appointments arranged for later today with people representing the combined Greek organisations and the Greek Orthodox community of New South Wales. I have made any statements that were required to be made as far as the ethnic Press is concerned. Honourable senators opposite may question the merit of the Director-General of the Department of Social Security being the person who consulted with the Greek Archbishop in Sydney. It was on a day when I was not able to visit His Eminence. I understood his concern and the fact that he felt that some public statements should be made. I asked my Director-General specially to arrange an appointment with His Eminence in Sydney and he went to Sydney and did so. As a result of that the Director-General and His Eminence the Archbishop released the following statement to the ethnic Press:

The Director-General of the Department of Social Security, Mr P. J. Lanigan, called upon Archbishop Stylianos today and assured him that although many people have been asked to submit to interviews and fresh medical examinations because of doubt as to the validity of medical certificates, there was no reason why anyone who is genuinely unfit for work need suffer loss of pension or benefit as a result of this action.

The Department will arrange for a medical examination very quickly. If this cannot be arranged before the next payment is due, pensions or benefits will be continued in the meantime.

That is a statement of the Director-General of Social Security, who is responsible for administering the provisions of the Act. His statement in conjunction with that of His Eminence the Archbishop surely should be accepted by Senator Grimes and anyone else who wishes to have an authoritative statement on the procedures of the Department in this case. The statement continues:

If a person who has been receiving pension or benefit has no other source of income, he may be entitled to unemployment benefit or special benefit if he ceases to qualify for other payment. No person who is in financial difficulty need fear that he will be left without income. If he calls at an office of the Department and explains his circumstances, his case will be sympathetically examined. A person may be ineligible for a benefit or pension if he or his wife is earning income.

The Director-General has arranged for the Greek Welfare Centre in Sydney to have special access to the Department and it will be happy to take up the case of any person who is in doubt as to his right to receive continued payments.

That statement was issued after the consultations were held. I believe that it ought to be accepted as coming from the most responsible person in the Department and the one who has made that commitment to the Archbishop and to those people who are concerned.

I understand that the Commissioner for Community Relations has had some representations made to him. I am unaware of whether any response has been made to them or whether they have actually been officially received. I agree with so much of what has been said by Senator Grimes but I think it is difficult for the Opposition to make it appear that this is a matter on which the Government does not share the Opposition’s concern. The concern of the Government is one that is quite unreservedly expressed by me, that is, to ensure that no person should suffer hardship and no person should feel that there is discrimination against or disgrace amongst members of a community which has the highest reputation in this country.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to support the matter of public importance submitted to the Senate for discussion by Senator Grimes, namely:

The damage to community relations and the reputation of our system of justice resulting from the conduct of the authorities in the alleged social security frauds in Sydney.

The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), who has just contributed to the debate, commenced by questioning the claim made by Senator Grimes in respect of our legal system and the fact that the Opposition considers that the system has been called into question by the events that have followed the initiation of legal action regarding the social security frauds. Senator Guilfoyle pointed out that under our system of justice no one is in fact guilty until he is so proven in a court of law. She told the Senate that although people have been arrested and charged with offences in connection with the social security frauds no one has yet been proven guilty. That seems to me to be quite an inadequate answer to the situation as we know that in Australia one is not only tried in the courts of justice but also tried in the kangaroo court of the media. As I will go on to establish, that court has certainly found the whole of the Greek community guilty of a quite scandalous range of charges. It is that with which I will be primarily concerned in my contribution.

The Minister referred to what she called allegations made by Senator Grimes in his contribution to this debate about various harassments of people who are being accused, of various unjustified arrests by police, about people who had gone to see their doctor being taken by police for questioning and held for long periods of time without justification and so on. It is true that Senator Grimes raised those matters in the debate, but they were not- I emphasise this point to the Minister- allegations made by Senator Grimes himself. They were allegations which had been made to Senator Grimes by responsible members of the Greek community. As Senator Grimes has pointed out, they were allegations that had been made publicly by responsible members of the Greek community to officers of the Department of Social Security. They are not matters which simply have been brought forward by Senator Grimes. They are matters which are being brought forward in the Parliament by Senator Grimes because they have been raised by responsible members of the Greek community, including, of course, His Eminence Archbishop Stylianos Because they have been raised by such responsible persons, the Opposition believes that they should have been met by appropriate investigation and explanation, but they have not been. The Parliament is the proper place to raise serious allegations of this kind and the Parliament is the place in which proper answers should be given to these allegations. But to date, in the course of this debate, proper answers have not been given. The Minister has only referred to a report from the Commonwealth Police and quoted from media releases put out by the Director-General of her Department. The Minister has not answered in detail the very serious allegations which have been brought forward by responsible members of the Greek community and which have been raised- very properly, I believe- in the Parliament on behalf of those people by Senator Grimes.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Which ones are they?

Senator RYAN:

– They will be recorded in Hansard. I cannot recall them now, but a number of matters were raised by Senator Grimes about people being arrested or being taken by police from a doctor’s surgery, being held for questioning, being questioned under uncomfortable circumstances, not having explained to them properly the circumstances under which they were being held and so forth. They will be in Hansard because Senator Grimes has described them in detail. I am merely pointing out on behalf of Senator Grimes that they are not his own allegations; they are allegations made to him by responsible members of the Greek community.

The whole media treatment of this episode has been scandalous. It is one of the most devisive discriminatory episodes of Press reporting of which I am aware. The reporting has been unbalanced and selective. The choice of the socalled facts which have been brought to public attention has been extremely discriminatory. There has been an hysterical tone of xenophobia with stories about Greeks living in luxury abroad on Australian pensions and so on. Before I proceed to discuss these matters in detail I feel that I must make some exceptions. It seems to me that two newspapers- the Age and the Canberra Times- were scrupulous in their avoidance of ethnic slurs. I feel that should be stated. There may be other newspapers throughout Australia which were equally scrupulous, but I am not aware of them. However, the Age and the Canberra Times are excluded from the remarks I will subsequently make. I would also say, by way of putting this whole matter into a political context, that I do not regard the activities of the media in this matter as totally outside the ambit of government. I do not believe that the Press can pursue this scandalous and discriminatory approach to a matter of social concern without the Government having some role or responsibility in the matter.

One of the most mischievous headlines was the one in the Daily Mirror which read: ‘$35m A Year Sent Overseas’. On the same page that newspaper cited some figures which in fact are quite low considering the number of persons justly entitled to benefits. Of course, the bulk of the expatriate pensioners are in receipt of age and widows pensions and not invalid and sickness benefits, which were the subject of the investigations. The newspaper reports implied that these people were ripping off the system and were taking unearned Australian money. Indeed, that has been the tenor of most of the media coverage of this matter. What most of the media have done is to extend the perhaps justifiable attack on illegal beneficiaries to all beneficiaries, without differentiating in their stories between those who were legally entitled to receive the benefits, whether overseas or otherwise, and those who were not. It is not the position of the Opposition that such matters should not be properly investigated. One should perhaps re-state the fact that the Opposition thoroughly supports the Minister and the Department when they take action to pursue people who are illegally receiving benefits.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Like the doctors who are ripping off too.

Senator RYAN:

– We do not argue with that. What we do accuse the Government of, in particular, is mishandling this situation so that the allegations of discrimination, ethnic prejudice and so forth have justly and properly been raised.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Justly raised?

Senator RYAN:

– Certainly. If I could go on to refer to some of the more outrageous treatment given migant groups in the Press, let me say that the Government is not entirely innocent of creating the environment in which the Press can write that sort of story. I would like also to make it clear to the Senate that, historically, many people who came to this country during the fifties and sixties were encouraged by various governments to do so in order to build up our industry, and work especially in low-paid, unskilled pursuits. Many have now reached the age where they are entitled to the age pension. Others, in the course of their work, have become ill and properly entitled to invalid benefits. It is their unqualified right, if they so wish, to return to the land of their birth and accept the pension there. They are totally justified in doing so if they have properly earned that benefit. That point could well have been made by spokesmen for the Government prior to this stage.

One of the more obvious reasons why people who are not of Australian birth might choose to go home to live in their retirement is that the pension level in Australia is very low; that people who are entirely dependent on it cannot live decently, whereas they may be able to do so in a country with a different standard of living. The Press might also have noted- unfortunately it did not- that by returning to their homeland, these people would be in fact saving Australia money. As elderly people or invalids they would inevitably need more and more medical attention as they progressed. By removing themselves from Australia they would not be making the claims on the Australian system that they could justly make. Also, for many migrants, the land of their birth offers much more extensive social security and health insurance systems than are offered in this country. So there are many quite justifiable reasons why people might choose, at the end of their working life, or when they have become incapacitated, to return to the land of their birth.

Senator Missen:

– Who on earth is challenging that?

Senator RYAN:

– I do not know who is challenging it, Senator, but it seems to me that these points should have been made by the Government when the whole matter was first treated so badly in the Press, but they were not. On 4 April, when I questioned the Minister about the Daily Mirror headline of 3 April, ‘War on dole cheats- $42m fraud’, she said that on many occasions she deplored the use of the term ‘dole cheats’ with regard to unemployment beneficiaries. However, a Press release of 15 January 1976 which her Department issued jointly with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) was headed, Move to stop dole cheats’, so I think that the Minister has contributed to the media’s use of that term. The Daily Mirror headline was also entirely misleading, since the so-called cheating was in respect not of unemployment benefits but of social security, and invalid and sickness benefits.

I should like to mention in passing also that the Opposition is very concerned about the recent trend in the Press to describe social problems in ethnic terms. The question of the social security fraud is only one instance of that. In the National Times of 10 April 1978 a lengthy article on drugs was headed ‘The Ethnic connection’, and was accompanied by an illustration of an armed gangster. The sub-headings were: ‘The Italians’, ‘The Chinese’, ‘The Lebanese’; and the Turks also got a mention as being involved in drug running and dealing.

Senator Missen:

– These are matters for Mr Grassby, not this Parliament.

Senator RYAN:

– They are matters that concern everybody who believes that ours should be a society in which all cultures can live reasonably. The question that I would like to put again -since it has not been answered is this: How did it come about that the Press photographers accompanied the Commonwealth police on the first round of raids? I have here an article from the Sydney Sun headed, ‘How they planned the raids’. I do not know whether the Department of Social Security is implied in the use of the word they’. The article goes on to say:

This was the sequence of events surrounding one of Friday’s raids, witnessed by a Sun news team.

I would like to ask how it came about that the Sun news team accompanied Commonwealth police during this first episode. I do not believe it to be in the interests of either the community or of justice that they did.

I referred earlier to an article from the Daily Mirror headed, ‘$35m a year sent overseas’.

That article goes on to give statistics about the number of benefits that are paid to recipients overseas. It tells us that about 2,600 Greeks are in that category. In the time remaining, I would like to make the point that none of the stories that I have read in the Press about the number of pensions being paid overseas have carried with them balancing statistics about the number of people of ethnic origin living in Australia. I suppose there are at least two million people of ethnic origin living in this country. In that context, the payment of a total of 12,397 benefits overseas does not represent a large number. It is very small considering the many reasons why people might wish to return to their homeland.

I would like to conclude by saying that the treatment of this issue by the media has been scandalous, divisive and discriminatory. I do not think anybody would argue with that. Why am I raising the treatment by the media in a motion that basically sets out to criticise government authorities? It is because I believe that when the Government sees this sort of discriminatory and scandalous treatment taking place through the media it should act in such a way as to provide, first of all, machinery whereby people who have been treated in this way can obtain some sort of redress. I do not think the Press Council, as currently constituted, provides that machinery. I do not think Mr Grassby, the Commissioner for Community Relations, has enough resources appropriately to deal with these things. The Government should take firmer and fairer steps to protect vulnerable members of the community from this sort of attack by the media and provide more efficient, just and effective machinery, whereby redress against this sort of injustice can be achieved.

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

– I oppose vigorously the matter of public importance offered by Senator Grimes. The wording, ‘The damage to community relations and the reputation of our system of justice resulting from the conduct of the authorities, . . . ‘ should read ‘from the conduct of the media’. I feel that the media are responsible. This is not the first time that it has singled out a certain national group, not the first time that migrants have been classified as being members of a particular national group. Whether the situation involves Italians, Greeks, Croats, Serbs or Germans, the media always blows up the whole thing to such a degree that real damage occurs to community relations.

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that it is the authorities who damage community relations. If there is one section which damages community relations, it is the media. Another is the Australian Labor Party Whenever it suits the Labor Party it cries hypocritical crocodile tears for a certain community. We still remember former Senator Murphy and his midnight raids on the homes of the Croatian population.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Terrorists.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– I am delighted, Madam Acting Deputy President, that a member of the Opposition has shown his true colours by labelling a whole national group with the crimes of a few. Does Senator Gietzelt mean to say that all of the Greek community should be blamed for the misdeeds of a very few of them? Is that what he is saying? Is that the proposition that the Labor Party is putting? Do honourable senators remember- I am sure somebody will- that recently Senator O ‘Byrne accused the whole Croat population, the whole Serbian population of this country, of being terrorists and fascists. I should like to know whether that gentleman and some of his colleagues on the other side of the chamber would be as vocal in their defence of some other national group as they are of the Greek national group. The point I make is this: We are talking about Australian citizens of Greek origin; we are talking about Australian citizens of Croatian origin and we are talking about Australian citizens of Italian origin. But whenever a person who was not born in this country does something which is not according to the law, the media in general, that is, the Press, radio and television, label that person according to his origin. Whenever a person not born in Australia becomes, say, a sportsman of the year or a beauty queen, the media will never label them as an ‘Italian man’, or a Greek girl’. It will always say: ‘Look at those Australians. How good we are’. The whole point is that unless the media takes the responsibility it ought to take to present the facts as they are and realises that it is dealing with Australian citizens, regardless of their origin, then we will have further examples of what is happening how in this country.

When Senator Grimes spoke during the adjournment debate on 10 April 1978, he said:

It is unfortunate that this case has been associated with just one community, namely, the Greek community. It may be that a person or persons unknown took advantage of the fact that there are many people of Greek descent whose English is inadequate and whose knowledge of our laws and our ways is scanty. In this case members of the Greek community were responsible for the situation coming to the public eye, as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has said in answers to questions in this place. In doing so–

And let me remind you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that these are the words of Senator Grimes- the Greek community showed the sense of responsibility that it normally shows in our community.

When Senator Grimes finished making that speech I congratulated him because I felt that he had been very sincere. But when I read the terms of this matter of public importance today, I felt that he was using migrants, as such, only for the purpose of political gain. All of the ethnic papers are unanimous in castigating the Australian Press and its role. On 6 April 1978, the II Corriere Di Settegiorni newspaper said:

We will not say anything about the role of the Australian Press. Their illness is incurable.

On 1 1 April 1978, the Maltese Herald said:

Australian newspapers discriminate.

The Australian Press is still discriminating blatantly against migrants.

All ethnic newspapers are unanimous in their reports about this particular case that if it were not for the indecent publicity, the unreal publicity, the scandal-type publicity of the Australian media, this situation would not have happened. Unfortunately I see that most of the media reporters have left the gallery, apart from a single lovely girl. I wonder how much of what I am saying tonight will be reported tomorrow in the Press.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Very little.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– I am sure it will be very little.

Senator Missen:

– Because you are not abusing anybody.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– That is right; because I am not abusing anybody. But the media should take note of my remarks. I really plead with the media, for the sake of community relations, for the sake of the well-being of the understanding between various national groups, the various people who come to this country to settle down and to integrate themselves in our society, to lead free lives, to let them do so. That is the function of the media and if they undertake that responsibility the whole process will be much easier to achieve.

I emphasise the fact that statements like that made by Senator Grimes that Government instrumentalities have discriminated against one particular group are wrong. What nonsense! Those who discriminate against this particular group are the media and the Labor Party, which wants to make political capital out of the situation. I hope that the socialists on the other side of the chamber will realise that by pandering to one national group which it thinks will vote for it, it will not get those votes because the majority of migrants in Australia, those who really want to settle down, realise that the socialists are only using them as a political football. I oppose this matter of public importance.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I wonder whether Senator Lajovic realises how insulting he has been to the community which he sought to defend when he said that it would allow itself to be influenced by the support which the Australian Labor Party is giving it today.

Senator Missen:

– That is pretty insulting.

Senator GEORGES:

– It is insulting. It is insulting to that community and it is most insulting to the Labor Party but, after all, ours is a political party and we are used to the insults which are thrown across the chamber by Senator Lajovic and others. Let me remind Senator Lajovic that this situation, this activity against an ethnic community and this type of initiative has occurred before. On 20 September 1977 I asked Senator Guilfoyle a question concerning the Department of Immigration and Ethic Affairs and referred to the actions which that Department through the Commonwealth Police had taken against certain Chinese. I asked:

Did the police raid public places and arrest a substantial number of people? Did the police subsequently interrogate these people and detain a small number for breaches of the Immigration Act? Does the Government condone such dragnet operations which catch the innocent as well as the guilty? Will the Minister accept that this method is totally unacceptable in an Australian community and cannot be justified because . . . an ethnic community is involved?

That is the question I asked about the Chinese community when it underwent the same harassment that the Greek community is now undergoing. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in a rather prolonged answer which evaded the very heart of the matter, concluded her answer by saying:

I have no comments to make on the other two questions that were raised with regard to these raids.

I expected that today the Minister would have taken the opportunity to answer a similar question about the manner in which the Commonwealth Police endeavoured to carry out a direction from a depanment, in this case her Depanment. Although we blame the media, and the media must accept responsibility for the manner in which they have reported this latest harassment, it is the Department which must accept first responsibility and the second responsibility must be accepted by the Commonwealth Police because if it were not for the Department not becoming earlier aware of what was happening this major fraud would not have developed. This incident has all the elements of an entrapment. The Commonwealth Police must have become aware of what was happening through the Department of Social Security. The police should have become aware of it back in 1975-76 when the figures started to show a disproportionate number of portable pensions being given, in this case, to members of the Greek community, although I notice that several other communities also were involved. I notice that involved were several communities of Anglo-Saxon origin and, combined, a substantial number of portable pensions was given to them in the manner that they have been given to the Greek community.

