Senate
9 June 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

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

page 2649

PETITIONS

Pensions

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 56 citizens of Australia:

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

That those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a ‘right and not a charity’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 96 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Federal Government recognise Land Rights in the States, such as Queensland in a similar manner to the recognition of Land Rights in the Northern Territory, that is enact an Aboriginal Land Rights Act for Queensland;

That the Federal Government support the abolition of the Aborigines Act (Queensland) 1971. and the Torres Strait Islanders Act (Queensland) 1971 and take such action as they deem necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Queensland Discriminating Laws Act, 1975 and the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 be enforced in so far as they relate to Aborigines and Islanders:

That the Federal Government assume responsibility for Aboriginal Affairs under the powers given it by the Referendum 1967. The State Department of Aboriginal and Island Administration (Queensland) should be abolished and Aboriginal and Island reserves should have the choice to be self-governed with local government status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator MELZER:

– 1 present the following petition from 33 citizens of Australia:

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

The demands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people for justice in this land which is rightfully theirs.

We demand Land Rights now, on these principles:

Immediate ownership rights by Tribal Groups, of land they continue to occupy.

That all existing lands designated as Aboriginal reserves be handed over to the respective Aboriginal groups, and that the land be effectively controlled and owned by the Aboriginals in that area under their law and customs.

That Aboriginal lands include total rights to all natural resources, and that present mining and prospecting be suspended until negotiations are held with Aboriginals.

That land ownership and control be legally protected and regarded as inviolable.

That Aboriginal people be compensated for the loss of all Aboriginal designated reserves, tribal lands, and other lands revoked by the Commonwealth and State Governments.

That before compensation is decided negotiations be held to acquire those lands plus any other lands deemed necessary by the respective Aboriginal groups and tribes for their survival and benefits.

That any ‘Crown Lands’ which are of traditional or sacred significance to Aboriginals be ceded to them in perpetuity.

That all sites of anthropological or traditional significance to Aboriginals other than those on reserves or crown land be opened to the use of Aboriginals without fees or constraints.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Acts and their regulations and by-laws be abolished forthwith, and that Land Rights be established, believing that only when these two demands arc fulfilled will Aboriginals and Torres Strait Island people begin to have their freedom and independence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Tasmanian Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 1 76 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, support the Land Claims of the Tasmanian Aboriginal people for:

All mutton bird islands surrounding Tasmania

b ) All areas where Aboriginal rock carving sites exist

Cape Barren Island

) Wyballena on Flinders Island

Compensation for all unalienated Crown lands, otherwise these lands be returned in trust to Aboriginal people.

We further request that prompt acton bc taken by the Federal and Tasmanian Governments to secure these rights.

And your petitioners as in duly bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 4 1 citizens of Australia:

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

Your petitioners desire to draw to the attention of the Government that removal of Section No. 6469 on Health Refunds would affect a women’s right to claim a rebate through Medical Health Insurance.

Furthermore, as Section 6469 on Health Refunds is the item for abortion removing the Medical Rebate for Item No. 6469 would penalize many thousands of women.

Your petitioners are strongly opposed to the removal of No. 6469 from the Medical Rebate list.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 39 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petitioning of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

As Section 6469 on Health Refunds is the number for currette and abortion, to remove Medical Rebate for No. 6469 would be penalising thousands of women, (particularly those aged 50 years and over) who must have a curette for medical reasons having nothing to do with pregnancy.

Furthermore you petitioners desire to draw to the Government’s attention that removal of No. 6469 would transgress a woman’s right to the rebate available via medical health insurance.

Furthermore, the removal of No. 6469 would be a discrimination against women, as rebates are paid for vasectomy and prostate operations for males.

Your petitioners strongly oppose the removal of No. 6469 from the Medical Rebate list.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Canberra: Proposed Bus Interchange

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 122 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.

lt 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 ask that the Senate urge the Minister for the Capital Territory to 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.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

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

Petition received.

Medical Benefits: Abortions

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

That Item 6469 of the standard Medical Benefits Table is the means by which payment is made for the slaughter of thousands of unborn babies every year.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government should ensure that Item 6469 is removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Melzer, Senator Jessop and Senator Missen.

Petition received.

page 2650

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2650

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– J ask the Minister for Education: Has his Department any information available to it about concealed unemployment in schools? I refer to people in the last year of schooling who have remained at school because they are unable to obtain employment. Is the Minister aware of surveys compiled by State governments in relation to this matter and what information is in the possession of the Federal Government?

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

– I give an informal, not a precise answer because I would like to get the actual figures in case what I am now saying may be qualified. I have been very interested in this matter. If it were reasonably possible to do so I would like to invite the States to try to persuade unduly early school leavers who would be unemployable by reason of their lack of basic skills to stay in the schools and to have special training if the schools were so equipped. Indeed, my Government and I are working towards that end. The information that I have- I will check it- is that there has been a steadying down of progress through the latter years of schooling, that is the years 1 1 and 12. As the honourable senator will know, a very desirable change was occurring over the decades in that more people were remaining in school through to matriculation year. In recent years there appeared to be a steadying down of that trend, so there is no real evidence of its continuing, whether because of unemployability or otherwise.

I think it is true to say that in a particular year, say last year, there were about 12 per cent more matriculants than there were the year before, but there was no indication that that would be as a result of unemployability. In case I am not presenting the figures accurately I will obtain the information and let the honourable senator know. I stress- putting aside the fact that governments must bend their minds to providing jobsthat I see a virtue in schools seeking to hold other students. The Japanese Vice-Minister for Education, who was in Canberra the other day, told me that in his country students are held in school as a form of education in terms of difficulties in employability. I understand that it is also being done in America and in Europe, so there may well be virtue in it.

Senator BUTTON:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. One part of my question related to surveys by State governments dealing with retention because of unemployability. I wonder whether the Minister has any information about that aspect of the question.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am sorry, I thought I had answered by saying that, in fact, I would seek the information, and whether it comes from the States or the Commonwealth, if it can throw light on retention, I shall certainly let the honourable senator know.

page 2651

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS: PRESCRIPTIONS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. No doubt she will remember that the other day I asked about the number of doses that might be available after 1 July with prescriptions for people who need to take long term medication. The idea was to lift the burden a little from those who might not be able, because of illness, to earn a lot. Is the Minister aware that if a family with only two children needed to get three prescriptions for each of those children, which is not an uncommon occurrence, that family would be up for $15. Will the Minister join with the Minister for Health in considering the effect that this type of situation will have on some families and in investigating the feasibility of reducing to $1 the charge for a prescription for a child?

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

– I recall the former question by Senator Townley. I will readress the former question and direct the further suggestions to the Minister for Health and seek his information on this matter.

page 2651

QUESTION

MUSEUMS AND NATIONAL COLLECTIONS

Senator JANINE HAINES:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by reminding her that the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections, which I believe was instigated by the Labor Government on 10 April 1974, brought down its report in 1975. 1 remind the Minister also that the LiberalNational Country Party Government subsequently set up an interdepartmental committee to look into the recommendations made in the report. Can the Minister say whether the IDC has yet reported to the Government? If it has not. can the Minister say when it is likely to do so? If it has, can the Minister say when, or if, its report and the recommendations contained therein arc likely to be made public?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The report to which Senator Haines referred was tabled in November 1975. Its major recommendations concerned the establishment of the three national museums, including the Museum of Australia in Canberra, and the establishment of an Australian Museums Commission and schemes of Commonwealth assistance for museums and development of courses for museum conservators. The recommendations of this report have not been considered in lull by the Government. I expect that an announcement will be made as soon as the Government has reached its decisions on the major recommendations of the report.

I understand that in 1976 an interdepartmental working group that studied the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections reported to the Minister for Administrative Services, who was then the Minister responsible for these matters. The usual practice is that reports such as this are not made public. They are confidential working documents for the Government. In those terms, I believe that the report of this interdepartmental working group would be treated in the same way.

page 2651

QUESTION

LAW REFORM PROGRAM

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Attorney-General about the Government’s law reform program, of which we were so proud in 1977. First, what has happened to the Criminal Investigation Bill, which has not been reintroduced in the new Parliament? I note in passing the Attorney-General’s answers yesterday in regard to another Bill, the Human Rights Commission Bill. Secondly, when will we see legislation to set up a security appeals tribunal as promised in the 1977 election campaign? Thirdly, what action has been taken to implement all or any of thu recommendations of the Family Law Council concerning family law legislation and administration, which recommendations have been in the hands of the Attorney-General since mid- 1977, and which are described in detail in the Council’s 1977 annual report? Fourthly, what success has been achieved in solving the chaos and conflict of State and Federal family law jurisdictions, on which negotiations have proceeded now for more than two years?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Senator Missen ‘s question seems to indicate that he would be happy if Bills on all these matters were listed on the Notice Paper or were about to be introduced. I am sure we all agree today that there is a limit on the length of sittings of Parliament. The mere fact that the Government does not introduce legislation in a particular sessional period is no indication that it is not working very hard in areas that may be the subject of interest, particularly to Senator Missen. Specifically the honourable senator referred to the Liberal Party policy speech delivered during the last election campaign and said that we were very proud of our past record and our future program in law reform. We said in that policy speech that we would be introducing freedom of information legislation. Honourable senators will know that that legislation is listed on the order of business for introduction today. We said that we would be proceeding with the Human Rights Commission. 1 answered a question at length yesterday on that matter.

Thirdly, we said that a security appeals tribunal would be introduced. Of course, that is part and parcel of the implementation of the Hope report on security matters. It involves a major piece of legislation, preparation of which is well advanced. I hope that it will be introduced in the Budget sittings. However, I am sure that it raises matters of such moment, interest and importance that the Parliament, and the Senate in particular, would want to spend a good deal of time in looking at it. It would be absurd to suggest that legislation of that sort should be introduced in the sort of legislative program that we have had in recent weeks.

The recommendations of the Family Law Council also have been under consideration and some of them are a subject for the preparation of legislation, which again has had to take its place in the queue in this sessional period. Negotiations with the States have been proceeding to clear up problems arising out of our limitations of constitutional power in this area. I have already answered questions at length on that and on the progress that has been made in negotiations with some States towards reaching agreement with the States to refer powers to the Commonwealth. That was the subject of the last meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. In fact a special meeting was held in Melbourne in April. I am still hopeful that there will be a reference of power from a sufficient number of States to make the exercise worth while for the Commonwealth Parliament.

The final point raised by Senator Missen relates to the Criminal Investigation Bill. I have already explained that that has been the subject of a great number of representations, probably greater than on any other Bill within my portfolio. All those representations are being processed and I hope to give the legislation some attention myself as soon as this session ends.

page 2652

QUESTION

BLACK MOUNTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory give the Senate an updated briefing of the progress of the Black Mountain communications tower? When is it expected that the project will be completed particularly having regard to the apparent technical problems that have beset the project? Will he also inform the Senate whether the area at the base of the tower is to be declared a park or reserve?