So back in 1975-76 the evidence was beginning to appear that something was wrong. It was beginning to appear that something was wrong not in Queensland, which is unusual- I have diverted myself when I should not do so because I become paranoic when talking about Queensland- not in Victoria, not in South Australia, not in Western Australia, but in New South Wales. It should have been evident in New South Wales that something was wrong, and my view is that the Department was at fault for not becoming aware sooner that a malpractice was developing. That malpractice should have been earlier exposed and should have been earlier dealt with, but it was not. What then emerged? Despite the information given to the Department by the Greek community, the delay in taking action allowed more people to become involved. Subsequently the Commonwealth Police became involved but it too delayed taking action until such time as it was able to participate in what I consider to be a reprehensible incident, a major raid which had all the elements of the raids that we have learned took place in Hitler’s Germany.

Senator Missen:

– It is no such thing.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not exaggerating. The response of a person in the Chinese community, the Fijian community or the Greek community upon whose door a policemen knocked in the early hours of the morning would be similar to the response to such action during Hitler’s period of authority in Germany.

Senator Knight:

– It happened under Stalin.

Senator GEORGES:

– It could happen under any regime. It did happen during the Stalinist period and it has happened in other countries. It has happened in Indonesia, in China and in Queensland and it happened in New South Wales recently when massive raids were carried out by the Commonwealth Police against an ethnic community and exposed that community to ridicule, contempt and grave embarrassment which it will not forget for a long time. The same thing could happen to any ethnic community. If the Department of Social Security, or for that matter the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs too, is allowed to continue operating as it is operating at present and if the Commonwealth Police continue to act in this massive way whether against Croatians, Chinese, Fijians, Australians of Anglo-Saxon origin or any other ethnic group, curbs ought to be placed upon them by this Parliament and the purpose of this debate is to ensure that such an operation is never allowed to occur again. It has happened to the Chinese community, it has happened to the Croatian community and now it has happened to the Greek community. It is offensive to say the least.

Senator Missen:

– You name them one by one.

Senator GEORGES:

– I would prefer, Senator Missen, that the Department, if it desires to be more alert and to ensure that social security benefits are being granted properly, gave applications normal scrutiny. Why is it that in Queensland there are no such cases? It is because the normal procedures are followed. A person makes an application for an invalid pension, that application is supported by medical evidence which the applicant brings forward and then it is checked by a medical referee. What were the medical referees doing in New South Wales? Why was this malpractice allowed to continue from 1975-76 till now? A 1976-77 report revealed that there seemed to be some imbalance in the granting of certain pensions. If the evidence was beginning to appear then, why were not checks made at that time? Why was it not possible for each of these cases, when a problem appeared, to be investigated in the normal way?

Senator Missen:

– There was a conspiracy.

Senator GEORGES:

- Senator Missen says that there was a conspiracy. I am saying that if there was a conspiracy on the part of a few that conspiracy was aided and abetted by the neglect of the Department. In fact, the Department was negligent, because it received evidence from the Greek community, and the Minister has admitted it, that this malpractice- this misdemeanour if one likes to put it that way- was likely to have occurred. Instead of the matter being dealt with in a normal, humane and sensible way it was allowed to gather momentum, to gather force, to gather size, until we had an operation that dragged in many innocent people as well as the guilty. No one condones the guilty. No one in any of the communities condones the guilty. The communities have expressed their resentment against those who have been found guilty, but what they object to is the manner in which the guilty were apprehended, whereby many innocent people also suffered questioning. Honourable senators will agree that the Minister for Social Security is one of the most effective Government Ministers. Most times she is convincing. This time she has not been convincing because she has depended on reports, one being from the Director-General of the Department of Social Security who would naturally defend his Department at all costs and who is doing so at present.

Senator Missen:

– Why would he do that? He is an honest man.

Senator GEORGES:

– Honesty in a bureaucrat depends very much upon whether the reputation of his Department is at stake and he has a responsibility, as the honourable senator knows, to defend his officers.

Senator Missen:

– That is a queer view.

Senator GEORGES:

-It is a queer view. He accepts the responsibility but he does not have the courage to accept it entirely and to confess that he himself is at fault. Perhaps he should have done that in this case. The record seems to show that he had been negligent for at least two years, maybe three. The second report was from the Assistant Commissioner for Police. All commissioners of police, even faced with visual evidence, defend their men to the extreme. Classic examples can be found in Queensland. When there is visual evidence that the police have engaged in violence in the streets the next day the Police Commissioner will say that they acted without the use of any violence whatsoever. He considers it his duty to show his loyalty to his men and to defend them. So does the Assistant Commissioner for Commonwealth Police consider it his duty in this particular case. The Minister for Social Security rests on very unsound ground when she depends upon those two reports. She should be looking at other evidence, and I do not doubt that she has received that evidence. In fairness to the ethnic communities which are involved she should search out that other evidence and give a more humane response to the queries which the Opposition has put to her today.

Let us look at social security generally. The Minister will agree that the social security program exists to assist people and it is to be expected that some people will exploit that system. Some smart operator, whether he be Greek, Italian, Croatian or Anglo-Saxon, will endeavour to exploit or has succeeded in exploiting the system. But surely we will not operate the whole system on the basis that people should be kept continually in check, because then we would have to treat all people as criminals. My view is that in this recent episode in New South Wales a substantial number of the Greek community were wrongly treated as criminals in order to apprehend the few and I trust it will not happen again.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the Government view in the debate on the matter of public importance this afternoon. Indeed, the subject of the matter of public importance is wide-ranging and somewhat ill-defined, and because of this the debate has wandered fairly far and wide. It will be my object in the few minutes available to me to examine somewhat more closely the subject of the matter of public importance which is stated as follows:

The damage to community relations and the reputation of our system of justice resulting from the conduct of the authorities in the alleged social security frauds in Sydney.

That is a fairly wide and ill-defined statement and I will attempt to examine it more closely to see whether what is implied by the Opposition is true or whether damage to community relations and to our system of justice and the conduct of authorities are important, necessary and basic things that are being handled extremely well by the Government and by the appropriate departments in the situation which has prompted the debate. This matter is not a condemnation of ethnic groups, individuals, professions or parts of professions, lt is far from that. It really concerns people cheating the great mass of Australians by finding loopholes by scurrilous and improper methods, and by committing offences. That is what the debate is about, it is not about ethnic groups, or particular professional groups either. It is a matter that concerns the cheating of the Australian people, of the Australian taxpayers, by these unscrupulous and perhaps sometimes unwitting people.

Of course, anything which damages community relations and our system of justice in this democracy is a matter of public importance. How could it be otherwise? It is a matter of public importance, but what I object to is the promotion of it by the Opposition this afternoon as if the Government had attempted constantly to do the wrong thing in this area. The Opposition has not taken a constructive approach in promoting this matter of public importance. That there is urgency and that it is important is not in question. How do we overcome it? How do we examine it? I propose to examine exactly what the Opposition’s statement says. As one examines it one leans to the view that it says things which are basically mischievous and can do no good in the problem that confronts the Australian people in this matter. Unless the statement is carefully analysed it can contribute little more than confusion, distortion and a loss of confidence by the Australian people. Anything that is a negative contribution to an economy in which people who are striving hard and successfully against problems of inflation and unemployment and in the fight to re-establish that which we need perhaps more than anything else- a sense of national pride and a knowledge that initiative will be rewarded and justice will be seen to be done is to be deplored.

Productivity, initiative, national pride and the development of confidence cannot come about in any way unless there is a proper recognition of the basic matters referred to in the matter of public importance here this afternoon. Fortunately, more and more people in Australia are recognising the need for a responsible, intergrated and determined approach to the problems that confront us. We are an interdependent community. We float or sink as a single entity.

It is important that we analyse the real significance of the matter under discussion this afternoon. If this debate only contributes to distortion, confusion and lack of confidence, we will achieve nothing but a totally negative result. The problem- of course there is a problem- is the abuse of the system or the robbery of the taxpayer, whatever it is called. But the inference that the problem is Government inspired and that consequently wrath should be poured on the Government is absolutely wrong. How can it be in the interest of any government to create that sort of circumstance? On the contrary, we are looking at the abuse of a system which springs perhaps from the weakness of the system itself and the human trait of some people to make a rip-off wherever possible. fortunately this is not a trait of all humans but there is no doubt that from time to time human beings see fit to make such a rip-off if the system will permit. Consequently, we are looking at the abuse of that system and seeking to find a way in which it can be contained.

As I said in my opening remarks, we are not concerned with a blanket condemnation of a particular group or profession. What the Government seeks to do urgently is to apprehend properly those guilty of misconduct, whoever they may be. What appears to be happening in this country is that the great mass of Australian workers and taxpayers are, from time to time and in different places, being fraudulently treated by other members of the community. Surely it is the Government’s duty to see that those who are guilty of that sort of misconduct are apprehended. The alleged damage to community relations and the reputation of our system of” justice should turn to a measure of relief for Australians when they see what is happening. Significant numbers of people have allegedly been shown to have been fraudulently treating a government department. That means that they have been fraudulently treating their fellow Australians. The Government seeks to overcome this problem but it is a long, slow process. It is all very well to ask why this was not done a week, a month or a year ago. It is a long, slow process to apprehend properly, absolutely and conclusively people who have been carrying on this sort of abusive operation in the community.

Whatever happens from this point, there should be a measure of relief that the abuse has been revealed, that the problem is recognised by the Government and that it is being successfully attacked. There should be a measure of confidence to Australians rather than a measure of confusion. The contribution of the Opposition in this debate has been mainly concerned with establishing a measure of confusion and distortion. That is no solution to the real problem that confronts us. Whatever damage may have occurred is not the fault of the authorities. The damage which is alleged- I suppose that it will be proven in time- is the result of those who have perpetrated the crime.

Senator Georges:

– Come on! You know better than that.

Senator SCOTT:

– That is where the damage occurs. Senator Georges knows that clearly and absolutely. It is silly to blame the authorities as is suggested in the wording of the matter of public importance which we are discussing. The people who are responsible are the people who perpetrated the social security fraud. The responsibility of a government and I would hope, of, an opposition is to see that the people who are responsible for perpetrating a crime, no matter who they are or what they are, are brought to justice. That is the purpose of the Government’s action in this matter. The community in Australia will be pleased to know that proper steps are being taken successfully to overcome this abuse.

Of course, damage to community relations and the system of justice are matters requiring urgent attention. But confusion, distortion and loss of confidence can only be a totally negative contribution to this situation. The inference that a government would promote such abuse of the system, the taxpayer and the mass of Australian workers is mischievous, wrong and unsubstantiated. On the contrary, the system of justice is running to earth the guilty parties, perhaps slowly but surely. As it does this it restores confidence to the system, the people and the authority and direction of government. As I said earlier, there is no question of victimisation. The Government is genuinely attempting to find those who are guilty of defrauding the Department and consequently the great mass of Australian people, to run them to earth and treat them as justice requires. In fact, we are considering a matter of urgency which is being properly handled by a responsible government.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– No matter what has been said and no matter whether injustice has been perpetrated wittingly or unwittingly, either by the law enforcers or the law breakers, nobody in the ethnic community will ever be convinced that people such as the Bartons and Huxleys do not get better treatment by the law than the people involved in this matter. Senator Scott referred to the Government ‘s actions in detecting this abuse. One matter has not been answered by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). Last year, or even before, there was a leading article in La Fiamma about certain mishaps in the pension portability system operated by the United States of America which is similar to ours. Surely if anybody was aware of some abuse by people living overseas we should have been alerted.

Senator Gietzelt was given a table by the Minister which listed the countries in which the recipients of Australian social security payments were domiciled. Among the major recipient countries were the United Kingdom, Canada, West Germany, Greece, Yugoslavia and Italy. In cases such as this it seems to be a matter of which country one wishes to investigate first. I say to

Senator Scott: ‘As ye sow, so shall ye reap’. Over the last two years the Estimates committees have been given details of cut backs in the size of various staffs, including some staffs which have the responsibility of detecting malpractices in the social services areas. I am curious to know why we have never created a section in Geneva to tabulate information in respect of the cheques which are farmed out from that point. The authorities in Australia have been able to detect a few cases in which cheques have gone to deceased people in Greece, Yugoslavia and Italy, but there has never been a fanfare of trumpets when we have detected these things in Australia itself. There is no secret about the fact that sometimes people are overpaid and there are then negotiations on the terms under which they will make restitution. I simply say that when the abuses of the pension portability system in Italy at least 12 months ago were detected by the United States authorities the Australian Government should have alerted people to check on that.

The people who have been apprehended in this instance seem to have been apprehended in an atmosphere of drama. It will be interesting to see whether the Government intends to examine the situation in every overseas country in which recipients of our benefits are domiciled to see whether those benefits are being paid to deceased persons or whether the Government will just pick out one country and make it the subject of a headline. I am certainly not blaming the Minister for that. What I am objecting to is the way in which these matters are sometimes approached. I repeat that I believe that in many instances- not just this instance- the staff ceilings that the Government has imposed have allowed people to indulge in rip-offs.

It is no use trying to put an ethnic tag on these people. I am sure a number of people of AngloSaxon origin also indulge in these practices. I say particularly to Senator Lajovic that, even though people may be fined for some of these things, thanks to the actions of former Senator Murphy, who was responsible for the removal of some of the discriminatory clauses of the Crimes Act, those people can stay in Australia when they have paid their debt to society. They will not be hounded out of the country and in effect have to pay a double penalty. The Labor Government introduced legislation to remove those discriminatory clauses and the results of that have applied right across the board to every ethnic community.

The Greek community happens to be in the firing line at the moment but as Senator Wood would well know, there was a time when the Croatian community was in the limelight, although only a minority of the Croats were involved in unlawful activities. Other people of Yugoslav origin who had served either in World War II or as conscripts in the Vietnam War resented some Croats who had not served in either conflict acting as super patriots. However, it is not my place to be difficult in this debate. I think that Senator Grimes made a very temperate submission and I hope that the Government will take note of it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The discussion having reached the limit of two hours allowed by Sessional Order, I call on the business of the day.

page 1357

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act 1971, which subjects to payroll tax wages related to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, to raise the level of the general exemption from tax. Although the Bill does not draw distinctions between the two Territories, it is expected to have effect in practice only in respect of wages related to the Australian Capital Territory. The reason is that, under the program for the development of Northern Territory selfgovernment as announced by the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) on 14 September 1977, it is planned that the power to levy payroll tax on wages related to that Territory will be transferred to the proposed government of the Northern Territory with effect from 1 July 1978.

The general exemption is to be raised from $48,000 to $60,000 per annum. It is proposed that the higher level will apply from 1 July 1978. The exemption will, as at present, be phased out by an amount of $2 for every $3 by which the annual wages payable by an employer exceed the maximum exemption level. The last increase in the exemption level applied from 1 January 1977 when the exemption was brought into line with the exemption allowable in New South Wales. That State has since increased its exemption level to $60,000.

I think it is desirable to secure consistency between the exemption entitlements of employers in the Australian Capital Territory and employers in New South Wales. I am sure that the operators of small businesses in the Australian Capital Territory will welcome the change. The maximum deduction allowable in monthly returns will increase from $4,000 to $5,000 and will, in conformity with the rules for the phasing out of the maximum annual exemption, be phased out at the rate of $2 for every $3 by which the wages for the month exceed $5,000. No deduction will be allowable where the monthly payroll reaches $12,500. From 1 July 1978, an employer who pays wages of $1,150 or less a week will not be required to register for payroll tax purposes. Explanations of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 1357

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I bring up the second report of the Standing Orders Committee for 1 978.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That consideration of the report in the Committee of the Whole be an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 1357

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The purpose of the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill is to authorise the Treasury, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to finance the purchase of a Boeing 727-200 series aircraft and related spare parts and equipment, together with interest payments on the amounts borrowed. The amount of any such guarantee is limited to $US 10.3m, or its equivalent at the date of borrowing, representing 80 per cent of the total cost of the aircraft and associated equipment. Similarly the purpose of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill is to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee loans raised by Qantas Airways Limited, in its own name, for the purchase of two Boeing 747 series aircraft. The amount of the proposed guarantee will be limited to an amount of $US80m or its equivalent at the date of borrowing, again representing 80 per cent of the total cost of the two aircraft and associated equipment.

Both Bills continue previous practices. In regard to the former, it had been government practice for some time to guarantee loans sought by Ansett for the purchase of aircraft on similar conditions to those set out in this Bill. In regard to the latter, prior to 1976 the Commonwealth Government took out loans on behalf of Qantas. The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1976 changed this practice, providing a Government guarantee for overseas loans raised by Qantas in its own name for the purchase of three Boeing 747 series aircraft.

The Bills are not opposed by the Opposition. However, the Opposition believes that this debate provides it as well as the Senate with a small opportunity to examine the state of Australia’s aviation industry and what it regards as being the abysmal performance of the Government in this area. Of course, we are concerned with a number of aspects of the Australian airline industry and the development that has taken place in it in recent times. I will offer some criticism later about safety aspects of the industry. I will also offer some criticism about the actions of the Government, particularly the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), in respect of charter airlines. Of course, the very vexed question of cheap air fares has become somewhat of a continuing problem which I appreciate has been of concern to the Minister and the Government for some time.

I think we are entitled to review the operations of the domestic aviation industry under the two airline agreement, which was drawn up in 1952. That agreement was entered into a long time ago. It was seen as a device in those days to break the monopoly of the national airline, TAA, and to ensure the growth and viability of the competitive private enterprise airline, Ansett Airlines of Australia. In doing so, it provided for the regulation of competition between the two operators to the exclusion of any third operator. I think we are entitled, therefore, to examine whether that practice has been satisfactory from the point of view of the travelling public, from a service point of view and from a fare point of view.

Today, many people both within and outside the aviation industry are of the opinion that the policy in fact has produced something of a monster, a duopoly in the provision of trunk line domestic air services. It is claimed by some that the agreement perpetuates a barrier to wider flexibility in the range of air services and the lowering of domestic air fares. In the first place, I think it is true to say that a measure of public concern is being expressed about the higher level of domestic air fares when compared to international air fares. When we look at the domestic air fare prices in Australia, I think it has to be admitted that they do not compare too favourably with the prices charged by our international airlines. Of course, there are reasons for this. Perhaps it is worth having a look at those reasons. Several factors contribute to the higher level of domestic aviation costs but it is rather difficult for the Opposition- as I am sure it is for the Parliament and for the general public- without full access to all the information available really to put its finger on who is responsible for what are the principal factors. It is difficult to reach conclusions in trying to evaluate the reasons for the difference in the price of air travel. To that extent, we believe that the Minister and the Government have been rather slow in releasing reports which are available to the Minister- we assume they are available to the Governmentbut to which the public and the Parliament do not have access.

One factor that contributes to the higher level of domestic aviation costs, of course, is the fact that domestic air services operate over shorter distance average stage hauls than the international air services. For instance, the average passenger haul for TAA in 1 976-77 was 8 1 3 kilometres. For Qantas, in the same period, it was about nine times that distance- 7,259 kilometres. This meant that on average the TAA aircraft had to make approximately nine times as many landings and take-offs as the Qantas aircraft. Another factor increasing domestic costs is the excise on aviation fuel. That, surely, must be a matter that is worthy of some consideration by the Parliament. Domestic airlines pay excise on aviation fuel whereas international airlines do not. They are exempt. In 1976-77, excise duty alone cost TAA $ 17.5m, or more than half its total fuel bill of $32. 6m for that year. Another factor is that international airlines benefit from the operating economies of larger aircraft with more advanced technology- engineering technology in particular. A Boeing 747 aircraft is considerably cheaper to operate per seat per kilometre than the smaller and older DC-9 jet aircraft used by our domestic airlines.

One wonders when the Australian public will get some indication from Ansett and TAA as to whether- and if so, when- they will move into larger equipment. Ansett is to purchase Boeing 727 aircraft which, to a great degree, still employ technology which is some 15 years old. So, we are perpetuating a technology that has been long out of date. The three engined aircraft that are presently being used are not the most efficient users of aviation fuel. We are confronted with that factor and also we are confronted with examining the inability of such planes to be part of any energy conservation process. After all, I think we are all being brought to a realisation of the need to consider energy conservation and we recognise that there is an energy crisis. It seems shortsighted on the part of our major domestic airlines in Australia to continue to purchase equipment that perpetuates this problem.

In addition to the prospect of reducing costs, Australia should look at the real social value of purchasing wide-bodied equipment. As I have said, the fuel saving is considerable. Widebodied aircraft pollute less than aircraft currently in use. The continued use of smaller equipment can only lead to more and more congestion at Australian airports in the future. That, of course, is a particular problem for those of us who live around the Sydney airport. The problems of pollution and the movement of traffic in and out of that airport concern us. That airport gets more congested every day. Of course, if we did have larger equipment some of that congestion could be avoided. The people of Australia would not necessarily have to miss out on frequency of services. I will deal with that matter in a moment. Looking at the three major airports, if the present growth of nearly 9 per cent in aviation travel continues, it would be a reasonable proposition that by 1983 the same frequency would exist with the use of wide-bodied aircraft as exists at the moment. The continued implementation of import parity price policy on liquid fuels will produce further pressure for cost increases for domestic airlines. TAA has said in its public documents which are available for all to see that the full implementation of that policy would increase its fuel bill be some 50 per cent during the next 10 years.

Yet another cause of high cost to the industry is the provision of airport and terminal facilities. The Aviation Industry Review Committee, whose report the Minister consistently has refused to make available, reported that the capital cost and operating cost for every passenger boarding at the TAA section of Tullamarine were more than double those at the airline built and operated Sydney airport. Such a conclusion gives a clear evaluation of the decision of the previous conservative government about the standards of buildings to be erected at Tullamarine. In the end, it is the flying public who pays for the satisfaction of politicians’ egos. I think that is how Tullamarine has to be described. Aviation buildings should be utilitarian and not monumental. That centre is a very costly monument to those who conceived it and who built it, when one considers the public funds that went into providing it. I am somewhat dismayed to see a recent statement in the Press that suggests that the Canberra airport is adequate to meet our needs for the next 10 years. I find that rather difficult to appreciate when we see the congestion that exists at Canberra airport, particularly during the busy periods. Obviously, we will see a growth in the use of that airport. Members of parliament use the Canberra airport as do also public servants and the public.

The importance of keeping costs down cannot be over-emphasised. Aviation exists to serve the community and its services and facilities ought to be designed with that purpose uppermost in the mind of the Government. As regular public transport operators, Ansett and TAA have a responsibility to hold air fares as low as practicable. I think that is the principal purpose of their functions. They should not be concerned solely with profit but should be concerned with providing services for the public and with providing cheap fares to the public so that the public can have access to movement around our great continent. It seems to me that the Government ‘s attitude was perhaps best expressed at the end of 1976. At that time, it issued a directive to TAA to raise its profit return from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. That seemed to have some relationship to the attitude that Ansett had adopted at that time. It had the effect of building in a higher price structure because the price structure had to be redesigned to return a 1 5 per cent dividend rather than a 10 per cent dividend. Therefore, the aim of keeping air fares as low as practicable was nullified.

If we look at air traffic as being an integral part of our country’s development, it seems to me that it needs to be approached in several ways- for instance, by the Government ensuring that profit levels are not excessive and by increasing load factors on aircraft. The airlines and the Government should look at the feasibility of establishing joint operations in the provision of expensive flight training facilities and maintenance equipment. As I have already mentioned we must consider sooner or later- the sooner the better- the introduction of larger, wide-bodied aircraft, such as the Airbus, the Boeing 727 or the Lockheed Tristar, with better operating economy per seatkilometre. The Minister could have assisted public understanding and debate on this issue by making public the report of the Aviation Industry Review Committee. For some unaccountable reason he has consistently refused to do so.

A second general criticism of TAA and Ansett is the clustering or, as I think it is called in the industry, the parallel scheduling of flight departure times. Those of us who have travelled at some stage or other have been aggrieved to find that we have no choice if we want to travel from A to B. Two flights leave at the same time. Some staggering of departures, some rational approach to this matter, would be better for the travelling public whose purpose the airlines are there to serve. It has been recently reported that the Minister asked the airlines to do something about this question. All I can say is that action is long overdue. It is tardy on the Minister’s part not to have acted sooner. He has been the Minister responsible for this area for two and a half years. The Government has had a free hand to administer the affairs of this country in the way it wishes. We hope that the airlines will respond favourably to the request that has been made by the Minister. The practice, of course, is related to market demand. One company does not seem to want to give or take in respect of changing scheduled flights. That seems to me to be remiss on the part of the companies. Something surely can be done. I think that the Parliament and the people are entitled to expect that something be done. One step that could ease the situation is the sharing of days or departure times or the pooling of revenues on carefully selected routes, as is done amongst international airlines. It seems to me that this is a form of rationalisation that is capable of being examined if not applied. This could go some way towards enabling more evenly spaced departure times and so provide a more acceptable service to the general public.

Reviews of aviation policy which could have shed some light on all these matters should have been conducted by way of public inquiry. Unfortunately Mr Nixon seems to want to avoid public discussion about the airline industry and about transport generally. He seems to insist on a great degree of secrecy. The Parliament and the Australian people have little idea as to exactly what is happening in the aviation industry. This has been highlighted by the recent controversy that the Minister has called the ‘Cavill Affair’. I was interested to read the ministerial statement that was made yesterday. I am not in a position to make a judgment about these matters. My colleague in another place whom I represent here has made mention of a Press release issued on 13 April by Mr Cavill, the Managing Director of the South Australian and Territorial Air Services Pty Ltd- SAATAS. I have enjoyed the hospitality of that organisation by travelling with it to various parts of the Northern Territory. That is the only association I have had with it. The name of the organisation is all that I know.

SAATAS has recently taken a decision to wind up its Northern Territory flying operations giving as its reason the fact that it could not compete with the massive and unfair government assistance given the opposition airline Connair Pty Ltd. Mr Cavill said that he has been consistently refused the opportunity of meeting Mr Nixon and discussing with him important matters concerning air transport in the Northern Territory. Mr Cavill said that SAATAS could not survive when faced with the use of arbitrary power to our consistent disadvantage when we have absolutely no appeal from the decisions of or access to the responsible Minister’. Mr Cavill went on to detail the close links between the company Connair and the Minister’s party, the National Country Party. It seems to me that the Minister has gone to great lengths to deny that any undue influence or pressure has been exerted on him in giving fairly extensive subsidies to Connair over a consistent period. The Press release states that Senator Kilgariff and Mr Calder, who is the honourable member for the Northern Territory, are past directors of Connair.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was referring to allegations that had been made by Mr Cavill from the SAATAS organisation in the Northern Territory which have not been completely denied to our satisfaction by the Minister for Transport. I was listing some of the people who were alleged to be members of the Connair organisation. Mr Damian Millar, Vice President of the National Country Party at Alice Springs, is, I understand, a director of Connair. Mr Cavill further said that the immediate past president of the National Country Party’s Northern Territory executive, Mr Eric Manuell, is a director of Rossair Aviation Sales Pty Ltd which trades as Chartair, a company which has been granted a Territory charter licence and Federal Government assistance. It has to be said that not until my colleague Mr Morris raised this matter in the Parliament did the Minister deign to make any comments on it. Then he made a statement in the House of Representatives and submitted a document to the Senate. But one thing the Minister did admit in his rebuttal of some of the allegations that have been made was that the Press release to which Mr Morris referred in his contribution in the House of Representatives was similar to a telex sent to the Minister on 3 1 March.

The whole matter should be and could be cleared up if the Minister made public the report of the interdepartmental committee that inquired into the provision of aviation services in the Northern Territory and looked specifically at the problems of Connair and SAATAS. He has refused to do this. That report is almost a year old. We understand that it was compiled in May 1977. It was announced a couple of months afterwards, in July last year, that the Government would continue to support Connair. We do not know on what basis that decision was made since the interdepartmental committee’s report was never made public. So we are confronted with a position where justice not only has to be done but also must appear to be done in respect of the conflict that obviously exists between these two companies.

The report that the Minister tabled yesterday, prepared by the Department of Transport and titled ‘Report on Air Services in the Northern Territory’, made brief mention of the IDC report but it is that interdepartmental committee report that is vital, and that still remains a secret. It seems to me that if the Minister and the Government want to clear up this matter that report ought to be made freely available to the Parliament. If it is not there will be some suspicion that the allegations that have been made may have some substance. The Minister’s statement yesterday contains a number of inaccuracies and distortions. I believe that my colleague in the other place pointed out the inaccuracies and distortions during the debate.

The whole purpose of the legislation under consideration, I imagine, is to place the question of safety in proper perspective. After all, the purchase of new planes would be not only to extend services but to make sure that the planes that carry passengers and goods are sufficient to do the job and are in accordance with the proper provisions. I am concerned about a statement which appeared in the Bulletin in the issue of 25 April which said:

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots warned Federal Transport Minister Peter Nixon that a major air disaster could be on his head. Federal spending cutbacks had led to a lack of preventative maintenance on ground navigation and safety aids, the federation alleged. Thousands of passengers flew between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane last week, unaware that 19 of the aids had failed.

In this evening’s Sydney Sun there is an article in which another federal union official, Mr Chris McGrane from the Professional Radio Employees’ Institute, has backed that statement. The report reads:

Mr McGrane quoted a Department of Transport minute issued the day before Mr Nixon made his denial.

This relates to the quote that I read to the Senate earlier. The Minister for Transport described as false the Federation claim that the Federal Government’s cost cutting process on maintenance had caused 19 navigation aids on the Sydney-Brisbane jet route to fail in one day. The minute is quoted in the Sydney Sun. The newspaper report continues:

He said the minute began ‘Owing to funds shortages for freight and financial restrictions for materials, authorised stores holdings will be replenished on a limited basis. ‘

He said, ‘A departmental minute circulated in March said; “The severe curtailment of maintenance at remote and unattended sites had produced predictable results.”

These included “failure of communication and associated equipment” and “the deterioration of runway lighting systems”.’

This minute added, “the integrity of a number of navigational aids is in doubt.” ‘

Mr McGrane said that Mr Nixon had a responsibility- I am sure he does- to reply not only to the spokesman from the Australian Federation of Air Pilots but also to Mr McGrane ‘s endorsement of those remarks.

Senator Wriedt:

– Has he replied?

Senator GIETZELT:

– He has denied it but now we have a statement by another prominent official in the industry saying that members of his association have certain information which would suggest that the Minister’s denial is not satisfactory. So it is the way in which the Minister dealt with that matter as well as this conflict between Connair and SAATAS that has raised some doubts in our minds about the manner in which the aviation industry in Australia is being handled. It should be clearly stated as a matter of principle that we do not want secrecy and the keeping of information from the Parliament. That is the sort of cloak and dagger type approach that has been adopted with Connair and SAATAS and now with respect to the safety issue. It does little to enhance the reputation of the Government and/or the Minister. Surely his responsibilities demand of him that he clearly make available the interdepartmental committee report and that minute from the Department of Transport. That would allay any public concern about safety and about the controversy- clearly there is some basis for suspicion- in relation to the way in which the Department and the Minister have granted a franchise in the Northern Territory.

It is because of the unnecessary secrecy and procrastination, and perhaps even bungling, that we are forced to raise these matters in the Senate when dealing with simple Bills which have as their purpose the purchase of aircraft for our two main domestic airlines, Ansett and TAA. We expect the Minister to make some attempt to allay our suspicion and the concern that is shown to exist in the minds of many people about the safety of our Australian airlines.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-I rise to support the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill and the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill. We are talking about a Government guarantee for 80 per cent of the price of a Boeing 727-200 for Ansett Airlines of Australia and a Boeing 747 for Qantas Airways Limited. Airlines have to spend a tremendous amount of money. They have to do a lot of forward planning and a lot of high technology is involved, as honourable senators could imagine. Sometimes aircraft are bought off the drawing board. Such is the technology and the price involved. To give honourable senators an idea, the guarantee for 80 per cent of the cost of the Boeing 727-200 series involves $US 10.3m and the sum involved in the purchase of the Boeing 747 is $US80m. Because of this vast price and the need for commonality we find that our airlines get locked into a situation. They start off with one type of equipment and are locked into having to continue to use that one type irrespective of whether better equipment comes along that is more advanced, more efficient and so on. That is the state in which the airlines of the world find themselves today, not least of all our Australian airlines.

The Boeing 747 is a success, almost by accident. The United States of America Defence Department called tenders for the supply of a large transport aircraft. Most of the major companies submitted plans and specifications and Boeing was not the successful tenderer, but Boeing was quite happy with its design and decided to produce it in a passenger configuration form. Thus the 747 aircraft was born, which is one of the major success stories in the airline industry today. Modifications have been made to this aircraft but once again, as I have indicated, Qantas finds itself locked in. I am speaking particularly of the engines that can be provided.

The main engines provided are the Pratt and Whitney JT9D, the General Electrics CF6 and the Rolls-Royce RB2 1 1. Some of our Qantas aircraft are equipped with a modified JT9D engine that is known as the 7F and some further JT9D engines are being so modified. It is interesting to note that British Airways flies these aircraft with Pratt and Whitney engines and that lately it has opted for the RB2 1 1 on its 747 aircraft. That company has been flying these aircraft since May 1977. I understand that it is quite pleased with the results. The Rolls-Royce RB21 1-524B is an engine which produces 50,000 lb of thrust, lt is interesting to note that on 1 November 1976 a Boeing 747 aircraft powered by this engine took off at a weight of 381,108 kilograms and climbed to 2,000 metres in 6 minutes 33 seconds, setting an all-time weight-to-altitude record.

This weight lifting performance, combined with the lower cruise fuel consumption of the RB2 1 1 , gives the 236 version of the 747 aircraft a range of some 1,290 kilometres in excess of the 136 series. This enables faster and more economical services to be provided. One-stop flights by British Airways between London and the west coast of Australia are now possible, as are twostop flights to the east coast of Australia. There is a flight time of 23 hours between London and Melbourne. This is made possible by being in a position to make full use of new technology. The RB211 equipped aircraft cruises at approximately mach 0.84, which is about 18.4 kilometres per hour faster than the earlier version. Thus it has higher profitability, a better fuel consumption and a longer range. It can operate with a full passenger load over an extremely long range- probably longer than any other passenger aircraft in service today.

The RB21 1-524 series is a heavier engine and obviously suffers some weight penalty due to its greater structural rigidity, but fortunately the stiffer casings keep the engine ducts circular. Honourable senators might recall that when the 747 aircraft first went into service equipped with the JT9D engine there was a good deal of trouble with warping of the engine ducts and quite a deal of down time was experienced. The RB211 has overcome that problem. It is estimated that fuel consumption for this engine is only about 1.5 per cent worse after 4,000 hours of operation compared with 3 per cent to 4 per cent worse for its other two competitors. Its added toughness also gives it a better maintenance record. It is estimated that only 12 RB2 1 ls are removed after every one million flights due to damage caused by the ingestion of foreign objects, such as birds, compared with an average of 60 for its two other competitors.

As I have said, it is unfortunate that because of the high expense of new technology we get locked into the situation in which we must have commonality. I think it would do the Government quite well to look at this problem, especially considering the cost recovery program, air navigation charges, fuel tax and so on. It must be realised that aviation benefits not only those who fly but also the whole of the community in that people, goods, and mail are able to be transported much faster and a better service is offered to the country as a whole. I think the Government shouldlook at its cost recovery program and try to alleviate some of the burden which is on the airlines today so that they are able to look more practicably at their viability and thus be able to look towards using the new technology.

The Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill seeks an appropriation for the purchase of additional Boeing 727-200 series aircraft. The Boeing 727 would have to be one of the most successful of all the commercial airliners in history. Almost on the tenth anniversary of its introduction into the civil airline fleet Air Canada ordered five further 727s to bring the total number of orders and deliveries to 1,500. But, as with the 747s with the Pratt and Whitney engine, we seem to be locked in on the Boeing 727s at a time- I find myself in agreement with Senator Gietzelt on this matter- when we should be looking at the newer wide-bodied aircraft. It is significant that the new wide-bodied aircraft have the new technology with the high bypass turbo fan engines. In view of the greater passenger load of the wide-bodied aircraft and the fact that less fuel is required to carry that passenger load it makes sense to use them, especially in a country which very shortly will be importing 50 per cent of its fuel requirements and which by about 1985 will be importing about 70 per cent of its fuel requirements. We as a country have to take notice of every aspect of fuel saving.

Senator Wriedt:

– Would it pay to operate those big aircraft outside of Melbourne and Sydney?