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

– I recall that, in speaking on one Bill recently, Senator Mulvihill said that he had directed a question to me which I had not answered. Actually, that is not correct. Senator Mulvihill had asked a question of Senator Guilfoyle on 24 May. I do not know whether she has been able to answer on behalf of the Minister for the Capital Territory, but of course she docs not represent that Minister in this place. I sought an answer to the earlier question. Development of the area involves the interests of environmentalists and tourism. The design of the facilities at the summit basically may result in a compromise between the preservation of the environment and the provision of adequate access, which was a subject of the question which Senator Mulvihill originally asked.

In recognition of the fact that there will be an initial desire by tourists and Canberra residents to visit the tower when it is completed in July 1979, contingency plans have been prepared. They include special bus services from city parking areas. Some special traffic controls to limit access to the mountain when the summit area is fully developed may also be needed. Commercial interests are anxious to gain approval for the construction of a scenic cable car to the summit. This proposal has some merit and, as I understand it, the Department of the Capital Territory together with the National Capital Development Commission will shortly begin a feasibility study relating to this matter. I have a number of other answers relating to specific aspects of the development of Black Mountain. It may be appropriate to give them to the honourable senator in writing.

page 2653

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development aware of a recent survey by P. A. Consultants Pty Ltd, the preliminary findings of which show that 94. J per cent of Australians surveyed said that they would rather own a home than rent one? Can the Minister say whether the present rate of building is sufficient to meet the demands by potential home owners and whether the available funding by governments, both Commonwealth and State, and private financial institutions is adequate to meet the demand?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the results of the survey but it would not surprise me at all if virtually the whole of the Australian community would seek to own a home rather than to rent one. Clearly, that is the stable basis for the Australian family. It is the one way that Australian families can become ‘little capitalists’ and can accrue some property. The basis of the Fraser Government policy is of course towards home ownership. I remind Senator Tehan that in the 1950s and 1960s the Australian community reached almost 75 per cent home ownership, which was the highest in the world. The level of home ownership receded in the following years.

The honourable senator asked me whether the present rate of building was sufficient to meet the demand. That is very hard to say because what is happening, perhaps temporarily, is that there has been some change in demands and life styles. There is a tendency for young married couples to spend their capital on trips abroad or to live in groups for a time. None of us know whether this is a passing phase or a more permanent tendency. The fundamental point is that if we are to provide a home ownership scheme which is available to all families two things must follow: The first is that interest rates and the inflation rate must decline. I believe I read recently that if we could achieve a drop of 2 per cent in the interest rates, in the long term bond rate -

Senator Georges:

– You said that last year and it has not come down. How do you explain the inflation rate coming down and interest rates staying up?

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Georges attracts me because he asks me to state what has happened. He does not stimulate me, I am bound to say. He attracts me. The Greeks, as always, have a word for it. The fact is that long term bond rate has fallen by more than one per cent in the period and it is on its way down further. This ought to delight the Australian Labor Party, but of course it does not. The fact is that a 2 per cent drop in interest rates for a person taking, shall we say, a $25,000 loan over 20 years with a building society could mean a saving of as much as $30 a month in repayments.

Senator Georges:

– But they are still paying 1 2 per cent. You cannot slip around that.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is handy; Senator Georges has forced me to say that people are not paying the 16 per cent and 18 per cent interest rates that they paid under the Whitlam Government. They are not facing the 18 per cent to 20 per cent inflation which they faced under the Whitlam Government. They are facing 7 per cent or 8 per cent inflation. I acknowledge Senator Georges’ help in this matter. I think it was P. G. Wodehouse who dedicated a book to his daughter ‘without whose valuable assistance this book would have been finished in half the time’. I simply say that the same remark applies to the answer to this question.

page 2653

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator GEORGES:

– I am tempted to stir the Minister for Education further, but I shall try to stir another Minister instead. I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Senate will recall that the Minister volunteered to appear before the Royal Commission in Brisbane and did so on a non-sitting day. Did the Royal Commission direct him to appear on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, which were sitting days of the Parliament? Why did he not consider it necessary first to seek the leave of the Senate to do so?

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

-I am afraid Senator Georges is not going to stir me up. It is far too late in the session. When the setting up of the Royal Commission was announced I wrote to the judge concerned and said that I was prepared to give evidence. I was asked whether I was prepared to appear on a certain day, which was a non-sitting day, and I appeared. I was then requested and asked whether I would come back again.

Senator Georges:

– Directed.

Senator WITHERS:

– No, I was requested and asked. I was never under a subpoena, and therefore I never thought that there was any breach of the privilege of the Senate. I recognise Senator Georges’ point, as would His Honour, that should the Senate have been sitting that day, a subpoena most likely would not have been effective against a senator who wished to take his place in the chamber that day. But I was not called by a subpoena. As I was a volunteer I take it, Mr President, that it was within my area of responsibility to decide whether to attend the Senate or to attend the Royal Commission. Surely as a senator and a citizen I must be free to make a choice as to which I will attend. If there had been any compulsion I might well have had to consult Mr President and my colleagues in this chamber about whether there may have been a breach of the privilege of this place.

page 2654

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to you. Mr President. Are you aware that at the Royal Commission of inquiry into matters relating to the electoral redistribution in Queensland, to which Senator Withers has just referred, questions were asked of a witness relating to a newspaper article which quoted things said in the House of Representatives? Are you further aware that in subsequent evidence questions were asked relating to a document tabled in the Parliament and reproduced in Hansard) I refer you to page 1790 of the transcript of evidence. Will you, Mr President, consider during the recess whether these matters constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege? Secondly, will you draw the reference to matters said in the House of Representatives to the attention of Mr Speaker for his similar consideration?

The PRESIDENT:

– I advise the honourable senator that it is not for me. as Presiding Officer, to make determinations on matters of privilege. It is within the forms of the Senate for matters which are considered to be breaches of privilege to be brought forward by way of motions.

page 2654

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour. Has his attention been drawn to a report that the job market hit rock bottom last month, that job advertisements fell by 4.6 per cent to 16,302- the lowest since 1968- and that last month saw the fourth successive drop in the total monthly vacancies? How does the Minister equate these figures with the statement by the Prime Minister during the last election campaign that unemployment could be expected to fall from last February? Can the Minister say whether the department of labour has any forecasts available to it about the future state of the labour market? If so, will he see that those documents are made available for public information?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– My hesitation in identifying myself as the target of the question from Senator Douglas McClelland was the title of the Minister to whom it was addressed. I represent the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations; we do not have a Minister for Labour. I am not aware, from the material mentioned in the question, of which report Senator Douglas McClelland is referring to. I am not aware of the contents of the report in relation to falling numbers of job vacancies and so on. The honourable member also seeks information about forecasts of the employment situation by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. I will refer these matters to the Minister and endeavour to obtain a full answer for him.

page 2654

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: ACQUISITION OF EQUIPMENT

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, concerns an apparent decision on the part of the Northern Territory Division of the Department of Health to acquire an expensive piece of equipment called a computerised axial tomography scanner. I ask the Minister: How, when and by whom was the decision to purchase the CAT scanner taken? ls it a fact that Tasmania, with more than 400,000 people, has no CAT scanner while the Northern Territory Divison of the Department of Health intends 10 acquire one Ibr a population of fewer than 1 10.000 Territorian.-..’ K it further a fact thai the purchase procedure ha.-, been .-.ci in process while the committee appointed to examine high cost technology, such as CAT .scanners, i.s still to report to the Minister for Health? ls it not true that the tender notice which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 1 2 April 1978 did not disclose the fact that a CAT scanner of value probably in excess of half a million dollars was included in equipment sought for the Casuarina Hospital in Darwin?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It is true that provision has been made in the Budget estimates for 1978-79 of the Northern Territory Division of the Department of Health for the purchase of a computerised axial tomography scanner which is, as honourable senators are no doubt aware, basically a very sophisticated X-ray machine which utilises computer technology. Senator Baume referred to the population of both Tasmania and the Northern Territory and contrasted Tasmania with the Northern Territory in regard to the requirement for a scanner. I understand that approval has been given for the Tasmanian Health Authority to purchase a CAT scanner. The scanner in the Northern Territory will be located at the new Casuarina Hospital and will be the only one within 2,000 miles of the main population centre. When considering equipment requirements for the new hospital, considerable care was exercised in planning the X-ray facilities so as to provide maximum utility. The incidence of head injuries is particularly high in the Northern Territory and professional medical opinion is that a scanner is necessary. It is anticipated that the scanner will enable to be treated in the Northern Territory certain patients who otherwise would have to be transferred to the capital cities of the States. This is considered to be most important to the health of such patients.

Prior to the inclusion of the scanner in the departmental estimates, the need for a scanner was examined by senior professional officers of the Northern Territory Division of the Department of Health and was subsequently endorsed at senior management level at the Department’s central office. With regard to proceeding with tendering at a particular time, it needs to be recognised that the scanner is an integral part of the radiology department. It was felt that the tendering needed to be undertaken when it was undertaken. It needs to be understood that the commissioning of the radiology department should be concurrent with the commissioning of the Casuarina Hospital. In view of the advanced stage of construction, it is not practical to consider alternatives, all of which would involve major re-planning and building alterations. With regard to the latter part of Senator Baume ‘s question concerning tendering procedures, I am advised that normal tendering procedures are being followed in respect of this and other equipment which is proposed for the new hospital.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I am grateful to the Minister for her answer. However, in her answer she did not refer to one part of my question. 1 asked the Minister: Has a committee been appointed by the Minister for Health to inquire into aspects of high cost technology? Did the Minister, in setting up this Committee, refer to items such as CAT scanners as one of the matters that would exercise attention? Has the decision to purchase the scanner been taken before the committee appointed to examine the implications of high cost technology has reported to the Minister for Health?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It is a fact that a committee was appointed to examine high cost technology. I understand that that Committee has not yet reported to the Minister for Health. 1 explained the reasons for the need to provide this particular piece of equipment for the Casuarina Hospital. As I have said, it is an integral part of the radiology department. That is the background as to why it was considered necessary to proceed at this time with the tendering for the equipment that Senator Baume mentioned in his question.

page 2655

QUESTION

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

- Mr President, my question is directed to you and is prompted by the question that was asked by Senator Lewis. It concerns a rather delicate and difficult matter in respect of the sub judice rule. It would appear that it is both delicate and difficult from time to time Ibr the Chair to rule on this matter. It seems to me that there are probably three areas which could receive some consideration with regard to the application of the sub judice rule. I refer to a judicial inquiry as distinct from a royal commission and procedures in a normal court of law. I ask you whether you will bc good enough to have this matter referred to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and. in due course, report to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall have the matter referred to the Standing Orders Committee. In the meantime, the position is as I have ruled.