Senator COLLARD:

-Probably not. I will come to that in a minute. We also have to worry about traffic density, especially in the Sydney area. If one aircraft can do the work of two aircraft it makes sense to opt for the larger aircraft. I realise that the Australian InterScan system has been adopted for air traffic control in terminal areas. This system will help with the aircraft traffic density problems. As against the old instrument landing system, aircraft will not have to use direct flight paths; they will be able to use circular paths, at the same time helping the noise abatement programs.

At the present time our airlines arelooking at such options as the DC 10, the L101 1, which is also known as the TriStar, and the A300 Air Bus. Eastern Airlines of America has just taken a major decision to purchase the A300. It has supplied some surprising figures. To illustrate the A300s fuel economy advantage, Eastern Airlines compared the fuel consumption of its existing fleet of Boeing 727-100 series and 727-200 series aircraft with the fuel consumption of the A300, which is intended to replace the smaller jet. The airline calculated that it flew 9.9 billion available seat miles in 1977 and found that the 727 jets consumed 315.3 million gallons of jet fuel. The A300s, flying the same volume of available seat miles, would have consumed 206.1 million gallons of jet fuel. This would have represented a saving of 109.2 million gallons or 34.6 per cent in fuel consumption. Based on an average fuel price of $US35.8c per gallon in 1977 the saving to Eastern Airlines would have totalled $US40m. As half the fuel would have had to be importedAmerica is in a similar situation to Australia- the potential saving in imports was $20m, which is a figure which will grow rapidly in the years to come. Eastern Airlines also flies the L1011 or Lockheed TriStar, which is another alternative, but the problem with the TriStar is that it was found that it was optimised for ranges up to 1,400 nautical miles. The TriStar is proving to be a fine aircraft for longer routes but it simply does not yield its best economics on the American eastern seaboard, where there is an average sector of 500 nautical miles, which is what we would be looking at for the SydneyBrisbaneMelbourne route. It is on these shorter runs that the A300 twin really comes into its own. I am using that aircraft as an example because it is the only wide-bodied twin available on the market with the new technology engines. Some of the American companies are considering building new twins.

The third engine was the product of the modest thrusts expected from the big-fan engines in the early days of the tri-jet program. As I said, it is only these large, wide-bodied aircraft that are able to take full advantage of the large highbypass ratio turbo fans. They are able to have a larger volume of air go through them, whilst having a lower exhaust velocity. This, quite basically, means that they get a higher thrust with a lot less noise and pollution. When we think of the lower noise, it is significant that the CF-6 engine that the A300 uses could meet all our curfew requirements. Its noise footprint is approximately the same as that of the Lockheed Electra, and I understand that the A300 is capable of lifting a full load of freight without removing any seats from the cabin. An aircraft such as this makes a lot of sense for our internal airlines, when one considers that, without a curfew applying, when the last passengers have been carried- at about 9.30 or 10 o’clock at night under normal operationsthe pilots, with their sense of responsibility, would be able to work through the night, perhaps having their cup of tea while the plane was being loaded with freight; alternatively, another crew could take over. The plane could then fly through the night distributing freight without curfew worries, right round the main airports of Australia. So this type of aircraft does indeed make sense.

The Boeing 727 has been stretched and reengined a couple of times. Recognising the problems with the JT8D engine which is provided on the Boeing 727, a lot of work on them has been done. It is not a high-bypass ratio engine. It is, as most people realise, a very noisy engine. With this in mind, the 209 series of the JT8D was developed. Unfortunately, it does not make sense to put these three engines on the present 200 series Boeing 727. It would need to go on a much larger aircraft or, as the McDonnell Douglas company is considering, a new aircraft. The DC9-80 series, capable of seating up to 140 passengers, could be powered quite adequately with two JT8D 209-modified engines. Of course, that aircraft is just not available yet, although I believe our companies are looking at that particular aircraft as a standard until in the 1980s something better comes along. I understand that contrary to popular opinion those aircraft that are on the drawing board will not be available until approximately 1984-85. So I believe that our internal airlines do have to start looking at the current supply of wide-bodied jets.

As I said, the use of the A300, for example, on the Melbourne-Brisbane, Melbourne-Sydney, Sydney-Brisbane run, makes quite a lot of sense. Melbourne-Brisbane is a distance of 1,376 kilometres. Using a very high seating density arrangement for both aircraft, and recognising that we would probably not operate them under those conditions- but the seating ratio would be the same- from Melbourne to Brisbane, an A300 with 292 seats would use 11,400 kilograms of fuel. That works out at 39 kilograms per seat.

The Boeing 727, with 184 seats, would use 9,990 kilograms, or 54.3 kilograms per seat.

For Sydney-Brisbane or Melbourne-Sydney, of approximately the same distance, some 700 kilometres, the A300, with 292 seats, would use 7,000 kilograms of fuel, or 25 per seat. The Boeing 727-200 series, with 184 seats, would use 6, 100 kilograms, or 35 per seat. That is with very high density seating; there would be a higher ratio of kilograms of fuel per seat, looking at the usual Australian configuration. On those figures, even if we put them on high density traffic routes, it would make sense not only economy and fuelwise, but also from the point of view of traffic density, especially in the Sydney airport area. If I could conclude by referring to one last hobby horse of anybody who comes from Queensland, the Brisbane airport -

Senator Wriedt:

– Oh, no!

Senator COLLARD:

– I am sorry, Senator. You will have to bear with me. You got all you wanted at Launceston. Much has been said concerning the quite inadequate facilities of the Brisbane airport from an international, domestic and tourist point of view. As everybody knows, we are using the old igloos that were put up during World War II.

I want to discuss it, however, more from an operational point of view. An incident that occurred on 15 February 1978 will help to illustrate precisely what I mean. A Boeing 727 had a systems A hydraulic failure after take-off at Brisbane airport. It could not retract all its flaps and slats, or undercarriage. Thus, as they say in the game, it was too dirty- there was too much equipment hanging out. It could not go onto Sydney because of the fuel problem- with all that extra drag, so it obviously had to get back into Brisbane. It could not do so, for the simple reason that on the main runway, 04-22, there was a high cross wind component on that day. With a systems A hydraulic failure the pilot has the use of only half the rudder. The maximum cross wind component permissible under these conditions was 1 9 knots- 25 knots normal- which was being exceeded consistently.

The pilot circled Brisbane for a considerable time hoping that the wind would drop sufficiently for him to get in. It obviously made sense that if he were going to get in anywhere it should be where the engineers were based. Unfortunately, the wind did not drop. There is a cross runway at the Brisbane airport, but because of length and pavement restrictions it would take only an aircraft up to Fokker Friendship size.

The pilot tried to get in to Amberley, but unfortunately there was a storm over that airport. Eventually he got into Coolangatta. There are no aircraft tugs at that airport and there was concern that the aircraft might be locked in position on the runway: with systems A hydraulic out, the pilot did not have nose-wheel steering. Fortunately, the nost wheel pivoted quite well and the pilot was able to turn the aircraft just by using his wheel brakes. This is one of the troubles with which we are faced.

It is quite significant that the new plan for the Brisbane airport alters the main runway, 02-20, sufficiently to obviate aircraft taking off over the main city area. This means that building restrictions will no longer have to be imposed lest an aircraft lose power on one engine after take-off. It will also mean that the curfew, while we are still using the current aircraft types, would not have to be as severe.

Also, there is a plan for a runway, 16-34, which has the same basic alignment as the main runway as Sydney airport, which provides for use when the south-easterlies are blowing. Herein lies the problem; most of the major airports on the eastern coast of Australia do allow for the south-easterly wind- all except our main airport in Brisbane which, I repeat, is the third largest international airport in Australia. From an operational point of view, it just cannot be used all the time. I recall that one night, one of the airlines stopped all jet traffic because of cross wind there, which was causing compressor stall. It was considered unsafe to continue jet operations that night so that airline closed its jet operations for the night.

It is an indictment of our transport system within Australia that such a thing could happen. As I said, it involved our third major international airport, an airport which I am quite sure would get increasing international use if better facilities were provided. I can do no less than support all my colleagues in Queensland as they seek to have this matter rectified. It is evident in the Governor-General’s Speech, wherein he outlines the Government’s policy, that this will be rectified. After promises for at least 20 years, it cannot come too soon.

It was quite significant, and, I guess a compliment to the Australian airline system, that when that particular aircraft was circling the Brisbane airport and waiting to get into the airport, or, as it happened, to go on to Coolangatta, the major concern of the passengers was whether they would be able to make their connections, such is the competence of our airlines and our aircrews. I think it is a compliment to our domestic airline system that that is all the passengers were concerned about in such a situation. It gives me pleasure to support both Bills.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- The Senate is debating cognately two Bills- the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1978 and the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1978. As honourable senators know, each Bill is designed to provide Commonwealth Government guarantees for purchases of new aircraft. The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill is designed to give a loan guarantee on behalf of the Commonwealth up to $US80m for the purchase of two Boeing 747 aircraft, that is, the jumbo jet. These will be the sixteenth and the seventeenth Boeings of the Qantas fleet. The Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill relates to the purchase of a ninth Boeing 727-200 series, that is, the stretched out 727.

These Bills are supported by all parties in the Parliament. Inevitably, however, whilst there is uniform support for these Bills, honourable senators have taken the opportunity to make comments regarding the airline industry as a whole. Senator Collard gave some very interesting information regarding his own detailed knowledge, first of the purposes of various types of jet engines and, secondly, the possible effect of the introduction of wide-bodied aircraft into the higher density air traffic in Australia. These things, I think, are important, although not directly relevant to the Bills. Quite clearly, the Bills provide for purchasing equipment which is part of the already modern and functioning fleet. Senator Collard also referred to the Brisbane airport. I confirm that the Government has other undertakings for the upgrading of that airport.

The only other speaker, Senator Gietzelt, made a number of points to which I want to refer briefly. He sought to make the point that there might be some difficulties in the sense of what he described as a duopoly, that is, the two airline system in Australia which has functioned for some 20 years or more. He did not make it clear whether in fact he was arguing for more airlines or fewer. Originally I thought his Party supported a government monopoly. The fact is that every country operating modern airlines has found it necessary to make a decision limiting the number of airlines operating in order to ensure that existing airlines can operate profitably and can remain modern. Every airline operator and every government in the world is well aware that it is essential for the maintenance of a safe and modern airline system that there should be no skimping at all in terms of the money spent on the airlines and their equipment. Of course, profitability is an important point. It provides the money necessary for high safety and high performance. It is a fact recognised internationally that Australia has the most effective and, I think, the most modern airline system, both internally and internationally, of any country, and certainly of any country our size. We can be proud of our internal airlines. We can be even more proud of our flag carrier Qantas in its overseas journeys. The fact is that Australia, unique in its size, is a country of massive distances and also of minimum population. Therefore, inevitably the cost of operation internally in Australia must be higher than, shall we say, in Europe or in countries of high population density and small distances. Therefore it is inevitable that we will have problems of relatively high domestic air fares. But the important thing is performance; the important thing is that we have first class airlines in this country.

Senator Gietzelt made reference to the statements that had been made in the past by Mr Cavill, the managing director of South Australian and Territorial Air Services- SAATAS. Suffice to say that to all reasonable people, the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, in the other place and the document tabled by him were conclusive answers to Mr Cavill’s statements. I repeat that those who seek information should go to the Hansard, should go to those documents for what is a compelling answer.

Senator Gietzelt said that if the interdepartmental committee’s report could be produced it could be studied and all would be known. He and his own Party would be very well aware that it is never the practice, where investigations and reports relate to the detailed, private, commercial internal operations and internal business of an airline or any other business, to publish that information. The fact is that repeatedly in this Senate during estimates committee hearings we protect the commercial, private operations of businesses. For example, we protect the commercial activities of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and others. Quite clearly, there would be those who, being competitors of Connair Pty Ltd, would want to find out such information. I think the Whitlam Government, in its day, operated on the principle on which we are operating and no doubt, upon reflection, the Labor Party would agree with us. I am sorry that there should be any suggestion that Connair should be under criticism. Connair has performed for Australia, particularly the wide outback areas of Australia, a magnificent service. The airline, its pilots and its ground crews deserve full marks.

Senator Gietzelt referred to suggestions that somebody had told somebody else or that there were reports in the newspaper that there were significant danger spots in Australian air safety equipment, presumably in the ground safety equipment- the navigation aids, et cetera. I think that when anyone implies that there is some kind of danger it is important to produce the evidence. Senator Gietzelt referred to a minute. Presumably in his view it is an intergovernmental minute or a minute that he alleges is an advice to the Minister. If in fact, he wants to rely on that minute, I invite him to table it for the Parliament so that not only he but all of us may know its nature, its existence, its authenticity, Then we can evaluate it. But simply to allege something drawn from some newspaper article is of course to set in train scare tactics and worries without any basic validity.

There has been some suggestion that a danger has arisen regarding airline safety equipment, allegedly, as Labor Party spokesmen say, because of the economies of the present Government and . that therefore there might be some threats to the airline safety equipment in Australia. No such economies and no such cuts have been made to in any way influence safety factors. Those who fly the aircraft and those who operate the airlines inside and outside Australia know that on world standards Australian safety equipment and Australian skill in flying and maintaining aircraft are very high. Nevertheless, there is always a need to replace equipment that grows old in the service. Yesterday by way of answer to a question I referred to what was happening at the Adelaide Airport in South Australia. There is no doubt in the world that there is a constant need to upgrade our equipment, and I know that my colleague in another place has that matter in mind. We in Australia should be delighted that Qantas is to add two more jumbo jets to its fleet and that Ansett Airlines is to add another stretched out Boeing 727 to its fleet. I therefore commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1367

SOFTWOOD FORESTRY AGREEMENTS BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 April, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– Let me say at the outset that the Opposition appreciates the need for a balanced forestry program for Australia. However, because of our different attitudes to the detail provided in the second reading speech of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), I move on behalf of the Opposition the following amendment:

At end of motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should continue to provide funds to the States for new plantings in the same proportion as in previous agreements, of about 50 per cent, in order to ensure that reasonable continuity of planting rates is maintained ‘.

The first comment I make about the Bill is that it is devoid of detail and to prove that point I refer to the third paragraph of the Minister’s second reading speech. The Minister contented himself with that curt paragraph in which he said:

In the 1 1-year period covered by the three Acts, total loan payments of approximately $54m were made to the States.

He went on to refer to the tending of about 100,000 hectares of new softwood plantations. The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment when investigating the woodchip problem and its effects on forest products found it necessary to probe so many of the assertions that are made and the views that are held. This Bill would have been much more palatable if honourable senators had been provided with a map showing the location of the land where the additional pine plantations are to be developed and details of the monetary aid to the recipient States. Our prime criticism is that this legislation is inclined to curb the expansion of pine plantations. Despite the criticism or brickbats the State governments throw at Canberra, they need the thrust provided by Canberra in the form of financial or other incentives to maintain the forestry program. We will not get any worth while cash crop until the pines have been growing for 25 years or longer and the Opposition does not want to see a situation where we almost close the throttle with the result that over the five years of these agreements, although the Government has said that it will be watching the situation, we could get almost a cessation of planting. This is what we should try to avoid.

I turn now to conservation aspects. In support of the expansion of pine plantations a doctrine has been advanced in the Senate on a number of occasions. On one occasion the Senate had doubts about whether the expansion of pine plantations would not mean the decimation of eucalypt forests and there was a halt of the program until that matter was clarified. I referred earlier to the lack of detail in the second reading speech. There is an obligation on the Government to have better liaison with the States to get this detail. Every State has its own problems. In my State in years gone by a long battle was waged by conservationists to exclude pine plantations from the Barrington Tops. The Wran State Labor Government decided to have the best of both worlds and retained the gum forests in that region but consolidated its pine plantations in the Tumut area. When we say that the tempo of planting should be maintained, it is on the basis that the States use only disused farmlands for additional pine plantations rather than allow the decimation of eucalypt forests. My learned colleague Senator McLaren will expound on this subject in relation to at least one other State. The Senate is entitled to be told chapter and verse how the States are deploying their pine plantations.

I earlier used the word ‘incentives’ and it is worth noting that the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, in its report on the woodchip industry, advocated the use of a carrot to promote the expansion of private forests of different timbers. It is significant that former Senator Everett has played a role on Tasmanian committees in taking on board some of the findings of our own Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment and translating those findings to State level. I say with some feeling that there can be a sort of co-existence between legitimate conservation objectives and the taking up of the slack in the expansion of pine forests. The State of Michigan at the turn of the last century had a number of areas that had been overcut but with skilful government management and with the co-operation of private forestry operators it was able to reverse some of the ill-fated attempts to create farmland where it should never have been attemped From evidence given to the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, which delved into the woodchip industry, I am aware of some of the ill-fated attempts in Victoria to create farmland, of the way in which the environment was raped, of the way in which forests were pillaged and of what followed.

It is inevitable that there will be controversy in every State. I have received correspondence from the Tree Society of Western Australia informing me about some of the local problems. I understand from the Minister’s reply to a question I asked that his argument is that the areas in which pine plantations are expanding are not the ideal habitat for gum trees, bearing in mind dieback and other diseases. The Opposition feels that its approach is a balanced one and shows more faith in the future than the Government appears to show. As I said earlier, the second reading speech was devoid of detail. On the subject of forestry economics there is one thing which the Government must face up to, as the previous Government did- the Minister may care to comment on this- and that is the argument, which I do not accept completely, that our forest products industry should be limited, with the difference being made up by New Zealand products. I know that at times people have suggested that Australia and New Zealand should be amalgamated, but I suppose that we will have to be content with trade pacts.

I know and people who read the sawmill journals know that there are difficulties with employment, particularly in some areas in which the timber industry is of vital importance. I am also conscious of some of the other controversies that have arisen in relation to the tourist industry. Last year I had the good fortune to be able to serve on an advisory committee dealing with forest products. There was no doubt in my mind that, in view of our overall aim of achieving full employment or maximising1 the present work force, any attempt to cut back the tempo of the expansion of pine plantings could have serious effects in rural areas.

In his second reading speech the Minister referred briefly to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Department of Primary Industry. I believe that, instead of name-dropping, documents should have been attached to the speech so that we could study them. Most honourable senators have served on committees and have been in the position of interrogating experts. Sometimes one finds that they put up a sort of facade but when one gets behind it one finds something different. The Opposition has moved an amendment which it feels will have the support of the States and the support of the timber industry. At the same time we want to establish clearly that the anticipated expansion of pine plantations will not lead to the decimation of the eucalypt forests. People like Senator Walsh are far more competent than I am in rural economics, but I think they would agree that in certain farming areas where native forests have been phased out and there is land lying idle the sooner it is added to our future forest production, the better. It is on that basis that I support the amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Colston:

– Yes.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I support the Bill but I cannot support the amendment because I do not think it is necessary, inasmuch as there is nothing in the Bill which prevents the matter being kept under review. Until it is resolved what is the best use of public funds- no one can tell me what this is- some pause cannot be considered as other than desirable, particularly when no projection available at this time can show a potential demand, on any known projection, in excess of the current net plantings in Australia. The Bill provides $4.2 m for tending the previous plantings which have followed the 1 1 years of operation of the various softwood assistance Acts that have been introduced since 1967. The purpose of the earlier Acts was to make Australia self-supporting in softwoods, and neither I nor anybody else here would dispute that in any way. It is generally agreed that the demand for timber is likely to double by the year 2000.

In his second reading speech the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) stated the difference between the two Acts when he said:

The purpose of the previous softwood planting agreements was to increase softwood plantings by the State governments to a level related to Australia ‘s future needs for forest products … a continuation of planting at the relatively high levels supported under the previous agreements would lead in the long term to an oversupply situation.

He said that this Bill should continue to provide finance to meet the same proportion of the States’ maintenance expenditure on the total area of softwood plantations established in the 11 -year period. The current Bill was fully discussed and agreement was reached by the Australian Forestry Council and its Standing Committee. My own State agreed that it would go along with the arrangement that was made and, of course, it is currently looking forward to receiving the money without delay.

The levels of softwood forest plantings are constantly under review, as the Minister mentioned in his second reading speech. There is nothing in the Bill which restrains any revision of the current planting programs which, as honourable senators may well know, have been averaging in the vicinity of 33,300 hectares a year and currently total approximately 1.5 m acres. There is no question of cutting out the plantings altogether. Even this year in excess of two-thirds of the peak plantings will be planted. Approximately 12,000 hectares will be planted in the public sector and about 10,000 hectares will be planted in the private sector. That is sufficient to cover all projections that are currently recognised anywhere in Australia. The recent Industries Assistance Commission timber inquiry, whilst investigating imports in particular, produced much evidence on the industry generally. There was very little which was new but a re-statement of the facts was very valuable and provided a lot of fundamental information that we can continue to use.

In considering this Bill we must consider not only softwoods but also the timber industry generally. I do not believe that it is possible to consider one aspect out of context with the total industry. I fully agree with the Tasmanian Forestry Commission and the Tasmanian Government on that point. Like so many traditional Australian industries, milling has gone and is going through a massive adjustment period. It is a labour intensive industry and in Tasmania it has provided many special advantages. Over 80 per cent of the industry is non-urban, non-metropolitan. Over 70 per cent of the industry comprises businesses of nine people or fewer. In fact, 30 per cent have four people or fewer. The assessments on the future and on the industry itself are very difficult. When the industry looks at the information that is provided by a range of academics, builders, politicians and people within the industry itself, it is very hard to see what the future may actually hold. Much has been written and it varies widely but the best sources of information are fairly similar in that they show how many grey areas there are in the overall scheme. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics still has to be regarded as probably the best source and it raised this problem in the report it produced in 1977 entitled ‘The Australian Softwood Products Industry’. On page 127 it said:

A consideration of the economic indicators of scarcity and the limited data on world resources suggests that the case for a sustained shortage of wood in world-wide terms is unlikely . . .

Further down the page it stated:

On the evidence available it could not be demonstrated that imports displace Australian products from the market to any great extent.

Those comments caused a lot of concern during the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry. Who can tell what the future requirements are purely on a simple technological basis? What will timber not be used for in a few years time for which it is being used today? Conversely, what will timber be used for for which it is not used today?

New Zealand, which has already been mentioned, is very much a timber country. In the last three to four years over 75 per cent of all houses built have had concrete floors. Even in Western Australia over 80 per cent of all new houses have concrete floors. This is a big inroad into the supply of hardwood timber which was traditionally used in Australia. This has happened not only with floors. We are now using light metal frames and roof trusses. There are more brick houses. Aluminium windows, barges and facias are being used. We are even using metal door frames. The average large commercial structure now has virtually no timber at all in it. Will the trend continue to increase or will it swing back? These are queries just in the field of technology. The industry generally faces the sorts of problems that no one is in a position to assess accurately. There are problems not only in the use of timber but also in its growing and harvesting. Likely building levels also have to be considered. A study of various population and building projections shows that the estimated number of houses likely to be built per year currently varies from 150,000 to 120,000. We are probably using 35 per cent to 40 per cent less timber now than we used 15 to 20 years ago.

Another important factor which is affecting the timber industry generally is the conversion to pine from hardwood. Hardwood has particular problems but the two kinds of timber are inextricably tied together for various reasons. One of the articles I was reading recently said that it could be expected that within the next two decades pine will replace hardwood almost completely in the building industry. In the last four years the production of hardwood has dropped by 5 per cent. The production of softwood has increased by 17 per cent. I believe that it is a trend which we will continue to see. It is not possible to discuss or consider a softwood industry without considering the entire timber industry. They are interchangeable to a large degree. How we merge the two will have a lot of bearing on the requirements for and the uses of timber in years to come. As we know, hardwood costs are high and recoveries are low. But the two kinds of timber cannot be separated totally. It is not possible to consider softwoods without hardwoods and the needs, demand and degrees of interchangeability.

The funding for timber also has to be considered jointly. We have to consider how public funding can best provide for the requirements of the future. Should funds go to native forests?

Should they go to public sector softwoods or hardwoods or to private sector softwoods or hardwoods? We have to determine in which way public funding will produce the best results overall. No conclusive report has been made on this matter. I shall suggest later in my speech that one should be prepared.

I could not support a decline in forestry. I look to the Government to make decisions for forestry based on a thorough and proper investigation of the needs and resources available. Page 133 of the BAE report sets out a list of items. Under the heading ‘ Future Research ‘ it states:

During the course of preparation of this report, it became apparent that further research into the following items would be most useful for a more detailed evaluation of the economics ofthe Australian softwood industry: the availability of hardwood supplies, in the light of existing or likely constraint on this resource; trends in population; trends in the rate of private softwood plantings; trends in GIMP; movements in the international export market; and trends in housing construction.

The Bureau recognises that it is very difficult to produce a report unless it has all sorts of information which is not currently available. I fully support the need for research in all these areas. We are reaching the stage where our hardwood supplies may well need to be reserved for specialist jobs such as furniture and the various mouldings for which Tasmania is so well known, with the balance going into the pulping industry.

Having mentioned mouldings, it is appropriate for me to refer to the Industries Assistance Commission report. The 15 per cent tariff mentioned in that report has caused great concern in Tasmania. Because of the very high quality of the Tasmanian timbers and the mouldings that come from them, the competition from overseas in these items is very great. The Tasmanian industry is very important to Tasmania in that 60 per cent ofthe total production is exported. It has recently been helped substantially by the introduction and implementation of the freight equalisation scheme. This has enabled the Tasmanian millers to reach their mainland markets on a more competitive basis. The Tasmanian Forestry Commission is of a very high standard. It has done an excellent job. It is a large industry which is apparent by the financial commitment in this Bill wherein Tasmania gets the highest per capita amount which is over 10 per cent of the total. The Tasmanian Forestry Commission has under its control 30,000 hectares of pine while the private sector has 12,000 hectares. In 1977-78 the Forestry Commission planted 1,700 hectares. The projection for 1978-79 is for a further 1,500 hectares. This is apart from what is being planted by the private sector.

During the 1 1-year period in which the softwood forestry agreements have been operating the Forestry Commission has planted approximately 20,000 hectares of pines of which virtually half has been planted through Commonwealth funding. There are about 10 millers of softwoods in Tasmania. Regrettably, they do not enjoy a very happy situation at present. Their profitability is insufficient and the royalty position is unclear. They have difficulties trying to interpret the mind of the State Government which seems to vary the royalty rate substantially. At the moment a discussion is taking place and an inquiry is to be held because in one instance a rate of $ 14 a cubic metre is being sought while $7.23 a cubic metre is being offered. That means one of two things. Either the growing costs are too high and the royalty is too high or the millers obviously lack a lot of skills and have far too low a recovery rate. I do not think that either of those propositions is quite correct. However, I believe that for there to be such a difference in the price asked we must be getting fairly close to one side or the other of that equation.

The whole point is that no industry can be sound and satisfying unless its merchandising is effective, efficient and profitable. The industry cannot prosper if the amount of royalty that is being sought is excessive. The largest and newest operator in this field, Tasmanian Softwoods, was recently totally destroyed by fire. Its future depends entirely on the negotiations over royalty. At present the whole government attitude in Tasmania on milling generally is not clear and needs to be clarified. The whole industry wants to know what is really the Tasmanian Government’s attitude to forestry. So much depends on that. After the report of a recent Industries Assistance Commission inquiry was released Mr Batt, the Treasurer of Tasmania, was quoted in the Press as commenting on it. An article in the Mercury of 8 April under the heading ‘Hope for rise in timber protection ‘ stated:

The Treasurer, Mr Batt, said yesterday he was optimistic that the State’s timber industry would get increased tariff protection.

An article by Lance Norman in the Australian Financial Review of the same day under the heading ‘Forestry concessions in Tasmania may go ‘stated:

Tasmania’s pulp and paper industry, one of the largest in the State, faces a threat to its forestry concessions.

What the Tasmanian Minister for Mines, Forests and Environment, also the Hydro Electric Commission, Mr Andrew Lowrey, is considering, is in effect tearing up the existing Acts and starting again.

The attitude of paper company chief executives is that if Tasmania ‘s Labor Premier, Mr Douglas Lowe, does repudiate the Acts, ‘ he will never get another major industry again ‘.

We need to know where we stand. If the industry at large is to develop it must know more about its future than it does at present. We have to look at the softwood industry over the next 50 years because with quicker growth, higher yields, lower labour and better technology this industry must continue to produce products which are more readily usable than the slower growing and lower return hardwoods. The hardwood areas are being reduced by government actions. That may also change the predictions. At present the Forestry Commission is making every effort to back the hardwood industry and it is more interested in regenerating the hardwood areas than has ever been the case. With the work that is being done by the paper manufacturers, the millers and the chippers in the softwood areas a great deal is also being done in the hardwood areas.

The import question has recently been subject to much comment. It has been stated that approximately 25 per cent of all the timber used in Australia is imported and that 40 per cent of all the paper pulp is imported. We seem to buy our timber from Canada, New Zealand and the Far East in particular and our pulp comes mainly from New Zealand and Scandinavia. Having been through the report of the Industries Assistance Commission it would appear that possibly only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of what is imported is at this stage reasonably substitutable. Many of the lines of timber that are bought are imported because they serve a particular purpose. Problems will arise because of New Zealand’s wish to export timber. Australia and New Zealand have similar problems. Both countries have similar aims and a similar ability to produce timber. I think it is unfortunate that a clash on this matter between Australia and New Zealand is inevitable. However, we have to proceed with our own programs. I think we have to try to negotiate our way through the world markets and to see that both of our countries obtain the best advantage possible, but not at one another’s expense.

It is also apparent that most of the imports are brought in by major Australian manufacturers. The dealers in Australian timbers are also the biggest importers. I hope that they will look seriously at whether they can buy more Australian timber wherever it is possible to do so. I look to Australians generally to buy Australian, and that includes timber, timber products and paper. To me, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics is not infallible, but its report on the Australian softwood products industry was well based and its general findings, based on the information it had, have not been seriously questioned. Those findings are under constant review. The 1975 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation reported on the softwood forest agreements. Whilst that Committee looked at specific aspects, it did draw some fairly relevant conclusions, not the least of which was finding No. (ii) on page 3 of the report, which states:

There is a need for a softwoods planting program, possibly on a lesser scale than that planted at present.

The Committee took a rather superficial view of the industry but it had sufficient evidence to influence it to make that comment. I believe that that indicates that the whole question has to be inspected fairly closely to make sure that we cover the needs.

An academic paper was produced at the Australian Forests Development Institute conference at Mount Gambier in 1977 at which Douglas and Treadwell demonstrated with considerable research and depth the best available projections they could come up with. Their method has been soundly questioned and it has been queried from a whole variety of areas but it has not been disproved as yet. On page 15 of their paper they state:

  1. . it was calculated that a planting rate of 10,100 ha per annum for the years 1976 to 1980 will be required for sawlog self-sufficiency to be maintained to 2,020 and 1 ,600 ha per annum for pulpwood self-sufficiency to be achieved in the years 2001 to 2005. This provides a total plantation requirement of 1 1,700 ha per annum from 1976 to 1980. In order to maintain sawlog self-sufficiency for the decade after 2020 the required post- 1980 planting rate is 25,260 ha per annum.

These estimated plantation requirements are well below the average rates of around 33,000 ha per annum which have actually been attained in recent years in Australia.

There is quite a lot in that article with which I do not agree, but at this stage nobody in the timber industry or from around the timber industry has been able to come up with any evidence to indicate that what they said was wrong.

The Bill merely puts into force an agreement which was made last year with the States to cover a specific operation which has already run nearly 12 months. In no way does it prevent further funding of forestry- softwoods or hardwoods, private sector or public sector. In fact, I believe it does the opposite. It gives a challenge to the Government to reassess the whole position and to act on the best recommendations that can be put forward. Accordingly, I will be taking the opportunity at the appropriate time to promote the following proposition:

That the following matter be referred to the appropriate committee:

From what sources should Australia aim to meet its timber requirements:

Native forests;

Government plantation softwood and hardwood;

Private plantation softwood and hardwood;

Import.

Should Australia aim to export forest products?

What action should the Government take to achieve the desirable course of action?

That is entirely separate from the point of this Bill which, as I said, is no more than regularising arrangements which were made with the States last year. On the understanding that this proposed motion will come forward, I support the Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Senator Archer has, in an ambivalent way, discussed this Bill. One can well understand his ambivalence because if one reads between the lines of his speech it is quite clear that he recognises that this legislation is in error and is ill-conceived, and that he ought to be voting for the amendment which has been moved by Senator Mulvihill. Of course, Senator Archer does not have the courage to defy his boss in the House of Representatives by voting for the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party. His way of extricating himself from that awkward situation is to propose a wishy-washy amendment to refer this Bill to a committee thereby, he hopes, passing the buck and getting himself off the hook.

I should like to give some factual background to this Bill. It provides $4.2m this year to the States for tending pine forests planted during the 12 years 1966-1977 inclusive. It is important to note that the Schedule to the Bill explicitly states that no funds will be provided for land purchases or for new plantings. Clause 5 of the Schedule of the Bill states:

The State shall ensure that an amount, or any part of an amount, paid to the State under this agreement is not used or applied except for the purpose of meering expenditure on tending planting during the five financial years.

That is the five financial years covered by the Bill. So it is perfectly clear that none of this money which is being provided to the States by the Federal Government may be used either to purchase land for new plantings or to establish new plantings. Let us get that very clear: Unless the States are to meet this shortfall in capital availability from their own sources, the rate of public planting of pine forests will decline by 50 per cent. The money is provided to the States on loans with the interest payable at a long term bond rate. There is a holiday period of, I think, five years before the commencement of the repayment of the principle is required.

The object of the softwood forestry program when it was initiated in the mid-1960s was to ensure that Australia had self-sufficiency in softwoods in the longer term, or something close to self-sufficiency, and probably it envisaged a transition gradually from hardwood to softwood usage in Australia as the hardwood forests were depleted because in many areas they were being overcut. In Western Australia they were quite seriously overcut. It was believed- indeed the present indicator still supports this belief- that Australian produced softwood timber could be price competitive with imported supplies. It is at the moment generally price competitive with imported timber and there is some evidence that in real terms timber prices are rising. It is estimated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that timber prices have been rising in real terms in the United Kingdom by about 2 per cent per annum and by about 1.8 per cent per annum in the United States, in addition to which freight rates, in real terms, also seem to be rising. So, if those assumptions are correct- they appear to be well based- local timber should remain price competitive with imports well into the future.

Since sawmill costs on softwoods are lower than on hardwoods, due to easy access to large timber reserves, generally large mills are established and consequential higher labor productivity is achieved. The indications strongly favour the belief that Australian softwood timber will remain price competitive with imports well into the future. Therefore, a program aimed at achieving self-sufficiency will be economically sound. As Senator Archer stated in the more rational and realistic part of his address, it is very difficult to project long term demands for timber for a number of reasons. One reason is that, within fairly wide parameters, the time of harvesting for softwood forests is optional. We could choose to harvest them at 25 years, 30 years, 40 years or perhaps even 50 years. So, there is a great deal of flexibility in annual outturn because of the flexibility in the maturation period. It is also difficult to estimate the demand not only because of change in fashions but also because of the crucial role of the population growth. For example, a population growth of 1.5 per cent per annum as against a static population would double the demand for housing a generation hence. Since it has been established that it is difficult to forecast with any accuracy population growth rates, that is an additional uncontrollable variable which very seriously affects the demand.

Then, of course, there is the question of substitution, relative pricing and so on, and the long term nature of the whole project. If we are thinking of sawlogs, a minimum time period of about 25 years is required, and it is not easy to predict with any certainty anything that happens 25 years ahead. Indeed, the quotation which Senator Archer has read from Douglas and Treadwell at the Australian Forest Development Institute Conference last year- incidentally, I was going to quote from that document- set out the projections based on the most recent available population growth of the required rate of planting between 1976 and 1980 up to the year 2020. It is significant, however, that Senator Archer ceased quoting from that document at the time he did. He had said that the estimated plantation requirement for this 5-year period of 1976-1980 was about 1 1,700 hectares per year, which was well below the 33,000 hectares per year for total Government and private plantings which we have seen in recent years. He cut off the quotation at that point. In fact, the article continued:

As is elaborated below, the rapid shifts in planting rates implied in the above figures could cause management problems and hence, some smoothing of the planting levels could be necessary.

Later in that document, it is stated: . . where the required plantation rate jumps from 12,000 ha to 25,000 ha after 1980). As discussed in the BAE report such fluctuations might be technically valid from the supply/demand balance point of view, but they could create severe problems for the organisations responsible for plantation establishment and a longer term approach was acknowledged as being more practical. One solution, from the management point of view, would be to even out the plantation requirements from one period to the next.