page 2655

QUESTION

WAGE RISES

Senator LAJOVIC:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The Minister recently quoted figures purporting to be the percentage rises in wages during the time of the Whitlam Government. Can the Minister give the precise figures involved?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I imagine that Senator Lajovic is referring to some figures that I cited recently in a discussion on a matter of public importance, and also to interjections by Labor Party supporters in regard to the figures that I had quoted. I asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics to give me the figures. I knew that the Australian Labor Party was challenging them and would be eager to know the correct figures. I draw attention to the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures of average weekly earnings for the March quarter 1978, the information provided to me, and the statistics attached. That information shows that between the December quarter 1972 and the December quarter 1975 seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings increased by 66.3 per cent. The seasonally adjusted series of figures is usually the better indicator because it allows for differences in numbers of trading days. The increase in the unadjusted series in the same period was 68.3 per cent. Senator Wriedt will recall that I said the figure was approximately 70 per cent. The precise figure is 68.3 per cent. Some query was made of the figure I used when I said that in a period of 18 months wages had risen by 37 per cent. That was my statement. The advice from the Treasury is that between the June quarter 1973 and the December quarter 1974- that is 18 months- seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings rose by 38 per cent. So the information that I had been using is, of course, substantially accurate.

page 2656

QUESTION

DARWIN HOSPITAL STAFF

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that the trainee nurse intake at the Darwin Hospital has been cut from sixteen to nine because of staff ceilings? If this is a fact, will the Minister not agree that this is a short-sighted step when so many units are operating at less than efficiency due to staff shortages and also in view of the additional number of nurses who will be required when the Casuarina Hospital opens later this year.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the intake of nurses in training courses at Darwin Hospital but I shall refer that matter to the Minister for Health and draw his attention to the statement made by Senator Robertson with regard to staff intakes that will be required on the completion of the new hospital.

page 2656

QUESTION

USE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUGS BY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to the report recently released to the Tasmanian Government concerning the drinking, smoking and vitamin pill consumption of secondary school students in Hobart? I cite one example. Nearly 50 per cent of 13-year-old boys and 38 per cent of 13-year-old girls are consuming alcohol. The Professor of Child Health at the University of Tasmania, Professor Lewis, pointed out that the report shows that drinking and smoking habits, particularly of 13-year olds, have increased alarmingly since 1 97 1 despite all the money spent on education in this area. He said that this proved that the type of education presently being undertaken had been a complete failure and, he believed, positively counter-productive. I ask the Minister: Before any further education is undertaken in this area will the Minister encourage pilot schemes to bc implemented to ascertain the type of education and the type of educators that will give the results that the community desires?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My first knowledge of this matter was when a newspaper cutting came before me this morning. Therefore, whilst I have seen a newspaper report I have not seen the substance of the report. I shall comment on the assumption that what is in the Press is the substance of the report. I shall of course seek the report and have it referred for study and I shall certainly read it myself. Repeatedly the State and Federal departments of education are approached by health and welfare authorities and asked whether, within the scope of education curricula, we can undertake various preventive and remedial courses in areas such as nutrition, drugs, ingestion of alcohol and other matters. A great deal of controversy has arisen as to whether what I would call the episodic attention to these matters is good or bad. By and large there is some emerging evidence that if we are not careful we can make dangerous things attractive and therefore tempting.

I have recently been reading a great deal of eminent clinical data from Europe in which it has been suggested that the real claim for drugs and alcohol is that they are consciousness expanders and that we will not, by pressure of fear, overcome them; what we need to do is to show that society itself can expand consciousness in a more effective way by producing people who are more adequate and able to cope better. I believe this. So I have invited people from the Commonwealth Department of Health to talk to people from my Department to see whether we can develop between us a plan for a total health education concept in terms of the human fulfilment of the total person, not some episodic thing done on a wet sports day. This, I think, is the great danger.

Secondly. I have asked the Curriculum Development Centre to look at this problem to see whether during the course of the journey we can positively undertake a more constructive role. I am bound to say that whilst not in any way retreating from the responsibility of education, the primary responsibility in these very important matters is that of the family and the community.

Senator WALTERS:

– I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister reply to my question about pilot schemes?

Senator CARRICK:

-I am sorry that I overlooked that matter. I made a note of it. It may well be that the establishment of a pilot scheme will be one of the recommendations that will come out of the joint consultations between the Department of Health and the Department of Education. It may well be that the Curriculum Development Centre will recommend that. I ask the honourable senator to keep in mind that a pilot scheme, if it is to show any proof of success, may take a decade or two. I wonder whether the community would want to wait for a decade or two to see the results. We have to face up to the fact that as a community we are producing more and more people of lower motivation with lower driving force to enjoy outward involvement in the community. As the community and as educators we have to ask ourselves how we can prevent that from happening. Prevention rather than remediation will resolve this matter.

page 2657

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD

Senator MELZER:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the International Year of the Child. In view of the involvement of the nursing profession with children and its strong desire to take part and contribute, will the Minister give further consideration to inviting an appropriate representative of the nursing profession to join the national committee on non-government organisations relating to the International Year of the Child?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Government welcomes the interest of professional bodies in the activities that will take place next year for the celebration of the International Year of the Child. In forming the national committee of nongovernment organisations consideration needed to be given to what would be an appropriate size for the committee. A number of national organisations were invited to be part of the national committee. This has resulted in the committee having representatives from the Australian Paediatric Association and also, I believe, from another medical group, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians. To include all the professional groups which ideally would be part of the consultation that will take place would mean that the committee would be too unwieldy in numbers.

The organisations which were invited represented state schools, pre-schools, independent schools, the Child and Family Welfare Council, the Country Women’s Association, the National Council of Women of Australia and a great number of co-ordinating bodies. Interest by other groups who are not represented on the national committee would be welcomed. Of course, State governments have formed committees in which government and community groups are involved in the celebration of the Year. I would hope that as a result of the activities of either State governments or the associations themselves through their co-ordinating bodies, whatever interest and expertise many professional and community groups are able to offer will be used in consultation about and observance of the Year.

page 2657

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. In view of Canberra’s role as the national capital, its relative advantages with respect to security measures, its increasing and potential importance as a national and international conference centre and the significance to the city of this and the related tourist industry, I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider the construction of a major national conference or convention centre in Canberra?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator who represents the Australian Capital Territory rightly directs attention to the fact that a conference centre is considered to be necessary for the Australian Capital Territory. I think in recent years the requirement that large conventions should be held in Canberra and that international visitors should be housed adequately in Canberra has pointed to the fact that some consideration should be given to providing accommodation in both those areas. I am aware that Mr Ellicott, the Minister for the Capital Territory, is considering these matters. I understand he is studying whether it would be appropriate io provide a convention centre in the Territory at this time.

page 2658

QUESTION

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I think it is very appropriate that Sir Reginald Wright should ask what might well be, his last question in the Senate on the subject of the waterfront and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority, which have been such lifelong interests of his.

Senator Sir Reginald Wright:

– There is no pride in your point of view that the questions are in vain.

Senator DURACK:

– That is not really in accordance with Sir Reginald Wright’s usual respect for the Senate and the Minister’s attitude to the Senate, although it may happen to be true. The fact is that I cannot agree, nor can the Government, with the implications of the question. The Government believes that the scheme introduced last year, despite the vigorous opposition of Sir Reginald Wright, has proved to be a satisfactory solution to the great problems which existed on the waterfront. It is in vain, perhaps, to adopt a phrase used by Senator Sir Reginald Wright, to quote figures showing costs and so on because they can be taken into account only if they are compared with the costs that would have been incurred if the reforms had not been introduced. Nevertheless, as this area is not my responsibility I will pass on the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Perhaps the honourable senator will have more success in getting an answer from him than he has had with me.

page 2658

QUESTION

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. The National Aboriginal Education Committee has now been functioning for some 18 months. Is the Minister in a position to indicate what progress the Committee has made since it was set up and have any schemes or reports been made to the Minister in regard to Aboriginal education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The NAEC is one of the most potentially useful and imaginative reforms that has happened in the field of Aboriginal reform, whether in education or otherwise. I remind honourable senators that the Committee, which from memory comprises 19 persons, is made up of people of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island descent, ranging from full-blood tribalised persons to urbanised persons, and is under the chairmanship of Stephen Albert, who is himself from Broome, tribalised, and fully experienced in Aboriginal ritual and culture. Inevitably, it has taken some time for the Committee to formulate its progress. It has set out a series of objectives and has held a number of meetings and is making very useful progress indeed. When in the course of the next few weeks the Commonwealth Government establishes the national inquiry into teacher education one of the major sources of information and assistance will be the National Aboriginal Education Committee. We seek its advice constantly. Senator Kilgariff will know that Mr Stephen Albert is not only the Chairman of the Committee but is also a permanent member of the staff of the Department of Education. So in the day-to-day decisions relating to Aboriginal education he is available to give advice. I am delighted with the body in every respect and 1 am sure that it will be one of the milestones in Aboriginal progress in Australia.

page 2658

QUESTION

ARMS EXPENDITURE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Minister no doubt is aware that in his statement to the United Nations on 5 June the Prime Minister said:

Some countries spend far more on arms than can be justified for their legitimate defensive requirements.

Can the Minister tell the Senate the yardstick by which the Prime Minister made that statement and to which countries he was referring?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I cannot give an anwer with the exactitude that I have no doubt the honourable senator would wish. I believe that certain statistics are published by the United

Nations relating to the budget allocations of various countries. As I recall reading those some years ago, some countries spend as much as 30 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent of their budget allocations. That may be a proper and sensible figure for the state of Israel, for instance, which is under permanent siege and often attack from its neighbours. But there are other countries where one wonders sometimes whether all the international aid given to them is used to prop up the armed forces so that they can act aggressively towards their neighbours. I think that the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is reasonable and sensible and I will refer it to the Prime Minister to see whether he will supply the details.

page 2659

QUESTION

FUNDS FOR ABORIGINES

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: In view of the request from the women’s section of the National Party of Australia, Far Northern Division of Queensland, for an investigation into the use of funds supplied to Aboriginals, has any step been taken towards meeting the request because of the apparent misuse of the money and also the quite prevalent misconduct as a result of such misuse? The suggestion has been made that the handouts by the Commonwealth Government should not be on a racial basis but on a needs basis. Would this not eliminate the racial discrimination policy of this Government, like that of the Whitlam Government?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have spoken on a number of occasions in response to Senator Wood’s questions on the matter of funds and programs for Aborigines. I have stressed to him that this Government does not have a racial discrimination policy. I have said that this Government governs for all Australians. Special groups of people have special needs, and programs have been devised to give them assistance. I am unaware of any resolution passed by the women’s section, National Party of Australia, Far Northern Division of Queensland. It is not within my knowledge as to whether the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has been advised of any resolution.