What all that means is that if we accept a rigid maturation period of around 30 years and do not look beyond the year 2020, the rate of plantings compatible with that likely to follow from this legislation is acceptable. But if we look beyond the early part of the next century it becomes probable- indeed, it becomes more than probable; it becomes highly probable- that a planting rate of 25,000 hectares per year will be required to fill demand in the longer term. If this legislation is passed and unless there are compensatory plantings either from State funded sources alone or from private sources, the planting rate will drop below 20,000 hectares per year. Whilst that appears to be enough in the immediate future- that is, of course, pitched at demand 30 or 35 years hence- if we look beyond the 1980 time for the required planting rate we need about 25,000 hectares.

It ought to be fairly obvious, as the Treadwell and Douglas paper notes, that it is highly desirable under any circumstances to maintain reasonable continuity and stability in the volume of plantings from one time period to the next. The Government proposes in this Bill that by restricting finance in the five year period a drastic reduction will be induced in the rate of plantings which will subsequently in the post- 1980 period have to be compensated for by an acceleration in the rate of plantings. If the Government has its way we will move from a high rate of planting in the immediate past to a very low rate of planting in the immediate future and an intermediate rate of planting in the higher future. We believe that at any time this action is quite clearly undesirable but at this time, for reasons which I will make clear shortly, it is ludicrous.

Senator Archer:

– It is also untrue.

Senator WALSH:

– What is untrue?

Senator Archer:

– What you have said.

Senator WALSH:

– What I have said comes from the Treadwell and Douglas paper from which the honourable senator has already quoted. The paper stated that a planting rate of 25,000 hectares per year seems to be required for the period after 1980. A planting rate of that magnitude is not provided for in this Bill. It is explicitly stated in clause 5 of the Schedule from which I have quoted that none of these funds may be used to purchase land or to establish new plantations. It is worth observing in passing that for various reasons, one of which is that there are very compelling ecological and economic objections to destroying hardwood forests for planting softwood forests, there is a good ecological and economic case for purchasing farmlands, particularly marginal farmlands, for planting under pines. That is explicitly precluded by the legislation which we have before us.

To maintain self-sufficiency for which there appears to be a very strong case and to maintain a reasonable level of stability year to year in the volume of plantings- nobody can be certain about these things when we are looking 30 or 40 years hence- it is necessary to plant more pines in this five-year period than this Bill provides for. We also have moved this amendment because we are not now in normal times. Australia is going through a period of deep economic recession. As I will demonstrate in a moment, it has become obvious even to the Premier of Western Australia- it has to be really obvious before it becomes obvious to him- that in a period of deep recession there is an especially strong case for government investment in capital works. Planting pines is one example of public capital works. Even Sir Charles Court has the message that if unemployed resources already exist in the country it makes good sense for governments to employ these otherwise unused resources on projects which will have long term benefits for the nation. Instead of expanding public capital expenditure of that nature we find that this Government, in the area of forestry as well as in a number of other areas, actually plans to wind back on public capital expenditure during a recessionary period. The pre-Keynesian economics of the 1920s which played a major role in multiplying the recession of the early 1 930s are alive and well in Australia under this Government. To return to Sir Charles Court, I will quote from the West Australian of 25 April which in turn was reporting an address which Sir Charles Court delivered in Sydney to a body which calls itself the Young Presidents Organisation. In one of his rare moments of economic perspicacity Sir Charles said:

Government capital does not have to expand government at all. Government capital can, in fact, expand the private sector.

If we restrict that idea to employment Sir Charles Court knows what he is saying. Despite all his fulminations about socialism and the undesirability of expanding State bureaucracies, nobody has expanded State government employment by as much as Sir Charles Court. The Flinders Labour Institute showed in its most recent quarterly bulletin that in fact there had been a 62 per cent increase in State government employment in Western Australia since 1971 and a 50 per cent increase since December 1973 which is roughly the period when Sir Charles Court became Premier. The growth is well in excess of the growth of State government employment in any other State. If Sir Charles Court, above all people looks at these statistics he should realise that the growing absolute level of employment in Western Australia about which he so proudly boasts can be directly ascribed to the expansion of State government employment under his stewardship. To continue with the quote from Sir Charles Court: lt -

That is the Government- can do so -

That is, expand the public sector- by backing big programs to accelerate the development of the working assets of a nation:

Railways.

Roads.

Ports.

Water.

Power.

Sewerage and drainage.

He did not mention forestry planning, but he may well have included it with these other items. He continued:

Such a program could be seen as a necessity in every country.

There is not one country whose public working assets do not need improvement or expansion . . .

If we jump in now with programs to improve the working assets of our nations we will be using idle capacity to do it . . .

It makes sense to move now- without any delay at all - into something like a five year plan to improve the working assets of our nation and simultaneously start the world on the road back to recovery by providing demand leadership of a positive and valuable kind.

He continued.

Where will the money come from?

In most countries, there is less a shortage of capital than a shortage of faith or opportunity to use it well.

In some countries there are massive surpluses which could well be dispersed around the world in direct loans.

I will return to that last point later. When stripped of all the pretentious verbiage Sir Charles Court is actually saying that public capital expenditure can at least help to lift a depressed economy out of a recession. It is not exactly an original thought. Keynes wrote on it in the 1930s. Keynesian economists have been advocating it ever since. They call it pump priming or compensatory spending. The Labor Party has been advocating it lamentably without success to this Government for the last couple of years. Sir Charles Court finally has caught up with this very old idea. Whilst it would have been preferable if Sir Charles Court had caught up with it about a generation earlier, we welcome him aboard and observe in passing that his entry into the world of Keynesian rationality, retarded though it has been, is better late than never.

The problem- I refer here to overseas loanswith turning people like Sir Charles Court loose on the Arab loan market, something which he has dearly wanted to do over the last couple of years, is that experience shows that he cannot be trusted to spend wisely the money he borrows. Sir Charles Court was the chief architect of the scandalous Ord River scheme in which more than $100m at current value has already been sunk in capital investment. This not only fails to produce any dividends but also provides a continuing drain on the Treasury of Western Australia to keep alive the handful of farmers who are still there. Whilst the idea is sound- it is pleasing to note that Sir Charles has belatedly caught up with the idea that Keynes articulated in the 1 930s- its execution in the hands of such a person is highly suspect. I also observe in passing that I find it somewhat ironic that Sir Charles Court of all people should be advocating that an Australian government should borrow money overseas to stimulate capital investment of a governmental nature in Australia. I seem to remember that when that idea was floated back in 1975 Sir Charles Court thought it was an outrageous proposition. It has taken him 40 years to catch up with John Maynard Keynes; it has taken him only three years to catch up with Rex Connor.

The further amendment proposed by Senator Archer only ducks the issue. Senator Archer obviously knows very well that this piece of legislation, which explicitly denies funds for new plantations is misconceived. He and the people who support him know that they should be voting for the amendment that we have moved. I suspect that they will not vote for that amendment. They will try to dodge the wrath of both the rational section of the society which takes a deep interest in this matter and the electors in Tasmania. They will try to dodge the wrath of their electors and their Leader by passing the buck off to a committee. It just is not good enough.

Senator Archer:

– Our Government has agreed to this.

Senator WALSH:

– It did not have any option. It is like the former Treasurer just prior to the election agreeing to resign when he had the option of getting the sack. It is like saying that somebody who has been told that he is to be executed in the morning and is given a cyanide pill to swallow the night before commits suicide. That is the sort of option which the Government of Tasmania had. Senator Archer now has an opportunity to give the Tasmanian Government another option, the option of having the Government of which he is a backbencher censured by the Senate for introducing a misconceived piece of legislation- as it has done. The amendment which has been foreshadowed by Senator Archer just is not good enough. It seeks to dodge the issue. The amendment that Senator Mulvihill has moved confronts the issue. I strongly urge any honourable senators on the other side who are willing to take the rational view of this matter, and unwilling just to pass the buck as Senator Archer proposes to do, to vote for the amendment that we have moved; firstly, because it ensures that there will be reasonable continuity in the volume of plantings which are required to provide self-sufficiency, and secondly, because at this time, with the economy deep in recession, there is an extraordinarily good case for public capital investment of this nature.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I was somewhat surprised, but not all that surprised, to hear what Senator Walsh, whom I follow, had to say. Basically I should like to support what Senator Archer said in broad terms although there are some aspects which I wish to develop a little further. I do not want to take a great deal of time in restating what has already been stated in the debate in the House of Representatives as well as in this chamber, and what is well known anyway, in relaton to a whole lot of facts, figures and opinions. But let us have a look at the action proposed by the Opposition about which Senator Walsh has just been speaking. The Opposition proposes that we should agree to what is commonly known in this place as a pious resolution. The Opposition has moved that at the end of the motion ‘that the Bill be now read a second time’ the following words be added: but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should continue to provide funds to the States for new plantings in the same proportion as in previous agreements, of about SO per cent, in order to ensure that reasonable continuity of planting rates is maintained.

Senator Walsh had the temerity; I forbear from using another description which might apply- to suggest that the Senate’s agreement to this amendment would ensure that the planting program would continue unabated in Australia. Of course it would not and everybody knows that it would not. That is why this sort of resolution whilst expressing an opinion and having some effect and importance, certainly cannot be categorised as it was attempted to be categorised by Senator Walsh. For that reason a number of people on this side of the chamber, being of a more constructive turn of mind, wish to see something more constructive done about the matter. It is in that light that I wish to make some suggestions to the Senate as to what may be able to be done.

We are concerned with the future of a developable, replenishable resource in Australia. I understand from the highest authorities that Australia is one of the most efficient producers of softwoods in the world. In other words we are not flapping about something in relation to which Australia is inefficient or inappropriate as a producer. In fact, I understand that Australia can produce softwoods almost as efficiently as any other country and certainly far more efficiently than most other countries if given a chance. To have a chance the trees have to be planted.

I refer now to the next phase. Some 1 1 years ago the Federal Government decided that in cooperation with the States it would endeavour to create this resource which can be developed. So the governments engaged in a softwoods planting program which has continued until the current year. This has produced a considerable area of growing softwood in Australia. But, as everybody knows, it is something like 15 yearsperhaps at the very earliest 10 years- before any production can be received from the plantings and then only from thinnings. A series of thinnings can be made but it takes in the order of 35 years before the real cut is available. Of course it does not matter if the softwood trees are not cut for further years. Once they have grown, once we have got them, we have a resource which is available provided it is not attacked by disease, fire or something else which may be described as an act of God

The important question about the development of this resource is the planting of it because if the trees are not planted they are not growing. Once they are growing and we find that we have more than we need we can slow down. We can leave the trees to grow for an extra five years before they are cut and no harm is done. But it seems to me to be shortsighted to say at this stage of Australia’s development of this potential major resource and at this stage of the assessment of Australia’s future requirements that there is no need for any Commonwealth participation in the increased plantings of softwoods in Australia.

It is proposed under the Softwood Forestry Agreement that the Commonwealth will provide $4.2m this year and somewhat similar amounts in future years for the maintenance of existing plantations. As they are cut they are not to be replaced. We will have a diminishing resource from a point of view of Commonwealth involvement. I believe that it is reasonable for this Senate to say that we are concerned about Australia’s future and about ensuring that future generations are not deprived of a resource which we should have had the foresight to provide for them. I believe that it is a proper function of this chamber as a House of review to look at a question like this and to ask: Should we or should we not make recommendations for ensuring a greater availability and development of this resource over the next few years? I believe therefore that this is an appropriate matter to be considered by a Senate committee, using the Senate committee system which has been developed for the very purpose.

Every honourable senator in this chamber is fully aware of the sort of work that has been done by Senate committees which have had Bills referred to them for examination and report. We all know of a number of instances of Bills which posed problems and about which there were varying opinions being referred to committees and coming back to this place with relative unanimity after inquiry and then being able to be passed with a considerable degree of relief on the part of those who were concerned about the provisions of the Bills.

Senator Mulvihill:

– They play the role of a milling machine.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Senator Mulvihill. That is an appropriate way of describing the situation at a time when we are talking about softwoods and timber. The amount involved in this Bill is about $4.2m. So far nobody has displayed any great urgency about getting the Bill through. The agreement was negotiated a long time ago. The amount of money for each State is a tiny percentage of each State’s budget. I do not believe that any State will find itself to be in a dangerous situation if it does not receive the money within the next few weeks. I cannot believe that the situation is not one in relation to which this chamber can say that it would like through its committee system to consider whether we are depriving future generations of something to which they are entitled. If this matter were referred to a committee I believe that it would be a far more effective way of approaching the question than simply expressing an opinion which can then be ignored. I think that if this Bill is referred to a committee for consideration and a report is produced by it by the commencement of the next session in August we will have served future generations in a way in which we are required to serve them. A little foresight will not do any harm.

There is another current aspect to which I would like briefly to refer and that is the question of employment. This is an industry which, at a time when there is a high level of unemployment in Australia, could provide with relatively small amounts of money a considerable number of jobs in country areas where employment may be hard to obtain. I will leave that to those of my colleagues who wish to develop it. I would like to see this Bill dealt with tonight and I do not want to take too long in contributing to this debate. I just make reference to that aspect as an obvious reason why we should reconsider the subject of plantings and the provision of some Federal Government encouragement and assistance towards that end.

I think the general situation is summed up by two relatively brief quotes that I would like to read. The first is from a submission which was made to the Industries Assistance Commission by the Australian Particle board Manufacturers Association. It submitted:

The lesson from the BAE experience- previously acknowledged at the FORWOOD Conference–

That was in 1974- is that frequent review is essential. The other lesson is that forestry is a long term business and it is difficult to quickly rectify the supply situation.

I think those two points are terribly important. They are the two points on which I really base what I want to say. One is that frequent review is essential and the other is that we are dealing with something that cannot be quickly rectified if a mistake is made. A number of people in Australia believe that possibly it is a mistake to cut out plantings altogether.

Senator Archer:

– Not altogether. It is still two-, thirds.

Senator RAE:

– I am sorry. Senator Archer intervened and says that it is not a matter of cutting them out altogether. I accept the correction. What I meant was that some people believe that Commonwealth participation in the development program should be cut out. I think that to leave it to be developed in some other more haphazard way would be recreant of us because we have a responsibility to look at the Commonwealth’s role.

The other quote I want to refer to appeared in a submission made by one of the major users of softwood timber, that is, Associated Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. It submitted:

While perhaps 30 years ago it was reasonable to consider a small pulp mill tailored to the low- by world standardstotal demand in Australia, it became obvious in the past 12 years that much larger pulping units were essential. Unless such units are to be of minimum size to afford economics of production, an Australian-based industry would be of disservice to the community and ultimately, would be forced into extinction.

That is another broad aspect that has to be considered. We have to ensure that in association with the existing mills there will be adequate plantings to keep them going in future years and at an expanding rate because we have found that the economics of size are such that more is required to go through to keep a mill profitable and viable as a unit. Unless there are adequate plantings and expansion programs we may find that a number of mills in Australia will have to close.

For the various reasons and expressions of concern that have been outlined generally by almost every speaker in this debate tonight I think that it is a proper function of the Senate to have this legislation looked at by a Senate committee. I believe that the appropriate committee to make a reasonably expeditious inquiry into this subject would be a committee of this chamber which already has looked at matters associated with softwood plantings in Australia, that is, the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, which last year produced a report dealing particularly with the woodchip industry in Australia. That Committee has an association with softwood plantings. It has an experienced membership. I believe it has the capacity to make a relatively expeditious inquiry and to ensure that a report can be prepared and presented to this Senate by the beginning of the Budget session. Therefore, after the Opposition’s amendment has been dealt with- I indicate now that for the reasons I have mentioned I will not be supporting the Opposition’s amendmentI propose to move that this Bill be referred to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Science and the Environment for a report as soon as possible but not later than 25 August 1978. 1 propose to move that amendment at the first opportunity after the Opposition’s amendment has been dealt with. I believe that the Opposition’s amendment will not be carried. I trust that the one which I have foreshadowed will be supported by the Opposition. If it believes that this is a matter of some seriousness that is one way in which we can constructively act in relation to this subject. I have foreshadowed my intention to move that amendment.

I support the general concept of the Bill except to the extent that I am concerned that it may not go far enough because it curtails new plantings. I believe that in the interests of the future of Australia we should have an inquiry into that aspect in order to satisfy ourselves that the Bill is appropriate at the present time. The Bill covers a period of five years. We are dealing with quite a long period, not just the current year. I do not believe there would be any real disadvantage if this Bill were not passed immediately, whereas tremendous advantage could be gained from the opportunity of looking at it as a House of review should look at these sorts of matters.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I also wish to speak only briefly about this legislation. It seems that tonight there is considerable agreement on both sides of the House, as there seemed to be in the other House when this Bill was debated. I must express some amusement at Senator Rae’s objection to the Opposition’s amendment, which I support. Certainly the amendment just expresses an opinion. But one would have thought that the Senate was within its rights and the Opposition was within its rights, in expressing an opinion such as the one embodied in our amendment. Indeed I remember that in the days when I sat on the Government side of the House and Senator Rae sat on this side of the House this method of tacking on amendments to the motion that a Bill be now read a second time was frequently used.

I do not say that we should delay this legislation by referring it to a committee of the Senate. I have no personal objection to such a committee as Senator Rae mentioned considering this legislation or the further planting of pine and other softwoods in this country, but I believe that it is important to pass the legislation, at least for its positive effects, and express our view to the Government on what it has not done. The positive part of the legislation, as described by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) in his second reading speech, is to continue financial assistance for the tending and maintenance of softwood forests previously planted, with the assistance of the Government, in the States. That positive aim obviously is not objected to by anyone.

Senator Webster:

– Hear, hear!

Senator GRIMES:

-What is objected to, despite the Minister’s hear, hear, is the decision to withdraw assistance for plantings for the immediate future and then presumably to look at it again and perhaps increase assistance later on.

The proposal, as Senator Rae has said, will in fact discourage plantings for perhaps 5 years. Then, we assume, a resumption of plantings at revised levels will occur. The respective Ministers in both Houses, in their second reading speeches, said that the Government’s decisions were based on the findings of the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on the Australian softwood products industry. That report attempts to analyse the supply and demand for forest products up to the year 2020. What we are in fact doing in a time of high unemployment, especially rural unemployment, is cutting back, limiting the growth, of one section of the forest industry. This decision is based on predictions of what will happen in the year 2020 on not only a national but also a global basis. This is the part which concerns me. We should look at this proposition and its implications very carefully.