If that body has passed a resolution which talks of the misuse of money that has been given to Aboriginal groups, I should hope it could cite some specific instance which led it to support such a resolution, rather than forward something to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with which he would be quite unable to deal or to which he would be quite unable to respond. If the resolution did talk about handouts to Aboriginal groups and if it said that handouts should be given only to groups which have special needs, I think that body should recognise the very special needs of Aborigines in many parts of Australia. If allegations of misuse of money are made by any group I hope that some details and substantiation of those allegations would be forwarded to the Minister who would be expected to respond to such a resolution.

page 2659

QUESTION

TASMANIAN RAILWAY SYSTEM

Senator WRIEDT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that the Federal Government is withholding an amount of $4m from the Tasmanian Government for upgrading of the railway system in that State? Is the Minister aware that it is being withheld from the Tasmanian Government on the grounds that the Tasmanian Government is refusing to implement a recommendation of the committee of inquiry that was appointed to look into this matter and that the Federal Government is asking the Tasmanian Government to legislate against road hauliers in that State in order to reduce competition with the railway system? Is the Minister able to tell us when the committee recommended such as step? As this is unfortunately the last sitting day of this parliamentary session, if he is not able to tell us when the. committee made that recommendation, will he at least advise me by letter, when he has had a chance to look at the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Until a news release was put in front of me only a moment ago I was not aware of the circumstances. Because there is a need to be precise and because Senator Wriedt seeks information regarding the report of the committee, I will take the question on notice and respond by making sure that my colleague in another place is invited to write to him giving him the answer.

page 2659

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: APPEALS AGAINST DETERMINATIONS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to a question I asked on Tuesday regarding appeals to a Social Security Appeals Tribunal against determinations by the Department of Social Security. I remind the Minister that in her reply she stated that while a person was waiting for an appeal to be heard it was possible for that person to re-register for unemployment benefit. I ask the Minister: At what stage could this possibly occur and just how can these benefits be obtained if, in fact, they have already been terminated by the department to which the person will be applying? I also ask: What length of time is still required by the Minster or by her Department to reach a decision in a matter which I raised with her last evening- I do not think there is any necessity for me to repeat the name of the appellant in that case- where a person ‘s benefit was terminated 3v4 months ago and it has not been possible for that person to obtain any benefit at all in that period?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– With regard to the earlier part of Senator Coleman’s question in which she referred to a question asked on Tuesday, I did state that while a person is waiting for an appeal to be heard, it is possible to re-register and to become eligible for unemployment benefit. In fact, that would occur in a large number of instances. A person who has not passed the Commonwealth Employment Service work test for a particular period may not be eligible to receive the unemployment benefit for that period but if he re-registers and fulfils the requirements of the work test he may become eligible. Equally, a person who has been debarred from the unemployment benefit on an income test may become eligible for the unemployment benefit if his circumstances change, even though the appeal against the original determination may not have been heard by that time.

As I have said earlier, I have taken steps to ensure that the delays are kept to the minimum by appointing additional members to the Social Security Appeals Tribunals to expedite the hearing of appeals, because I recognise the difficulties that people in special circumstances face while appeals are being heard. I have asked my Department for the full lists of Social Security Appeals Tribunals in the States so that a review of them can be undertaken to see whether their numbers ought to be strengthened to expedite the hearing of appeals. Senator Coleman’s question referred specifically to an individual who had experienced difficulties. I have spoken to the officials of my Department and I am advised that in the case in question the appeal has been upheld and that arrangements are being made for the restoration of payments to that person. I am sure that Senator Coleman’s representations have been of assistance in having the matter determined by the Department.

page 2660

QUESTION

STUART HIGHWAY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, refers to the Stuart Highway. The Minister will recall a recent deputation to the Minister for Transport comprising representatives of a wide cross-section of the community and members of parliament. He has commented on it in this place. He may know too that the deputation unanimously requested the Government to consider a special bid for funds for the Stuart Highway project. Can the Minister advise whether that matter is being studied currently by a committee of the Cabinet or whether a recommendation has been put to the Cabinet?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Honourable senators from both sides of the chamber have been vitally interested in the upgrading of the Stuart Highway. It is a vital matter. My colleague, the Minister for Transport, has indicated that the Commonwealth Government regards it as a priority matter. I am aware of the recent deputation to the Minister and I am aware of the views that were put. I cannot say whether a decision has been reached. I will seek the information and have it conveyed to Senator Bishop.

page 2660

QUESTION

STUDENT UNION FEES

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Is the Minister for Education aware that Mr Michael Farrell, who is a student at the University of New South Wales, claims that his first semester examination results might be withheld because of unresolved arguments over his claim of conscientious objection against the payment of certain student union fees? Will the Minister undertake to investigate whether some action by the Commonwealth Government is possible to ensure that Mr Farrell ‘s rights are appropriately safeguarded?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Mr President -

Senator Georges:

– He has a right to put his case elsewhere, surely.

Senator CARRICK:

– I know that Senator Georges is totally opposed to any help for people in this regard.

Senator Georges:

– I claim to have been misrepresented. The Minister does this constantly day after day.

Senator CARRICK:

– I do not want to misrepresent Senator Georges. It helps my case so much better when I truly represent him. I did read in a newspaper something regarding a student named Michael Farrell to whom Senator Baume referred. I am not aware whether his future academic career is threatened by his non-payment of certain fees. I do not know the nature of the fees which he seeks to dispute. I think the university concerned is the University of New South Wales. If that is so, the primary step would have to be taken by the Wran State Labor Government, which, of course, has immediate jurisdiction over the legislation applying to universities and colleges in that State.

I draw attention to two matters. The Prime Minister has written to each of the Premiers indicating the Commonwealth’s intention for student bodies at the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I also draw attention to the fact that my understanding is that the Liberal Party Opposition in the Legislative Council in New South Wales has moved an amendment to legislation and that legislation has not been proceeded with. The effect of the amendment, as I recall it, would be to do what the Commonwealth is proposing to do. So, there is within the hands of the Wran Government the capacity to rectify the situation. There is, of course, within the hands of any university body the capacity to alter the rules and ordinances to provide for democratic rules for students and I have no doubt that will be done.

page 2661

QUESTION

IMPORTED PLUM WINE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. On 25 May I drew the Minister’s attention to an advertisement in the Sydney Sun on 24 May for the sale of imported Japanese akadama plum wine. I gave the Minister a copy of that advertisement. The same wine is now being advertised in many other States. As many growers in the South Australian Riverland area have had to leave their grapes on the vines this year, I now ask the Minister whether he can expedite an answer to my question of 25 May in which I sought the name of the firm importing this Japanese plum wine, the date of the granting of the import licence and the quantity of wine imported.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I undertake to try to expedite the answer.

page 2661

CAM RANH: RUSSIAN NAVAL BASE

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-On 8 June Senator Sim asked whether the Government had any information which would confirm reports that the Soviet Union has reactivated the naval base at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. I have now been provided with the following answer: Recent Press reports have spoken of a Soviet takeover of the former United States naval base at Cam Ranh Bay in southern Vietnam. Since the fall of Saigon in 1975 there have been persistent Press reports that the Soviet Union has sought Vietnamese permission to use the base. It seems that, if these reports are true, permission was denied. However, it is quite possible that some Soviet personnel are at Cam Ranh Bay. The base facilities are used by the Vietnamese Navy, which receives training assistance from the Soviet Union. Similarly, it would not be surprising if Soviet vessels have called at Cam Ranh Bay. However, the Government has no information which would confirm that there has been any substantial recent change in the Soviet presence at Cam Ranh Bay or that the Soviet Union has taken over Cam Ranh Bay as a naval base.

page 2661

WHYALLA: SHIPBUILDING ACTIVITIES

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-On 31 May and 7 June Senator Bishop asked what is the current position regarding the report of the South Australian working party on Whyalla. The Acting Prime Minister has provided me with the following information: The report of the South Australian working party, which contains a proposal for the manufacture in Whyalla of rolling stock for government railway systems, has been given close and careful consideration. An evaluation by officials of the South Australian proposal was recently transmitted by the Minister for Transport to the Prime Minister. It is being considered as a matter of urgency and an announcement of the Government’s decision will be made in the very near future.

page 2661

QUESTION

STUDENT UNIONS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Button asked me a question regarding student bodies and regarding the substance of a reply I made in early 1976 to the Western Australian division of the Liberal Party. I said that I would seek to look at the correspondence and provide him with a reply. Having done so, I report that the initiation of that letter arose from a suggestion that all payments by students by way of dues, whether to sporting, recreational, amenities or other bodies, should be voluntary. In my reply I was directing remarks to the fact that it was necessary that dues to sporting and recreational bodies be compulsory. Nothing in what I said in any way argues against the premise of what is being done now, which directs itself purely to the socio-political activities of students and their right to freedom of association on the campus in those activities.

page 2661

QUESTION

WORLD COUNCIL OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Bonner asked me a question with regard to the second World Assembly of the World Council of Indigenous People. I undertook to provide information to him, hopefully yesterday. I am advised by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that he is aware of the proposal to hold the next meeting of the World Assembly in Australia. Any application for funds will be treated on its merits. The Minister also said that it should be noted that Australian Aborigines, from both within and outside the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, have attended meetings of the Assembly and thereby have gained valuable experience and have exchanged views with other indigenous peoples around the world.

page 2662

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY LEASES

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– On Wednesday Senator Robertson asked me a question relating to Willeroo station in the Northern Territory. I have consulted the Minister for the Northern Territory, whom I represent. Further to the answer that I have given, I am advised by the Minister that the matters referred to are the responsibility of the Executive of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Minister indicated that he will be quite happy to approach the Majority Leader again to seek the details that the honourable senator has requested. In fact, I understand that he did so yesterday, When this information comes to hand, the Minister will ensure that Senator Robertson is informed. In answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question, however, the Minister advises that the Executive at present does not have the authority to raise a loan.

page 2662

QUEENSLAND ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The concealment by senior Government Ministers of the facts surrounding last year’s electoral re-distributions which are properly the concern of the Parliament’

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 Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition brings before the Senate this matter of public importance because we believe the Government is involved in a cover-up of actions which show its incompetence, its duplicity and its intention to misuse processes for its own electoral advantage. There has been a conspiracy by its senior Ministers to conceal facts from the Parliament, the public and even its own members. Indeed we can now go further and say that there have been repeated and conscious attempts to mislead this Parliament on a number of occasions. No longer are we concerned with the issues involved in a censure motion which was directed at the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) in this chamber on 30 May. No longer are we concerned with the issues being dealt with by the Royal Commission concerning allegations of electoral malpractices in Queensland.

The central issue is whether the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and a group of his senior colleagues have deliberately set out to mislead the Parliament and to conceal the facts surrounding their actions, both last year and this year. All of us who were in the chamber on 12 June 1 975 will remember the following words:

  1. . it is the intention of the Opposition to continue to pursue this matter until we get the whole truth from the Government. It has been a story of cover-up- a story of one cover-up after another, not only by Ministers including the Minister for Minerals and Energy, but also by the Prime Minister himself. Not only has there been a cover-up but there has been grave misleading of the Parliament- of the House of Representatives and the Senate- during this period.

That comment was made by the man who is now the Attorney-General, Senator Durack. He has provided three reports on the current issue to this Parliament. If the words ‘Minister for Administrative Services’ were substituted for the words Minister for Minerals and Energy’ in the statement that I have just read, that could easily be the most appropriate comment on the events which are currently unfolding. Let me briefly summarise the position which has developed. The explanation of early events is set out in the statement which the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) made in the House of Representatives on 7 April. On that date he put the Government squarely on notice that he would no longer be fobbed off with hallbaked explanations, misleading comments and spurious statements. He put the Government squarely on notice that until this issue was properly resolved he would continue to reveal the circumstances behind the redistribution. Briefly, the honourable member for Fadden charged that electoral commissioners in Queensland -

Senator Missen:

- Mr President, I wish to take a point of order. Despite the initial wording of this matter of public importance, which is designed to put this subject within the concern of the Parliament and despite the initial words of the Leader of the Opposition, I thought it would not be long before this matter came within the terms of the ruling that you gave last week in respect of matters which are at present in issue before a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition has already made clear by his reference to the original allegation that is before that commissionnamely the allegation of the honourable member for Fadden- that he intends to outline the content of the allegation. These are matters, of course, which are immediately within the control at the moment of the royal commissioner in Queensland.

Your ruling, Mr President, is even more relevant to what has been said today than it was last Tuesday because on that occasion we were debating a motion of no confidence in a Minister. Today we are debating a matter of public importance. We are debating a subject for discussion only and not a motion of no confidence. The other day when an endeavour was made to discuss these matters you, very properly, made certain remarks to Senator Button. On page 2046 of Hansard of 30 May you are reported as having said to Senator Button:

The debate may proceed insofar as it relates to the motion before the Chair. There shall be no canvassing of evidence given at the judicial inquiry.

Other honourable senators later contended that your ruling was being skirted around. Senator Button said:

I seek your indulgence insofar as I might quote Senator Withers directly on what he said on this subject rather than on reports of what he said on this subject.

You, Mr President, said:

No. You are referring to the inquiry itself. As 1 said before, you must not canvass evidence given at the judicial inquiry.

Unquestionably, sir, allegations made by Mr Cameron are matters primarily of concern to the judicial inquiry. They are the matters that have been canvassed and are the subject of the evidence of many witnesses before that inquiry. That inquiry is now drawing towards an end.

In taking a point of order I am not for one moment saying that these matters would not have to be discussed in this Parliament at some stage. Of course it would be relevant for us to do that. But this should not happen at this stage when they are the subject of adjudication. I rely again, as I did the other day- and I will not quote at length- on what is said at pages 250 to 254 of Mr Odgers’ fifth edition of Australian Senate Practice. I refer first to a statement made at page 252. The author refers to the then Speaker, Sir William Aston, who in 1 969 set out the principles that guided a Speaker in his interpretation of the sub judice rule. The author stated this to be one of the principles:

If it is not inconsistent with fundamental rights and duties, the House should avoid setting itself up as an alternative forum or body of inquiry or permit its proceedings to interfere in the course of justice.

The author also said this:

On 18 September 1974 . . . Speaker Cope ruled that discussion of any matter within the terms of reference of a royal commission would be an infringement of the sub judice rule. He stated that his ruling was supported by past rulings that it was not in order to discuss the proceedings of a royal commission or matters coming before it, and that the Chair would be failing in its duty if it allowed any discussion about matters which had been deliberately handed to the commission for investigation.

I draw attention to the fact that the terms of the royal commission have been extended since we debated this matter last week and that makes your ruling even more relevant.

Senator Georges:

– That justifies the debate, does it not?

Senator Missen:

– Only if we were debating the terms of the royal commission. That would be a different argument. But that is not the argument. The matter of public importance submitted by the Opposition is as follows:

The concealment by senior Government Ministers of the facts surrounding last year’s electoral redistributions which are properly the concern of the Parliament.

That matter relates quite obviously to allegations or remarks which have apparently stirred the Opposition because they have come out in a royal commission.

Senator Wriedt:

– They have come out in the Parliament; that is the point.

Senator Missen:

– Some things have come out in the Parliament. But Senator Wriedt wanted them to refer to the allegations by Mr Donald Cameron which are before the McGregor Royal Commission. Regardless of whether they came out in the Parliament at some stage the fact is that they are the issues being determined as to the truth or credit of witnesses. I refer also to the letters patent extending the powers of the Royal Commission last week. Those letters patent added to what the Commissioner already had to determine in relation to the electoral redistribution in Queensland. It asked him to:

  1. . inquire into and report upon whether, in the course of the re-distribution in 1977 of the State of Queensland into Electoral Divisions for the election of Members of the House of Representatives (including the change of the name of a proposed Division from ‘Gold Coast’ to ‘McPherson’) in so far as the re-distribution affected that part of the State of Queensland that, prior to the re-distribution, comprised the Division or McPherson, any breach of a law of the Commonwealth or any impropriety occurred by reason of:

    1. anything said or action taken by or on behalf of any person:
    2. any action taken by the Distribution Commissioners or any of them as a result of anything said or action taken by or on behalf of any person; or
    3. any communication by the Distribution Commissioners to any person.

The terms of reference have now been extended to cover any person. The inquiry is now wider than it was last week. I therefore submit that it is now quite improper and quite wrong, even more so than when you properly ruled last week, for us at this stage- in this Parliament and at this time- to discuss what is going on before a royal commission.

Senator Wheeldon:

– I do not wish to say any more than a few words on this topic. I certainly do not intend to indulge in a filibuster such as that in which Senator Missen has just engaged in order to prevent the Leader of the Opposition from completing his remarks. I speak as one who has played very little if any part in the debates on this matter so far. I appeal to you, Mr President, not to allow this Parliament to become contemptible in the eyes of the Australian people. Admittedly, a matter is now before a royal commission, but it has been conceded that the whole question of sub judice is an open question. I understand that you said this morning that you will refer the matter to the Senate Standing Orders Committee. I speak as a former Minister who day after day, week after week and month after month was subjected, along with my colleagues, to the most horrible abuse from members of the Government parties who are now sitting opposite. We did not run for cover. We did not squeal, as Senator Missen is doing now. We took it. Day after day the most foul and horrible allegations were made against us. We were all accused of being crooks, dishonest and liars. We did not run for cover in the way in which Senator Missen is now seeking to do in the Senate. I submit to you, Mr President, that for the status of the Parliament and so that the people may think there is some fairness and some justice in the democratic system that is under seige you should not prevent this debate from continuing.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Speaking further to the point of order, I submit that it is most desirable that the application of the sub judice rule in the Senate should correspond with its application in the House of Representatives. In that regard, Mr President, I draw your attention to the fact that on 30 May of this year the Speaker in another place, referring to evidence given at a royal commission and ruling in relation to a member speaking about it in that place, said:

  1. . in my view if he wishes to say that evidence ABC has been given he is free to do so.

The Speaker went on to say that a member offends a sub judice rule if he goes on to place any construction on the evidence so quoted. I suggest that that is a ruling that should also be followed by you in this chamber, Mr President. The Speaker in another place, in answering a point of order yesterday on the application of the sub judice rule, said:

When public evidence given at a royal commission has been published and a question is asked about that evidence it is rather difficult for the Chair to say that the media is able to report it and comment on it but the national Parliament is not.

Noting that the national Parliament includes this chamber, I ask you, Mr President, whether you have the same difficulty as the Speaker in the other place. If so, will you rule that published royal commission evidence may be quoted provided no construction is placed upon it?

Senator Sir Reginald Wright:

– I wish to speak briefly on the point of order. I submit that Senator Wheeldon referred to a situation when no royal commission was sitting; that Senator James McClelland refers only to the citation of evidence. But the substance of Senator Wriedt ‘s motion is; The facts surrounding last year’s electoral redistribution. That is at the heart and kernel of the royal commissioner’s function. If we have given him authority to examine that as a judicial officer, we should withhold debate on the facts surrounding last year’s electoral redistribution until he has decided it entirely uninfluenced by the debate in this Senate- which authorised him, as a judicial officer to establish the evidence and reach a conclusion.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is true that on 30 May I ruled that debate on a motion then before the Chair, of want of confidence in a Minister of State, could proceed insofar as it related to that motion; that there could be no canvassing of evidence given at a royal commission then proceeding. Then, on 7 June, I ruled that honourable senators were not to quote from the transcript of evidence of the royal commission currently inquiring into certain electoral redistribution matters. I affirm those earlier rulings. In doing so, I remind the Senate, as I have done before, that the principle of the sub-judice doctrine is to avoid interference with, or prejudice to, the proceedings of any judicial inquiry, including a royal commission. Those are my rulings. The situation is now as it was then. As to the fine line to which reference has been made, I shall endeavour to ensure that we debate the matter, but within the parameters that I have set out in my rulings up to now. I call Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Thank you, Mr President. I felt confident that you would reaffirm your decision of 30 May. The honourable member for Fadden charged that electoral commissioners in

Queensland had been subjected to pressure from the now suspended Minister for Finance, that the name changes surrounding the current seat of McPherson were irregular, that boundaries of the seat of Fadden were produced as a result of improper moves, and that the Queensland redistribution was in some ways quite fraudulent. He went on to explain that he had raised certain matters with the now-suspended Minister for Finance and ultimately the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding his success in securing pre-selection for Fadden and winning that seat in the December election, he continued to raise the issue. Ultimately this led up to a meeting in the Prime Minister’s office on 18 January, during which he detailed his allegations. In many of these allegations he was supported by the member for Bowman (Mr Jull) and the member for Lilley (Mr Kevin Cairns). In particular, the member for Lilley, took a very strong stand. He made strong accusations in the Parliament on 27 October last year and again on 3 November. He charged that the commissioners were influenced from on high’- to use his words. In the meantime, Senator Withers was busily disclaiming any involvement in these matters.

On 27 October, the day on which Messrs Cairns and Cameron launched their attacks in the House of Representatives, Senator Withers was discussing the redistribution of the New South Wales electoral divisions move that the name of the electorate of Lawson be changed to Macquarie. It is important to note the procedure adopted by Senator Withers. In the Senate he moved a motion that the name of the seat be changed. He certainly did not try to have the name changed by contact with the electoral commissioners. During the discussion of the motion, Senator Withers had interesting comments to make on changes of names. He said:

Whilst as a Senator I have a duty and a right to look at the electoral boundaries under the Act, I do not carry that so Tar as to believe that I ought to become involved in the names of electorates.

On 4 November, Senator Withers delivered his now famous comments on the electoral name changes in Queensland. In response to remarks made by Senator Georges, he said:

I have never telephoned Mr Coleman about the name of electorates. I have been asked why the names were changed. I do not know.

Of course, the redistribution in Queensland was not the only one that had attracted criticism. As a result of the proposed redistribution in New South Wales, senior members of the Liberal Party in that State, both in the political and administrative wings of the Party, complained in the strongest possible terms about the effect of the proposed redistribution. It was in the Senate on 27 October last year that Senator Douglas McClelland listed major objections to what had happened. Leaks had appeared in the Press concerning matters involved in the contentious seats prior to the final report being tabled. Changes were made to the boundaries of seats in New South Wales which removed many of the objections raised by members of the Liberal Party. There is not the slightest doubt in the minds of honourable senators on this side of the chamber that something very strange happened over the redistribution in that State.

Strong objections were also taken to the redistribution in Western Australia. During this period, Senator Withers not only denied that the allegations had no substance, but also he vigorously defended the electoral commissioners involved. No such defence has been forthcoming from the Government in recent times. Notwithstanding all these concerns, it has been the issues in Queensland which have dominated discussion in 1978. The critical meeting was the meeting held in the Prime Minister’s office on 1 8 January. Present at this meeting were the Prime Minister, Senator Withers, the now suspended Minister for Finance, Mr Eric Robinson, and the three back benchers who are complaining about the redistribution, namely, the members for Fadden, Lilley and Bowman. Events of this meeting have been quite well publicised. The version of the honourable member for Fadden was set out in the House of Representatives on 7 April of this year. The version of the now suspended Minister for Finance was set out in the House of Representatives on 10 April. As it turns out, there are no substantial differences between those two versions.

At that meeting, Mr Eric Robinson denied that he had had any contact with the electoral commissioners, either directly or indirectly or in any way whatsoever at any time, to use the words of the honourable member for Fadden. At that meeting, it was suggested to the honourable member for Fadden that the matter be dealt with by the police. This suggestion came from the Prime Minister, but naturally enough the honourable member for Fadden was not attracted to that proposition, or so the now suspended Minister for Finance tells us. The next suggestion was that the Solicitor-General should be asked to give a legal opinion on what was the evidence to substantiate the allegations made by the three back benchers. This, apparently, was more acceptable to the member for Fadden. The net result was that the Solicitor-General and the

Attorney-General gave the Government a joint opinion on the issue.

The reason why the meeting of 1 8 January was critical was that at that stage three people present in the room knew that Senator Withers had had indirect contact with the electoral commissioners in Queensland. The Prime Minister knew. Mr Eric Robinson knew. Senator Withers knew. Yet this information was certainly not communicated either to the three back benchers or subsequently to the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General when they were preparing their first report. What then was the purpose of the meeting on 18 January? I suggest the meeting was designed to find out how much the three back benchers really knew and what evidence they had to back up their allegations. It was after the Prime Minister, the Minister for Administrative Services and the now suspended Minister for Finance discovered that the real truth of the matter was not known to the three back benchers, that the decision to cover up the events was taken.

The next issue was how to arrange the cover-up. The first step was to use two of the Prime Minister’s pawns. It was decided that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General would be invited to give an opinion as to whether the facts made available to them would justify further investigation and, in particular, a judicial inquiry. In the report provided by the AttorneyGeneral and the Solicitor-General, which was conveniently tabled by the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) in the House of Representatives on 7 April, those two gentlemen set out the evidence on which they based their opinion. In particular, that evidence came from the honourable member for Fadden, the speeches made by the honourable member for Lilley and, most importantly, the comments made by the Minister for Administrative Services in the Senate on 4 November. Let us remember that those comments included a specific denial that the Minister had telephoned Mr Coleman, thus implying that there had been no contact between him and the Queensland electoral commissioners.

The Attorney-General was not told the vital piece of information that Senator Withers had made contact with those Commissioners through Mr Pearson. This was an attempt by the Prime Minister and his colleagues to mislead their Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in the expectation that they would produce the report that was wanted. As it turned out, they did do just that and suggested there was no evidence to justify the complaints which had been made.

This was the document intended to stifle criticism coming from the three back benchers and anyone else who sought to raise the issue.

That report was dated 9 February this year. Six days later, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General delivered a further report again confirming that they could find no suggestion of any impropriety. However the Government was already aware that it was in severe difficulties. Armed with the knowledge that Senator Withers had in fact made contact with the Commissioners in Queensland, the Prime Minister took steps to protect his position by involving other members of his Government. The decision was made that information concerning these matters had to be suppressed. There was a series of meetings to consider the issue. To date the Government has refused to disclose what was said at those meetings. In addition, under persistent questioning from the Opposition, it was said that not only would it not disclose that information to the Parliament, but it would adopt the same approach with the Royal Commission.

All of this was too much for the honourable member for Fadden. In adition to getting no satisfaction in response to his complaints, he was then sacked by the Prime Minister from his job as Deputy Government Whip. As a result, he made his now well known speech in the House of Representatives detailing his objections. From then on events developed quickly. The now suspended Minister for Finance denied the allegations to which the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Hayden, responded with remarkable insight into the circumstances in these terms- these are Mr Hayden ‘s words:

The allegations that have been made against him are of the most serious kind. They have to be cleared up. They sully the reputation of the Government. They suggest very clearly that not only is the Minister involved but that the Prime Minister also has been party to a conspiratorial effort designed to suppress public disclosure and discussion on this matter.

I point out that the words of the Leader of the Opposition which accurately summarise the position were made on 7 April this year. In response to these events the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) came into the House of Representatives and tabled the two opinions of the AttorneyGeneral. In tabling the document he said:

I believe there is no case to answer.

At the time he uttered those words there was a number of front benchers of the Government who knew that statement to be wrong. They knew that the legal opinions were based on a wrongful understanding of the facts. They knew that certain facts of a most material kind had been concealed from the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General when they wrote those opinions nearly two months before. Yet they allowed those documents to be tabled as if they set out the true position. They are the men responsible for the cover-up. At their head- and chief conspirator- Is the Prime Minister himself.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Wriedt, you must not refer to the Prime Minister as a conspirator.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, if you wish me to withdraw the specific reference to the Prime Minister as a conspirator, I shall do so. I shall simply say that he is part of the conspiracy.

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you, Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

– The Government could no longer hope to hold the story. On 10 April a further debate took place in the House of Representatives and the Prime Minister spoke for the Government in that debate. In discussing the reports of the Attorney-General and the SolicitorGeneral, he said:

They examined all the material put in front of them by the honourable member for Fadden and advised that the material did not warrant further investigation.

At that time of making this statement the Prime Minister knew that the material in the possession of the honourable member for Fadden may not have warranted further investigation, but the material in the possession of the Prime Minister, most certainly did. This was a further attempt to deflect the attention of the House from the issues involved.

Senator Missen:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. The Leader of the Opposition is now arguing about the significance of certain facts which are facts to be determined by the Royal Commission- not only whether what are claimed to be facts are facts, but also the significance of them. That is the very issue which is before the Royal Commission. This is not just a matter of the Leader of the Opposition quoting from the transcript; he is not doing that. What he is doing now is suggesting conclusions based on the assumption that certain matters which are claimed to be facts are true and is suggesting the significance of them. This is the very issue which the Royal Commissioner has to determine. I submit that this point of order, although different from the point of order I took earlier, is equally important.

Senator Wriedt:

– Speaking briefly to the point of order, earlier Senator Wheeldon referred to debates which took place in the chamber in 1975. When I commenced this speech I deliberately referred to events in 1975 because Senator

Wheeldon was quite right in what he said. We were subjected to the most foul abuse in this Parliament. I am not abusing anyone. I am simply setting out a case.

Senator Withers:

– What royal commission was set up?

Senator Wriedt:

– With great respect to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, we were accused of corruption. That is on the record. Copies of that record are in this chamber right now if the Leader of the Government would like it quoted. We are not accussing the Government of corruption. I am simply setting out a case about facts not being given to the Parliament and, in fact, facts being concealed from the Parliament.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have listened attentively to the Leader of the Opposition and I ask him to continue his speech.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Thank you, Mr President.

Senator Missen:

- Mr President, do I understand that my point of order is not upheld?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am saying that I have listened attentively to what you said and to what the Leader of the Opposition said and I am directing that at this time I am not sustaining your point of order.

Senator WRIEDT:

– As I was indicating, at that time the Prime Minister had certain information which was not used. On the same day, Senator Withers also made a misleading use of the legal opinions. In response to a question from Senator Douglas McClelland he commented:

  1. . both officers reported that no action was warranted as a result of what he told them.

By now it was clear what the Government intended to do. It was going to wave around this report of the Attorney-General to deflect any pressure for further investigation. By then, of course, it was too late. The Attorney-General, under repeated questioning, has been particularly coy about the events which took place between 10 and 24 April. This much we know. Everybody in this chamber knows it.

On 21 April Senator Withers wrote to the Attorney-General setting out his involvement with the matter. On 23 April the AttorneyGeneral and the Solicitor-General informed the Prime Minister that in view of further evidence they had concluded that further investigation was required and they suggested a judicial inquiry. (Extension of time granted). On 24 April the Prime Minister announced the judicial inquiry, the terms of which were confined to the investigation of actions involving the now suspended Minister for Finance. The AttorneyGeneral has since told the Senate that he was responsible for the drafting of the terms of reference. Those terms were announced on 24 April. Yet on 2 1 April, three days earlier, he had become aware of most significant information which was not necessarily to be encompassed by those terms. Had the Attorney-General capitulated to the wish and the pressure of the Prime Minister?

From then on it has been all downhill for the Government. Because of the way events have occurred, the Government has been obliged to widen the terms of reference on two occasions. But it is not events surrounding the Royal Commission with which we are concerned. Over the past few weeks a large number of questions have been directed at senior members of the Government. Very little information has been forthcoming. After announcing that he believed that he had misled the Parliament, Senator Withers realised that that statement was unwise and since then has refused to respond to questions about his involvement. The Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) have been equally uninformative. Only the AttorneyGeneral has provided any information, and even that has been provided with the greatest reluctance.