We should look equally carefully at the evidence which has been produced in this report and, in turn, has resulted in the Government’s decision. Futurology is always an uncertain hobby, but I think everyone will agree that in the case of the agricultural, the rural, industries it is an extremely uncertain hobby. The inability to predict what will happen in two, three or four years time has been sufficiently demonstrated for us not to attempt to predict what will happen in the year 2020- especially when one considers that wars do occur, that natural disasters occur and that great economic dislocation occurs also. As Senator Archer has said, we have no real idea of what the future utilisation of wood will be, just as we have no idea of what substitutes will be found for other products.

The amendment does not call for a massive increase in plantings, which some people would object to. It does not advocate the replacement of native hardwood forests with pine plantations. It does not advocate the substitution for hardwood reafforestation of softwood reafforestation. It just advocates the maintenance of the present level of plantings, which one would expect to be on cleared, marginal agricultural land. The doubts I wish to raise, revolve around the BAE report, which is not by any means accepted unanimously by experts in this field, by experts in the States. If I could briefly mention some of the difficulties which arise when one considers the report, the first conclusion, at page 127, which relates to supply and was, I believe, quoted by Senator Archer, is worth repeating. It reads as follows:

A consideration of the economic indicators of scarcity and the limited data on world resources suggests that the case for a sustained shortage of wood in world-wide terms is unlikely but that short-term or regional shortages will probably continue to occur.

We are talking about predictions for the year 2020. The key reference in the report is to this problem of the limited data that are available. Not only is the amount of information available limited, but quite frequently, that information when one considers the varying sources, is widely divergent in its levels, particularly in predictions of utilisation and production. The experts differ considerably, and when one looks at the data available one appreciates the difficulties that the BAE had in trying to bring out any sort of report at all. Often that data is quite contradictory.

If I may give some brief examples- I have no wish to detain the Senate- turning to page 1 1 of the report, and the reference to the United States of America’s regional supply and demand for wood, we find that that section speaks of the availability of softwood and hardwood roundwood and states that, in using various price projections, it is estimated that by the year 2000 the total annual demand for roundwood will be between 46 1 million and 63 1 million cubic metres, whilst supply will be about 551 million cubic metres. There is an extraordinary difference- in only that one country- between the estimate of 461 and 631 million cubic metres. If one cannot get any closer than that in one’s predictions- and I have no reason to believe that anyone can- one is going to have considerable difficulty in reaching any sort of conclusions.

Similarly, at pages 12 and 13 of the report, where the situation in Japan is considered, different authorities give their estimates of the degree of self-sufficiency that will be reached by and the import requirements of, Japan to the year 2020. 1 shall not go through the whole table that is provided, but one notes considerable differences between the estimates of experts using the same information and presumably, methods of calculation. Those estimates are so wide apart that it becomes difficult to understand how one can come to conclusions on the world scene.

Senator Archer:

– So let us have an inquiry.

Senator GRIMES:

– If the honourable senator is suggesting that a Senate committee of inquiry can do any better than can the BAE in this area, he may be very much mistaken. By the same token, why Government supporters object to the Senate expressing an opinion such as it would by adopting Senator Mulvihill ‘s amendment, has not been made clear to me.

On pages 12 and 14 of the report, the New Zealand situation is considered. The predictions for that country are said to be the best and most accurate in the world but, again, they are hedged about by warnings that land availability and environmental problems may militate against accuracy. It is also pointed out that Japan will continue to pressure Australia, as a competitor for New Zealand ‘s production, if we continue to rely on that market. On page 17, where the situation in Russia is considered, extraordinary differences are noted in even the estimates of softwood now available. Equally people have no idea in China, or most other countries, of what the real situation is. Russia was once considered to be the hope of the world as far as softwoods are concerned, yet now there are great differences of opinion concerning how much is available there. We have to look at both the global situation and the national situation. Most people think- reasonably- that we should be able to reach self-sufficiency in this area, and that without destroying our own hardwoods and making an ecological mess of this country.

We have also to realise that, as Senators Rae and Walsh have mentioned, pine forests are replenishable and, if planted properly, are nonpolluting and developable assets with a wide margin of usable life. One is not looking at a product which will develop in 15, 20 or 35 years and must be used then. The usable life of that forest can be extended up to 50 years probably, at any time. Such forests are also subject to various pest infestations, to natural disasters and to the sort of root rot problems from which the jarrah forests are suffering in Western Australia. It is reasonable, therefore, that we make some sort of an estimate to take into account these disasters which may occur, which may interfere considerably with the future production of pine and which may interfere with our estimates, and with our supply situation. We should have some means of having a margin for error to account for this.

The situation that this Bill will present means that the Federal Government will cease financial support for that part of the forestry industry which it previously supported. We will certainly have a cut-back in employment in this area because there is no real hope of State governments or private industry taking up this slack. One can also be concerned that if we have a further drop-off in employment in this industry- we have great difficulties with rural employment at the moment- we may have problems in five or 10 years’ time when we wish to start plantings again. We may have problems in obtaining the skilled manpower which may be necessary. This may even flow over and affect our ability to maintain the forests that we have.

I do not think any compelling evidence has been presented to convince me or anybody else on this side of the chamber why, in a time of economic difficulty such as this, we should cut back on this small amount of money and hence cut back on the amount of employment and development in the country. I am not impressed that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, strenuously as it has strived to do so, has been able to make predictions as far ahead as the year 2020. We are not dealing with a vast amount of timber; we are not dealing with a vast amount of money. We have unemployment problems and we have difficulties, yet we are cutting back on the development of a resource and we may well regret that in the future. It is for this reason that I support Senator Mulvihill ‘s amendment.

I repeat that I have no objection to a Senate committee looking at what we should be doing in this country for the future development of softwood forests. But I do not believe that a Senate committee can in a few months do sufficient to justify the rejection of the positive parts of this legislation- the supply of money to maintain the forests that exist now. It is for that reason that I prefer Senator Mulvihill ‘s amendment.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– With the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill 1978 we are dealing with a proposal by the Government in relation to a program of planting softwoods that was initiated as a positive contribution to the economy of the country in 1 967 and in relation to a product which would come to maturity over a period of 40 years. Now after 1 1 years we have soothsayers putting forward the view that we should curtail future plantings. Their views are based upon what seems to me to be completely fanciful predictions.

I suggest that we resort to a little commonsense with regard to the program and view it in its totality. We have reached the stage where, after 1 1 years, the industry has made quite a significant contribution to the timber resources of Australia and to the timber industry itself. It is admitted on every side that the cost of Australian softwood compares favourably with any estimate of imported costs of competing timber. Even at the present time we are not supplying our own full requirements, nor will we be able to do so unless the basis upon which the program was initiated heads for a downturn due to the assessment of population growth, which is regarded to be in the decline.

I do not dispute that so far as one can see the trend but one cannot say that the small, positive program of planting of softwoods should be discontinued after 1 1 years in relation to a timber growth which will take 40 years to mature and based on predictions which endeavour to survey, as Senator Grimes has said, the world scene, both from the point of view of quantity available and the cost of production. In everything that I have seen- I have read these reports very superficially- there is an admitted want of knowledge with regard to the quantity and, of course, there is a complete want of knowledge as to the cost in the next five years, much less the next 15 or 50 years, which is the span ofthe prediction. Therefore, where the cost of the present product is not out of proportion to that of imports, where there is a country which is dependent still upon imports to a very great degree and where a self-sufficiency can be reached only upon the most doubtful predictions, to curtail plantings seems to me to defy common sense. In a period when the urgency is great to maintain productive employment both in the private sector and the public sector, to withdraw this side of the industry at the present time is not acceptable to my judgment. Therefore I support the proposal which is in line with the function of the Senate, namely to take into consideration these proposals, to discuss them with whatever witnesses are available and then, as a committee composed of both sides of the chamber does, come to a judgment as to the reliability of these assessments and whether or not we would be wise to curtail an expenditure, insignificant in the general budget, of about $5m a year, say for the program of the next agreement- five yearswhen the demand for employment of this nature is imperative.

I should have thought that on my side of politics there would not be found one who would deny that if productive work could be economically organised to absorb the now idle labours of those people who are drawing unemployment benefits the money should be spent in this way. The only thing that led the Labor Government to curtail its Regional Employment Development scheme and which led us to decide not to reinstate it was the inefficiency and diseconomy of organising new works. But that does not apply with the continuance of a softwoods program of planting. I give no final opinion but the reason I would suport a committee to consider this Bill is that my judgment at present is that this is an ideal labour intensive existing program of employment which it would be wrong to discontinue at this stage.

I have forborne to utter any criticism with regard to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics report and the Industries Assistance Commission report. I have looked at what Sir Bede Callaghan said with regard to Tasmania, that is, that Tasmania should be in a most promising position with regard to re-afforestation occupation. But these predictions from the article by Douglas and Treadwell which has been quoted by previous speakers in the debate involve computerised formulations of various factors of economy and supply between the years 2003 and 2020. To show the margin of indefiniteness and therefore from the point of view of responsible judgment unreliability as a basis of programming, if we improve sawdust recovery and reduce sawdust waste in this industry it makes a difference of a considerable percentage to the prediction. Who of us is game to curtail an industry of this employment potential by withholding a comparatively small amount of money on the basis of predictions so undependable as that? I have said sufficient to indicate that I would be most grateful if a committee examined the matter, heard face to face the witnesses and formed its own judgment because I do not think that there is justification for discontinuing a positive planting program building assets using labour resources which are now idle or are about to become idle and which otherwise would be paid for doing nothing. If this program were continued they would be paid for producing reliable forest resources. I hope that the Bill will go to a committee.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill 1978 to which my colleague Senator Mulvihill has moved the following amendment:

At end of motion, add- but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should continue to provide funds to the States for new plantings in the same proportion as in previous agreements, of about 50 per cent, in order to ensure that reasonable continuity of planting rates is maintained ‘.

Senator Wright would no doubt support that amendment in view of the words he has just uttered to the effect that we ought to continue our plantings and create employment for people. I look forward to him crossing the floor and voting with us on this occasion. In the second reading speech of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) it was pointed out that the purpose of the previous softwood planting agreements was to increase softwood planting by State governments to a level related to Australia’s future needs for forest products. I think it would be appropriate to quote from the report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics on the history of the Softwood Forestry Agreements Act. In Part I the report states:

In 1967, the first Softwood Forestry Agreements Act was passed through the Federal Parliament. The Act made provision for Commonwealth assistance to the States under Section 96 of the Constitution for purposes of plantation establishment by the State Government forest services. At the time, such assistance was considered necessary to provide the States with sufficient funds to plant softwoods at the rate of about 23,700 hectares per year. It was not considered that private forestry may have been an alternative to government intervention, given the long-term nature of the investment, the relatively low rate of return . . .

Those words are contrary to what Mr Porter, the honourable member for Barker, had to say when he endeavoured to castigate the previous

Whitlam Government and the present Dunstan Labor Government. I quote the words of the report again:

It was not considered that private forestry may have been an alternative to government intervention given the longterm nature of the investment, the relatively low rate of return.

Mr Porter, and I will refer to him later, made some very serious accusations against the Dunstan Government for entering in to the industry in the south-east of South Australia, He apparently did not read that part of the report although he quoted extensively the report in his speech. He conveniently overlooked that part. The report also stated that the level of federal financial assistance is approximately 50 per cent of the total expenditure incurred on the softwood planting program under the Acts. The details of the loans paid by federal governments to State governments under the Acts are given in table No. 1 in the report. I will refer to that table and then seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. I have shown the table to the Minister and also to the occupant of the chair earlier in the debate. The table shows that although the softwood forest industry plays a major role in the economy of the south-east of South Australia, that State is the lowest recipient of federal funds of any State and that speaks very well of the management of the softwood industry in South Australia and particularly in the south-east of the State.

The table shows that in 1966-67, the first year of the implementation of the Softwood Forestry Agreement Act, South Australia received $90,000 and Queensland received $291,000. In the next year South Australia received $205,000 which was much lower than that received by any of the other States. The following year it received $230,000 which again was lower than the amounts received by the other States. The next year South Australia received $350,000, and this pattern continued until 1975-76 when it was estimated that South Australia would receive $390,000. The loans received by that State over the ten year period totalled $2.65 lm out of a total funding to all States of $48.00 1 m. So South Australia’s percentage of the total was very low compared with that of the other States. That augurs well and speaks volumes for the management of both private enterprise in forestry and the State run forests in South Australia. At this juncture I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator McLAREN:

– I now refer to some of the remarks made by Mr Porter. It is unfortunate that every time legislation comes into either the other place or this place a member or senator on the government side from South Australia will take the opportunity to wrongfully accuse the previous Federal Labor Government of creating all the problems we are now experiencing under this Liberal-National Country Party coalition Government. In the other place on 4 April Mr Porter took the opportunity provided by the debate on this Bill to make a further attack on the policies of the Dunstan Labor Government, and it gives me pleasure tonight to refute those attacks with figures. First of all I will quote what Mr Porter said to put the matter in context. On page 958 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 4 April, after he had quoted from a Bureau of Agricultural Economics report and had made one point, he said:

The second point I make is that the forestry industry, like nearly every other industry in Australia, suffered and continues to suffer from the disastrous consequences of the period of Australian Labor Party government. The high inflation rate, the huge increase in labour costs and industrial lawlessness suffered by Australia during that period priced workers out of jobs.

We all know that there are many thousands more workers out of jobs today than there were when we were in government in the federal sphere between 1972 and 1975, so it is no good members of the Government parties harking back as they do continually to the problems we now face and saying that they were brought upon this country by the Whitlam Labor Government. Mr Porter continued:

The result in the timber industry was a speeding up of the shift to mechanisation.

That is completely wrong. We live in modern times and I would say that the people engaged in the industry in the south-east of South Australia would not take too kindly to the remarks made by Mr Porter, and they are the people he represents in the federal seat of Barker. A lot of modernisation has taken place in the mills in the south-east. So much so that they are able to compete most favourably with imported timbers for housing construction and second fixings in homes, particularly in South Australia. If honourable senators were to look at the linings and the second fixings which have been carried out in some of the government offices in South Australia with locally produced timber it would do their hearts good. I was pleased to hear Senator Wright say that the Australian product compares more than favourably with imported umbers. No doubt the Australian product is being used in Tasmania in just the same way. I take great pride in congratulating private enterprise in the south east of South Australia and the State Labor Government for what they have done to put a better product on the market and to compete particularly with Oregon which we have to import from Canada. In his final criticism of the Dunstan Government Mr Porter went on to say:

Finally I want to raise the question of Government intervention in this industry. Clearly the nature of the industry, the long-term investment period and other factors necessitated Government assistance. However, in South Australia this has now gone much further.

I hark back to the remarks I made about the BAE report. Private enterprise could not be expected to fund the industry because of the long term commitment. Yet Mr Porter criticised the Dunstan Labor Government for taking part in the industry. He went on to say:

Recently the Government in South Australia bought a large share of a relatively small umber retailer in Mount Gambier.

I contacted the South Australian Minister of Forests, Mr Chatterton. After I had acquainted him with the remarks made by Mr Porter he sent me the following telex:

THE S.A. WOODS AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT PURCHASED A SHARE OF A. ZED AND CO., TIMBER MERCHANTS IN THE SOUTH EAST, WITH A LOCAL BUSINESSMAN, MR SCOTT, ON A JOINT VENTURE BASIS. THIS CO-OPERATIVE APPROACH WITH PRIVATE INDUSTRY HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT POLICY OF THE S.A. GOVERNMENT AND IS WORKING EXTREMELY WELL. THE S.A. WOODS AND FORESTS DEPARTMENT ALSO HAS A JOINT VENTURE WITH SOFTWOOD HOLDINGS AT WILLIAMSTOWN IN THE ADELAIDE HILLS.

MR PORTER IS INCONSISTENT IN CRITICISING THE DEPARTMENT FOR BECOMING INVOLVED IN MARKETING IN THE SOUTH EAST BUT NOT IN ADELAIDE. THE REASON FOR THIS IS SIMPLY THAT A. ZED WAS FOR SALE AND IT WAS A CONVENIENT SIZE COMPANY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO GAIN EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA. THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN AN OUTSTANDING SUCCESS AND HAS CONTRIBUTED MANY MILLIONS TO THE STATE TREASURY. THE DEPARTMENT HAS A TRACK RECORD FOR GOOD MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND INNOVATION BOTH IN PLANTATION FORESTRY AND IN THE PROCESSING OF TIMBER. THE SAWMILLS IN THE SOUTH EAST ARE SOME OF THE MOST ADVANCED IN AUSTRALIA.

I agree with Mr Chatterton in his remarks. I now refer to a document entitled ‘South Australia Development 1977’. It gives the lie to some of the statements made by Mr Porter. I quote from page 20 of that document. Under the heading Forestry ‘it states:

The majority of the State’s forest plantations is in the South East, and one species (pinus radiata) is predominant, representing over 90 per cent of the softwood plantation in the State. Hardwoods account for only 1.2 per cent of the total forest plantings.

A table in that document shows that in March 1974 the State forests covered 73,811 hectares. Private forests covered 16,876 hectares. In March 1975 the State forests had an area of 75,690 hectares and the private forests had 17,145 hectares. The latest figures available are for March 1976. The area of the State forests covered 75,924 hectares and private forests covered 17,943 hectares. The greatest area of softwood forests in South Australia is held by the South Australian Forestry Department. The document also states:

Private plantation forests in South Australia amount to just over 17,000 hectares, almost all of it owned by the two industrial forestry companies operating in the south-eastern region, Softwood Holdings Ltd and Sapfor The Woods and Forests Department operates three large sawmills and a wood preservation plant in the Mount Gambier region and supplies log to private sawmills and pulpmills in a commercial forestry operation. It employs nearly 800 people in the forestry and timber milling operations.

Almost 600 hectares of land was purchased by the Department in 1976-77 for afforestation purposes. Establishment of the 1977 forest plantation comprising almost 1300 hectares is now in progress and just over 1350 hectares are being prepared for planting in 1978.