So, we are left in this position: We know that serious allegations have been made about the conduct of a government connected with electoral redistributions. We know that as a result of persistent complaints by Government supporters in Queensland, a considerable body of evidence has come to light. We know that the Prime Minister and a number of senior Ministers decided to suppress certain information using the device of an opinion from the Attorney-General which was not based on all the facts. We know that a number of senior Ministers have met often to find their way out of this impasse. We know that the Prime Minister and his senior Ministers have refused to answer questions in this Parliament about a range of activities concerning these issues and have said they would not give the information even to the Royal Commission. There are many things that we do not know. We do not know what actions the Government took to manipulate electoral redistributions last year. We do not know what information has been produced to the Government in relation to these issues. We do not know what matters were discussed by Ministers at their secret meetings at the Lodge. A number of elements in the chain of events can be identified. Firstly, the Government acted to ensure its electoral advantage in ways which may have been improper. Secondly, it attempted to suppress any criticism of the actions it had taken. Thirdly, it then went to some length to conceal its involvement in actions of a dubious nature. Lastly, it has resorted to Executive privilege to refuse to answer any questions about these matters. It is not necessary to have a very long memory to recall a government in another country which took exactly that course. It also went to great lengths to suppress information, conceal the truth and mislead the Congress, the public and its own members. Its actions led to the resignation of a President of the United States and the gaoling of ministers and officials in that country. The Government should reflect on this before it persists on its present course.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– We have heard a very interesting speech from the Leader of the Opposition Senator Wriedt) in which he set out basically to say that he was not attempting to do what in fact he was trying to do. I think the first thing honourable senators ought to ask themselves is why the discussion is brought forward on the last sitting day of this session of the Senate. We should ask ourselves: Why was it not brought on yesterday if it is a matter of such public importance? Was it because the proceedings of the Senate were not being broadcast yesterday but are being broadcast today? Does the fact that the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast make the matter a matter of public importance. Was it that the Opposition was not allowed to compete with its two-headed dog at the other end? Because the two-headed dog failed yesterday the Opposition ‘s tail here must wag today.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take a point of order. I suggest that the Leader of the Government in this place be asked to identify the twoheaded dog. If he is referring to the Leader of the Opposition in the other place I demand that he be asked to withdraw the phrase.

Senator WITHERS:

-If the honourable Senator thinks that I am identifying his two leaders for the time being with the .two-headed dog and that phrase is offensive to him I withdraw it. That tactic having failed yesterday, the tail wags and something happens here today. Is that the reason? Is the reason that the Opposition, feeling still cut to the quick ‘about what was justly said about it in 1975, is now looking for some spiteful revenge in this place? I do not mind Opposition senators saying the things they have. They can be as hard and as tough as they like. As my friend and, I hope, still colleague

Senator Sir Reginald Wright said the other day. the vast difference between 1975 and 1978 is that presently a royal commission is being held. The previous Whitlam Labor Government was never game to expose itself to one. It was totally terrified of a royal commission.

Members of the Opposition talk in here about conspiracies. Had it not been for the pride or indignation, or whatever it was of Senator James McClelland, the Labor Government would not have been exposed. I recall that day when so full of arrogance and vinegar and old lace he threw down the Executive Council minute and exposed the whole of the conspiracy which had occurred a year before. What made him do it? No doubt it was a rush of blood to the head. He could not stand the pressure. He is the man who totally exposed the conspiracy of the previous year to raise a $4,000m loan. Is that why the Opposition is raising this matter of public importance today?

Senator Melzer:

– No.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator says no. I think the only other reason must be that the Opposition is attempting to build a certain atmosphere in the community, hoping thereby to influence the judge who is at present in control of the royal commission. I have no objection at all to a recital of facts; but for goodness sake, would the Opposition be a little accurate. Honourable senators will recall that, when Senator Button moved his famous censure of me, he almost missed the call because he did not know when it was coming. That is how good he was. He fumbled and mumbled and stumbled, and at last got to his feet, having been wound up by the Whip. What a brilliant performance! Today we have seen the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) make what he believes to be a totally accurate, factual statement from which he can draw inferences. What did he say? He said that on 27 October I moved in this place that the electoral redistribution proposals for New South Wales be accepted, except that the name of Lawson be exchanged for that of Macquarie, or words to that effect. He should either sack his research officer or his speech writer or both, or sack himself. If he looks at page 338 of the Journals of the Senate for 27 October 1 977, he will see that I moved:

That the Senate approves the redistribution of the State of New South Wales . . . and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report and indicated in the map referred therein be adopted . . .

I moved that they be adopted, not substituted. The motion continued: . . except that any changes made by the House of Representatives in the names of the divisions be agreed to by the Senate.

If Senator Cavanagh were here he would recall that we had an exchange over, whether or not the Senate ought to adopt that practice. If the Leader of the Opposition cannot even get straight the facts from the Journals or the Clerks, how good are the rest of his so-called facts?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Disprove the facts.

Senator WITHERS:

– I am disproving one of the so-called facts.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does that make all the others wrong?

Senator WITHERS:

– It is a reasonable inference. I think there is a good argument, for my moving, on the first day of the new sessional period, a motion of censure of the Leader of the Opposition for misleading the Senate by misquoting the Journals of the Senate. Senator James McClelland, the man who destroyed the Labor Party by losing his cool and putting down the Executive Council document, cannot contain himself. He is the guilty man who exposed the whole of the Whitlam conspiracy. He has never been able to forgive himself. He was the man who did it. The Opposition has been attempting today to draw inferences from what are alleged to be facts. Whether it is a rule of law, a rule of practice or just a rule of decency, I should have thought that the proper inferences to be drawn from what the Leader of the Opposition believes to be facts ought to be drawn by the royal commissioner. If Senator James McClelland thinks that that is not the duty of His Honour Mr Justice McGregor, he ought to say so. I thought the Opposition called for a royal commission. Having got one, it is not prepared to let it run its course. The Opposition wants to run it in this place. I can well understand why. The Labor Party is a party that believes in kangaroo courts. I regret very much that my old friend Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is not here today. How he would have loved Senator Wriedt ‘s speech. He would have said that it dripped of everything the Labor Party believes in because all those opposite live in a conspiratorial syndrome. The whole of the Labor Party is a conspiracy. The whole of socialism is a conspiracy. He would have said: ‘There is the evidence of it. They cannot think of anything other than in conspiratorial terms’. That is what this debate is all about.

Senator Walsh:

– Why do you not address yourself to the matter?

Senator WITHERS:

-I am not here to prove or to disprove facts or to draw inferences from them. Senator James McClelland, that man who believes he is a lawyer with a social conscience, who speaks to us on human rights, does not believe in the simple,” just attitude that a’ judge is appointed to discover the facts and to draw inferences. He expects me to do that. He wants to do it himself. Senator, you will be enormously disappointed.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Read what Mr Speaker says.

Senator WITHERS:

– I am not interested in what Mr Speaker says; I am interested in what I say. You like to promote yourself as a lawyer with a social conscience among your friends, the patio pinks or the penthouse pinks of Point Piper, most of whom have been plundering the proletariat for years. Why do you not be an old fashioned lawyer and believe that it is for a judge to discover the truth or falsity of the facts and it is for him to draw the inferences from them? I have heard the Australian Labor Party members in this Parliament talk day after day about their socalled human rights, the so-called decent things. I know that my friend and colleague, Senator Carrick, has been under some attack because he has been putting those principles into force in certain areas. Opposition members talk a lot about human rights but they do not believe in them. I say quite openly and frankly that once His Honour has made his findings I am prepared to debate the facts and draw the inferences. It may well be that we will quarrel as to the facts and whether the inferences were properly drawn. As I have always understood it, one is always entitled to disagree with a judgment of a court. One is entitled to say that the inferences drawn by a learned judge are wrong. At that stage I am prepared to debate all the matters which Senator Wriedt has put before the Parliament.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are getting ready to say he is wrong, are you?

Senator WITHERS:

-No, Senator. What I am saying is that -

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You better get ready, and for big Mai.

Senator WITHERS:

-There he goes. Is that not typical of Senator James McClelland? He has not heard all the evidence, not cross examined a witness, but he has come to the conclusion that somebody is guilty, and it is most likely I. You are a very nice man, Senator. Your remarks show you really are a lawyer with a social conscience. And people are talking about putting you on the bench! I hope that is really only a rumour. If anybody is unfitted to be appointed to the bench it is Senator James McClelland, a man who makes a judgment before an inquiry is finished. What a disgrace he is to the legal profession! I hope the Premier of New South Wales would never dare appoint such a person to the bench. Senator, you ought to recall the day you put the Labor Government in the- whatever it was. Do not open your mouth again. You get into trouble.

I am prepared to debate these matters when it is the proper time to debate them. But I am not prepared to debate them now. I do not have the time, the inclination or the energy to check through all the facts. But we know very well- I apologise to some extent for saying this to Senator Wriedt because his advisers are not terribly competent- last time Senator Wriedt spoke on this matter he used what he thought was some evidence but the moment the letter that I had written to the Attorney-General was read out his statement was shown to be completely incorrect. I do not blame Senator Wriedt for that because I know he did it innocently and he made the statement honestly. I say again that I have sufficient respect for Senator Wriedt to believe that he made an open and honest mistake today in respect of the motion I moved in this place. The advice I give to Senator Wriedt is that if he wishes to keep his reputation- which I have no doubt he values enormously- he ought to keep away from those people in the Labor Party who give him wrong information. They are dangerous to him and he deserves a better fate than sitting with the colleagues who sit around him.

I have no intention of discussing this matter any further. I await with interest the report of the Royal Commissioner. I deplore the attempt of Opposition senators here to try to manipulate the media to seek to influence the judge to come to certain conclusions. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-! am sorry to inform the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers, that I am not a senator who is ashamed of himself according to the criteria which he lays down for the Senate. We are debating the concealment by Ministers in this Government of certain facts relating to the redistribution in Queensland. Senator Withers came into the chamber today and said that he had neither the time, the inclination nor the energy to debate this matter. He has not answered any of the allegations which have been put by my leader, Senator Wriedt, except for one footling little point which he picked up in order to try to discredit the major points which Senator Wriedt made, none of which the Minister saw fit to deal with.

Senator Withers:

– What about speaking to us instead of to the Press gallery?

Senator BUTTON:

– Clearly we have touched a raw nerve. Senator Withers came into the chamber a fortnight ago and said that he did not wish to hide anything, or to hide behind the sub judice rule. Now he comes in here and refuses to answer any questions on this matter. He refuses to answer the points made by Senator Wriedt. He is hiding behind the sub judice rule and putting the Senate in a totally absurd position when compared with the rest of the community. The only 64 people in this country who cannot debate these issues freely are the 64 members of the Senate. That is the position we have come to at the hands of Senator Withers who, a fortnight ago, said that he did not wish to hide anything from the Senate. By God, the record since a fortnight ago speaks for itself. Every effort has been made to hide every single fact in relation to this matter. I believe the Opposition is entitled to look at a government which, except for three years between 1972 and 1975, has been in office for a long time. We are entitled to look at the standards of that Government. We are entitled to quote Senator Withers. In 1975, when referring to the Australian Labor Party Government, he said that the whole operation was a cover up. He stated:

The Prime Minister said yesterday that there are ample procedures in the Parliament for Ministers to be questioned. If one had the time to go through Hansard one would see questions unanswered for month after month after month.

The same sort of thing has been happening in the Senate and in the House of Representatives in the last few weeks. The concealment of facts is at issue in this matter of public importance which has been moved by the Opposition. I refer to Senator Withers, who now has left the chamber after a memorable non-contribution to this debate, to what he said about concealment in 1975. He stated:

Too many other things have happened in this Parliament which have proved that things just do not go away until everything is laid on the table for open and full inspection.

That is the standard of Senator Withers in 1975. Honourable senators saw the standard of Senator Withers in 1978 in his contribution to this debate today. He does not want any more facts laid on the table. There are enough facts there already to cause him grave concern. It is about those facts that the Opposition is concerned. Let us look at the view of Senator Webster, another Minister, on this same question. He is in the chamber today. What did he have to say about this son of thing in 1975? With a degree of great piety, as I recall it at the time, he said:

The fact is that evidence on this matter has had to be dragged out of the Ministers day after day. They should be on their feet apologising for the abject faults and falsehoods that they have brought into this Parliament. If they are not ashamed of themselves they ought to be . . . A leader with any respect for his own image would declare immediately in this Parliament that he had misled the Parliament, although perhaps unintentionally. Surely those who have followed the disgrace and discharge of the various Ministers during these past months must endorse my comment that any leader with any respect for his own image would resign immediately.

Senator Wright interjected:

Under the principle of responsibility in government.

That is a matter about which he is selectively concerned. Senator Webster said:

Senator Wright is quite correct in what he has said.

Senator Webster thought Senator Wright was correct in 1975; but let us look at the situation in 1978. The facts are quite simple. In September 1977 the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) phoned Mr Pearson, the Chief Electoral Officer of Australia, and requested him to speak to Mr Coleman, the Chairman of the Distribution Commissioners in Queensland, regarding the name of the seat Gold Coast. Mr Pearson did that, as requested. On 27 October- a month later- after he had phoned Mr Pearson, Senator Withers said in this Senate that he should not be involved in the naming of electorates. I should like to refer to his words which are in the Hansard record of that day. He said:

Whilst as a senator I have a duty and a right to look at the electoral boundaries under the Act, I do not carry that so far as to believe that I ought to become involved in the names of the electorates.

He said that in October 1977, knowing that a month before he had become involved in the naming of electorates by phoning Mr Pearson. On 3 November of the same year, 1977, Mr Kevin Cairns of the House of Representatives referred to influence from ‘on high’ in relation to this matter. On 4 November, Senator Withers went out of his way to volunteer to this chamber that he had not phoned Mr Coleman. He said he did not know why the name of the electorate was changed. We dealt with that in a previous debate in this’ Senate. Subsequent to that, there was a variety of meetings of Ministers.

On 17 January 1978 Senator Withers, the Minister for Administrative Services, told the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of this country that he had been involved in changing the name of the seat of Gold Coast to McPherson. He told the Prime Minister that he had spoken to Mr Pearson on 17 January 1978.

On 18 January 1978, at a meeting in the Prime Minister’s office to discuss what Senator Withers has called ‘this vexed question’, the SolicitorGeneral was asked to give a legal opinion about the matter. From then on, there were a series of meetings at the Lodge and elsewhere again to discuss the vexed question. On 9 February and 15 February two reports were prepared by the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General. I want to refer to those reports because in the second report, particularly, they dealt with the question of the change of name. I should like to quote what was said in the second report about this question. This appears at page 10:

Fundamental to the complaint is the change of name of the present McPherson from Gold Coast to Fadden and finally to McPherson. That the name was thrice changed rests only on rumour. Nonetheless, we shall assume that it occurred. That the change was procured by means which the Statute forbids is in truth a matter of speculation, however sincerely entertained.

Later in the same report, in summary, they stated:

  1. . it is unlikely that the Commissioners improperly changed the name Gold Coast to Fadden and finally McPherson being, as they were, all the time aware that the right of nomination was for the Parliament and not for them. There is, indeed, no evidence of any communication with them outside the statutory procedures.

They were the remarks of the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of this country, in an opinion on 9 February. He did not know, presumably- I respect the integrity of the AttorneyGeneralthat the Minister for Administrative Services had informed the Prime Minister of this country already that he was involved in the change of name. That was the position of the AttorneyGeneral on 9 February. I should like to refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister of this country on 10 April in referring to that set of facts. The Prime Minister had this to say:

The honourable member for Fadden has made some additional information available to this House. Thus the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General have been invited to examine that material and any other material that the honourable member for Fadden, or for that matter, any other honourable member of this House, might wish to place before them, and, in the light of that, report to the Government on the proper course to pursue.

The Prime Minister of this country said that in the House of Representatives on 10 April of this year, knowing that his own Attorney-General and Solicitor-General had put down the report to which I have referred, knowing that on 17 January he had been informed by the Minister for Administrative Services of his involvement in the change of name. The Prime Minister invited, and I use his words, ‘any other honourable member’, which presumably excludes himself, because he had information which he did not put before the House, which he did not put before the Attorney-General prior to that report. He should have said ‘any honourable member other than the Prime Minister’, because he did not give information to the Attorney-General, to the Parliament or to other members of his Government that he knew was vitally important to the whole question. Then we had Senator Withers’ letter of 2 1 April to Senator Durack. Lawyers should look at that letter and at its terminology. It is a fascinating document if ohe has ever practised in the courts of petty sessions. It is a really interesting piece of terminology. The letter was written on 2 1 April, and that was probably the first time that the Attorney-General fully understood what had been going on.

The conclusions one can draw at this stage, and certainly in the Budget session 1 will accept Senator Withers’ kind invitation to debate the question again, are simply these: Senator Withers in the greatest understatement of this session- a characteristic understatement from him- may have misled the Parliament. That is the first conclusion that can be drawn. The second conclusion that can be drawn is that “the Prime Minister of this country bung his own Attorney-General on a limb because he did not reveal to him a material fact about which the Attorney-General was required to give a legal opinion, a material fact with which the AttorneyGeneral and the Solicitor-General had to deal. The Prime Minister did not reveal that fact to him. He hoped that it would remain concealed. The key point,in all that is what the Prime Minister said in the House* In effect, any honourable member can put his views in relation to this matter; he retains his right not to put a view in relation to this matter. The clear conclusion one can draw from that is that not only did the Prime Minister deceive other colleagues but also he deceived his own Attorney-General, and that is documented in answers that the AttorneyGeneral has given in this place. Of course, when all the Ministers were meeting at the Lodge to discuss the matter, and there was quite a group of them, and Senator Withers told them what he had done, they said: ‘So what?’ That is not the name of a gardening program on the ABC, as many people think; it is a important comment on this event. ‘So what’, they said, because they thought at that stage that Senator Withers would never get caught. That is what ‘So what’ amounts to- that Senator Withers would never get caught.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that we are entitled to refer to the sort of standards that the Liberal Party of this country purported to lay down over the years about how Ministers should behave in relation to Parliament, in relation to their own colleagues, and particularly in relation to this Senate. There has been a clear pattern of concealment, which of course involves Senator Withers, but I predict that Senator Withers will be perfectly safe because the only man who can deal with him is himself up to his chin in this matter- the Prime Minister of this country. So there is a whole process of concealment involving a number of Ministers, lt is for that reason that the Opposition is concerned to raise this issue in the Senate on the last day of this session. Of course we will raise it again on subsequent days in subsequent sessions because this is a matter which, to use Senator Withers’ own words, is just not going to go away’ without a full revelation of the facts.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Mr President, I do not propose to detain the Senate very long on this matter of public importance which has been brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt. I believe that practically all the matters that have been raised in the speeches of Senator Wriedt and Senator Button should never have been discussed in this Senate at this point in time. Indeed I believe it is an utter disgrace to the Opposition, and will be to its everlasting disgrace, that it raised questions which are the subject of evidence before the Royal Commission, without quoting all the evidence and at a time when the Royal Commissioner is receiving counsel ‘s addresses in relation to that evidence and before he has made any findings on that evidence. It is an utter disgrace and members of the Opposition should be ashamed. They have guilty consciences about the way in which they treated Parliament and the country over the loans affair and they are trying desperately to find some analogy here with the loans scandal. They are trying in some way to salve their guilty consciences about that.

It is very interesting that Senator Wriedt, Senator Wheeldon and Senator James McClelland, who is trying to interject, should be talking about accusations being made against them at that time because the significant point is that during the whole period of that Autumn session of 1 975 the then Opposition sought to get the truth from the then Government about that matter. Honourable senators opposite talk about Ministers of this Government not answering questions. I advise them to look at the efforts made by Labor Government Ministers during that time when they endeavoured not to answer questions fully in relation to the loans scandal. It was not until the very end of that Autumn session that Senator James McClelland produced his famous document. It was only because of the pressure from then on from evidence coming in from other people that there was a special session of Parliament in July. That was months after the questioning first started on that matter. The then Opposition made a final effort to get at the truth by calling public servants before the Bar of the Senate because the Government was still holding out on the Parliament and on the country. That was the record of the present Opposition’ when in government as far as providing proof to the Parliament and the country was concerned.

But what has happened in this situation? I read the terms of this matter of public importance and I could not believe that the Opposition would want to accuse the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of the matters it has accused him of. Members of the Opposition quoted completely selective evidence which is before the Royal Commission and in the absence of the Prime Minister himself. Nobody has yet asked the Prime Minister to say what he thinks about this matter. Yet members of the Opposition have accused him and endeavoured to convict him on completely selective quotations from evidence before a royal commission. Even if such an act were permissible, and I do not think it ought to be, it is a completely selective exercise.

I thought Opposition senators were really coming into this chamber today to complain that this whole question of the redistribution last year, and the facts surrounding it, should have been discussed in the Parliament and that this should not have been a matter for a royal commission at all. In interpreting the terms of their matter of public importance today I was trying to be generous to them. But of course, from the speeches of Senator Wriedt and Senator Button, we now find that our worst fears about the motives, attitudes and lack of principles of the Opposition have been realised.

The fact is that when the allegation was first made by Mr Cameron at the declaration of the poll, the matter was referred, as has been said, to the Solicitor-General and myself to see whether Mr Cameron had any evidence to support his allegation or whether there was any evidence from which inferences could be drawn which warranted action. We did that, that is all that we were asked to do and that is all we were expected to do. It was the proper course of action to take. The fact that somebody makes accusations, whether it be in the Parliament or elsewhere, is no basis in itself for setting up a royal commission and subjecting people to examination on oath in that inquisitorial fashion. So the proper course to take was to ask the law officers to investigate the allegation and to see whether there was any substance in it or any evidence to support it.

Our view of the matter is clearly evident from opinions which have been tabled in this Parliament. I do not propose to go over them. Mr Cameron then produced some evidence in the form of statutory declarations from which he read in the House. That was on 7 April. On 10 April the matter was then referred back to the law officers so that they could look at it again. The Government set up the Royal Commission on 24 April. The procedure followed by this Government in an effort to ensure that facts would not be concealed is very dramatically different, as I said earlier, from the attitudes and the manner of procedure adopted by the Labor Government in relation to the loans affair. The ways in which the Labor Government and this Government have behaved are completely different; they are as different as chalk and cheese. This Government was prepared to set up the Royal Commission, and it gave the Royal Commission the terms of reference under which the evidence of Senator Withers and Mr Pearson was given. That