A number of people are employed on those plantings. Mr Porter said that the industrial problems that were experienced in Australia during the reign of the Whitlam Government had some effect on the economy but he did not quote from the BAE report. I have a table on the production rate of the work force in South Australia which appeared in the BAE report. It is entitled Productivity Indicators in the Sawmill Industry 1968-69 to 1973-74’. The output per sawmill in South Australia was far greater than in any other sawmill in any other State. Again I compliment the workforce and the people who run the sawmills in South Australia. In 1968-69 the output per employee in cubic metres in South Australia was 366 cubic metres. The next highest output in any other State was 235 cubic metres in Tasmania. In 1969-70 the output per employee in South Australia was 378 cubic metres. The next highest was again Tasmania with 245 cubic metres per employee. In 1971-72 there was an output of 492 cubic metres per employee in South Australia. The next highest output was again Tasmania with 268 cubic metres per employee. In 1972-73 the output per employee in South Australia was 562 cubic metres, the next highest again being Tasmania with 269 cubic metres per employee. In 1 973-74, the latest year for which figures are available from the Bureau of Statistics, the output per employee in South Australia was 447 cubic metres. The next highest output that year was Victoria with 259 cubic metres per employee.

There again Mr Porter’s argument when he growls about the production rate and the industrial strife under the Labor Government is blown to pieces. These figures from the Bureau of Statistics prove that the output per employee in South Australia is in some cases double that of employees in any other State. Again I give credit to the forestry industry, the sawmilling industry and in particular the State Forestry Department in South Australia for what they are able to do. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator McLAREN:

– I have another table which gives further proof of the efficiency of the industry in South Australia. It shows that South Australia has by far the lowest number of sawmills of any other State yet its total productivity is far higher. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr Porter was very critical of the mechanisation of the industry in South Australia. On 7 April the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, opened a new modern sawmill at Kalangadoo. On Saturday 8 April, the day after Mr Dunstan opened the new sawmill, the Mount Gambier Border Watch stated:

Mr Dunstan said it seemed incredible that it was not a long time since the Kalangadoo unit was a tiny rip bench mill which converted small diameter and short length logs into case flitch.

It was now part of the $29m in assets held by Softwood Holdings Ltd, a company which employed 1,400 workers to be not only a major commercial enterprise in South Australia but throughout the nation.

Referring to the mill equipment, Mr Dunstan said the new gang saws and conveyor system was a system not bettered anywhere in Australia, while the new Stamick saw guide system was the only one of its kind in Australia.

Mr Dunstan congratulated Softwoods’ project engineering section which carried out the detailed drawings and specifications, and supervised the installation of the new plant.

He also applauded both workers and management for the excellent safety record enjoyed in the mill.

So there we had the Premier giving the facts the day after Mr Porter gave in the other place not the facts but a distortion of the facts and blamed the industrial unrest for the mechanisation of the industry. Mr Dunstan was able to prove that by the very mechanisation of the industry we have some of the most modern equipment in the softwood industry in Australia, if not the world, at Kalangadoo in the south-east of South Australia. I hope that when Mr Porter next goes to the south-east of South Australia and talks to employees in the softwood industry in places like Nangwarry, Tarpeena, Millicent and the Mount Gambier area he will be able to wriggle his way out of those statements. As a former poultry farmer I know that chickens always come home to roost. One cannot make public statements without running the risk of someone coming along and rebutting them, particularly when one is doing one ‘s darndest to discredit a government which has been one of the best governments ever seen in South Australia. I am referring, of course, to the Dunstan Labor Government.

This legislation is supported by the Opposition. I hope that other Government senators will join with Senator Wright and support the Opposition’s amendment. I want to refer to one or two other matters before I conclude my speech. The great problem now facing Australian forest owners, both private and public, is the surplus of pulpwood. Part of that can be attributed to the recession in the economy and the downturn in paper and cardboard production, but it also can be attributed to the surge in plantings over the last 20 years, leading to huge quantities of first and second thinnings. If these thinnings are not taken the trees will not grow to suitable sawlog proportions. Currently log is being cut to waste in South Australian forests because it is impossible to dispose of small round wood to the pulpers. Before the Federal Government issues any further licences to export chips from our native hardwood forests it should ensure the disposal of surplus pine chips from our softwood plantation forests.

I am supported in those remarks by the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment entitled ‘Woodchips and the Environment’. The Committee stated in its conclusions

Clearfelling for woodchips poses a number of threats to the environment,

Of course it does. Yet a great volume of small round wood timber is being cut to waste in the south-east of South Australia because we do not have any means of disposing of it. Formerly we disposed of it to the cellulose mills. However, there has been a downturn in the need for this material because of the downturn which has taken place in the economy in the last two years. There has been a downturn in the need for paper pulp and the products of cellulose mills to such an extent that some 200 employees at one of the mills at Millicent have been retrenched in recent times. If only we could find a method of turning this small round wood timber into woodchips instead of clearfelling hardwood forests, I am sure the members of this Committee, particularly Senator Mulvihill, would be very, very pleased.

I hope that the Government will take some notice not only of that report but also of my remarks in saying that we should not issue any more woodchip licences for hardwood. Of course, the procurement of those hardwood chips in some areas, particularly the Eden area, is devastating the environment. We should be using up the timber that has to be cleared so that our softwood forests can grow to a proper size. The Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment also made the following statement at page 393 of its report:

Whilst South Australia has no large-scale chipping schemes, it has a pulp industry which relies upon softwood as a resource. The major products manufactured are particleboard and tissue and toiletry papers.

I have made mention of the fact that there has been a downturn in the demand for those items because of the downturn in the economy. I support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Mulvihill. As I said earlier, I look forward to seeing other supporters on the Government side joining with Senator Wright and supporting the Opposition when a vote is taken on that amendment.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– The previous softwood agreement between the States and the Commonwealth expired nearly 12 months ago- on 30 June 1977- and the States are waiting for their money. Consequently I cannot support the amendment which has been foreshadowed by Senator Rae and which will be moved when Senator Mulvihill ‘s amendment has been dealt with. The Bill seeks to implement a further agreement between the States and the Commonwealth for a period of five years. All previous agreements related to an expansion of the planting of softwood timbers. Over the 1 1 years in which the agreements have operated a total of $54m has been spent on loan payments.

Until last year all agreements related to the expansion of the softwood industry. Last year a review was undertaken by the Commonwealth Government. During that review the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Forestry and Timber Bureau of the Department of Primary Industry carried out several surveys. Those surveys were very extensive. The Bureau came forward with the recommendation that Australia should be self-sufficient. That would be a most economic use of our land. Indeed it would be a great asset to Tasmania. The Bureau also indicated that, owing to a downturn in population forecasts, an expected downturn in the demand for timber could be anticipated. If this occurred there would be an over-supply of timber if the plantings continued at the high level to which we have been accustomed.

Many considerations have to be taken into account in this regard. I would like to look at one of them, that is, the demand. Demand, particularly among the architectural associations, is often a fickle thing. Demand can fluctuate. In the architectural area timber has been overtaken by steel, concrete and aluminium. Perhaps in these days of energy conservation it would be a good thing to look at the fact that all umber products have a low energy use while concrete, steel and aluminium are very high in terms of energy use. The potential for exporting timber products from Australia is very great. We have had very encouraging estimates in respect of the Asian markets. It is expected that exports to that area will expand. Australian timber is a very superior product, particularly when compared with some of the imported timbers. The Government is considering all aspects of this matter in the context of the necessity to curtail government spending.

The first plantings under the softwood agreements were made in 1916, which is just 1 1 years ago. The first thinnings will be made in 15 years and other thinnings will be made at intervals up to when the trees reach maturity at 40 years of age. We are now a quarter of the way to that maturity. I agree with Senator Rae’s statement that if there is an oversupply there is no need to harvest the timber. It can go on growing and it will only increase in value. Over-supply is not a burden. However, the Government has decided that despite this and because of the need to economise it will carry out a review. I make no apology for the need to economise. I feel sometimes that as Government suporters we seem obliged to cover up the feeling that we have to make economies in all areas of expenditure. I cannot see anything wrong with this. I believe that if the BAE report indicated that there would be a drop in demand a responsible government would react to that. So long as the review is maintainedthe Government has promised a review- I believe we would be irresponsible in spending money that it is not essential to spend at this particular time. We have been told tonight that once planting has ceased the long term results will be extremely bad. 1 do not go along with this viewpoint. The Government has promised a review and so long as this review is looked at I see no harm.

As I said, the States are in full agreement. They are waiting for their money and I believe this Bill must be passed. Like Senator Archer, I believe a committee could be set up to look into this matter following the passage of this Bill. I would be in full agreement with having this committee look not only at the softwood industry but also at the whole of the forestry industry in Australia. I believe that the hardwoods need looking into just as much as the softwoods do, and this, I believe, would be a responsible action to take in this area.

The Government has decided in this new agreement that it will share with the States the full cost of plantings during the five years and the cost of maintaining and tending all existing plantings for four of the five years, but in this first year, 1977-78, there will be a limit on expenditure of $4.2m. Again, because of the cost limitation, there will be no assistance for purchased land in this first year. But the Government already has assured the States that there will be a review at the end ofthe first year on 1 July 1978. Up till then, we expect all the plantings to be done on cleared land, but on 1 July 1978 the position will be reviewed and more land is required additional finance will be available for clearing land for planting.

One particular area of concern to me which has been mentioned by Senator Grimes tonight is that of maintenance. I looked fo’r the definition of the word ‘maintenance’. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) mentioned this in his second reading speech. I remind the Senate of this particular area. The Minister said:

On the basis of available information the Government concluded that further agreements along the lines of those authorised by the 1967, 1972 and 1976 Acts were not justified at this time. It considered however that it should continue to provide finance to meet the same proportion of the States ‘ maintenance expenditure on the total area of softwood plantations established in the 1 1-year period, as the area of Commonwealth assisted plantings bears to the total area of planting in that period.

I looked for the definition of the word ‘maintenance’ both in this Bill and in the original Bill. I found that in the Bill before us tonight there was only a definition of ‘planting’ and a definition of tending planting’. In the first agreement of 1967 there was also no mention of maintenance but there was mention of planting, tending planting and then replanting failed planting. It is the replanting failed planting that I believe is the equivalent of maintenance. This is the area of concern that I share with Senator Grimes. 1 believe that replanting is essential in areas that have been damaged by fire, disease, drought or animals. We find that up to date fire has not been a problem in the softwood industry. Out of the 600,000 hectares in Australia, fire has not destroyed any greater area than 1,000 hectares at the one time in the past 10 to 15 years. However, in other kinds of Australian forestry, greater fires have occurred. Areas of up to 50,000 hectares have been devastated by fire. Whilst it is not a problem at the moment in the softwood areas, as the softwood forests increase I believe that fire could become a problem.

If we look at disease we find that there is a fungus disease called dothistroma. It is not a concern in Tasmania at the moment but one is not permitted to bring seedlings into that State from other States and nurseries spray in anticipation of it being introduced. But diseases also can destroy quite large areas. If this occurs, I believe they should be replaced. Animal destruction can be quite considerable, particularly in the softwood areas. I am not referring to the first two years of planting when baits may be used; I am talking about later periods when the trees are 6 feet to 12 feet high. These softwood plantations can be damaged considerably through being ringbarked by rats and brush possums. They can cause devastation to large areas. I believe that out of 7,000 acres planted in the last five years, in some areas in southern Tasmania 30 per cent has been destroyed by ringbarking by rats and brush possums. Thirty per cent is a quite large area of those 7,000 acres. I believe that these areas also should be replanted under the maintenance that we have promised to the States. Drought also causes large scale failure in some areas in Australia. However, 1 have spoken to the Minister about these problems and he has assured me that he will look into this area. We can assure Senator Grimes that his area will be looked into by the Minister and I am quite certain that he will rectify this situation for the States.

We heard from Senator McLaren this evening of the devastation caused to our environment by the woodchip industry. A lot of emotion has been displayed about our management in the forestry area, particularly in the woodchip area. I wonder whether Senator McLaren really has done his homework properly on this matter. Has he gone ito the affected areas? Has he looked at the various reafforestation programs after a period of time or has he, along with many of the other emotional people, just gone into the forest after the initial burn-off when, admittedly, the place looks as though an atomic bomb has hit it. It looks bad and it is bad. But let Senator McLaren go back to the forest to have a look in three years, five years and then 10 years.

Debate interrupted.

page 1387

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1388

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Overseas Postings: Hardship Posts (Question No. 290)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1) What overseas postings for officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs are regarded as ‘hardship posts’.
  2. What are the criteria for determining if an overseas posting should be categorised as a ‘hardship post’.
  3. Are ‘hardship posts’ reviewed regularly; if so: (a) when did the last review of ‘‘hardship posts’ occur, and (b) what changes, if any, were made to posts designated as hardship posts’.
  4. Are persons posted to ‘hardship posts’ given additional allowances or emoluments; if so, what are they and on what basis are they determined.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

The degree of ‘hardship’ at overseas posts is recognised in various ways. This recognition can be by way of additional recreation leave, by paid leave fares to anotherlocality, by length of posting, by payment of a Difficult Post Allowance or by a combination of these entitlements. On the assumption the honourable senator is referring to those ‘hardship posts’ defined as much for payment of Difficult Post Allowance and all other entitlements, the situation is as follows:

Group A (Allowance of $1,500 per annum); Accra, Hanoi, Peking, Dacca, Jeddah, Rangoon, Dar Es Salaam, Lagos, Vientiane.

Group B (Allowance of $1,050 per annum); Algiers, Colombo, Kingston, Nauru, Ankara, Damascus, Jakarta, Manama, Papua New Guinea, Baghdad, Karachi, Moscow, Tripoli, Beirut.

There are no rigid criteria. Judgments are made by the regulatory authorities in consultation with operating Departments with officers serving overseas. Judgments are based on the various aspects of difficulty pertaining at the time.

Yes, generally at two yearly intervals on inspection by the Public Service Board. If warranted by significant deterioration or improvement in conditions at posts, reviews can be undertaken between inspections.

  1. Yes, please see ( 1 ) above for Group A and B posts. Amounts are fixed by the regulatory authorities after discussions with Departments with officers serving overseas.

The difficult post allowance is regarded as income for purposes of Australian taxation.

Passing of Information on Passport Applications to State Police Special Branches (Question No. 308)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

Do people applying for a passport immediately have their names, a copy of their passport photograph, a copy of the application for passport form, and a list of countries the person intends to visit, sent to the Police Special Branch in each State, as stated in ‘The Australian’, 30 March 1978; if so:

for how long has this system operated; (b) under what legislation is it possible for information provided to the Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department to be sent to State Special Branches; (c) to what use is the information put by Special Branches; (d) how long is the information retained by Special Branches until it is destroyed; (e) do Special Branches provide information on persons seeking passports to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; if so, what are the details; and (f) what efforts are made to safeguard the privacy of persons applying for passports.

Senator Withers:
LP

– The Foreign Minister has advised that the answer to the honourable senator’s question is no.

Taxation on Gifts to Anti-Uranium Organisations

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 15 March 1978 (Hansard page 586) Senator Tehan addressed to me as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate a question without notice which related to the status for income tax purposes of gifts to a body opposed to uranium mining. I indicated that such gifts are not deductible and undertook to refer to the Treasurer the honourable senator’s suggestion that action be taken to make this fact more widely known. The Treasurer has now provided the following answer:

I agree with the honourable senator’s concern that there should be no misapprehension in the public’s mind about the true position regarding gifts to the body he referred to. It will be appreciated, however, that there would be practical problems in widely publicizing a negative message ofthe kind he envisages: people are far more interested in learning what they can claim deductions for. However, I trust it will be sufficient if I reiterate that gifts to this or any other body whose purpose is to oppose uranium mining are not deductible. Further, there is no way that I would recommend to the Government that they be made tax deductible. I suggest that anyone who is thinking of making a gift to such a body and is in any doubt about its status for purposes of the income tax gift provisions should check first with his or her local Taxation Office.

Obscene Publications

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 4 April 1978 Senator Haines asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs say whether at present an examination is being conducted of Australia ‘s position with regard to United Nations convention 710, the international convention for the suppression of the circulation of and traffic in obscene publications? If such an examination is in progress, can the Minister say who is conducting the examination, what are their qualifications, what, if any, are their terms of reference and when is the examination likely to be completed?

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

Officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs have been examining in consultation with officers ofthe AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department the Convention for the Suppression of the Circulation of and Traffic in Obscene Publications. There are no terms of reference involved in consultations of this nature. Inquiries have been made overseas to determine the attitude to the convention of other States which are parties to it. As soon as replies have been received to all the inquiries which have been made, the Departments concerned will be in a position to make recommendations to the government on what action, if any, should be taken in relation to that convention.

Postal Strike: Delays in Issue of Passports

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 7 April 1978 Senator Walters asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to passports held up in the recent New South Wales postal strike. Is the Minister aware that S20 was charged for replacement passports of three months duration, the issue of which was made necessary because of the protracted industrial dispute in one of the this Government’s departments? Can the Minister say whether a decision has been made that the $20 charges should be refunded to the persons so inconvenienced as the necessity of replacement passports was completely beyond the control of the passport recipients.

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

Passports issued during the strike period and which were to have been forwarded to applicants by mail were held at issuing offices until normal mail deliveries were resumed. Applicants who had indicated some urgency in their proposed travel were contacted by telephone where possible and advised to arrange personal collection of their passports. A news release advising of these arrangements was issued by the Department on 22 March.

Other applicants who inquired about the non-receipt of their passports were, in most cases, advised that the passports were being held at the issuing office and could be collected if necessary. In the few situations where passports which were urgently required for travel had already been dispatched from the issuing office, replacement passports were issued free of charge.

However, where passports already in the possession of applicants had been sent through the mail to travel agents or foreign embassies for the issue of visas etc., requests for replacement passports were met and the usual fee of $20 was charged.

Indonesian Control of East Timor

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 11 April 1978 Senator Button asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

I ask whether he has an answer to a question I asked 10 days ago, about which he undertook to seek advice from his colleague, relating to the amount of territory in East Timor which is under the control of Indonesian forces. I further ask whether the Government has any independent source of information of this question other than the Indonesian Government.

Further to the interim reply that was provided to the honourable senator on 1 1 April (Hansard, p. 1089) the Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government’s assessment of the situation in East Timor is drawn from a number of sources including Australian officials who have visited East Timor. It is not the practice of the Government to enter into discussion on the nature of its sources of information.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 May 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780503_senate_31_s77/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant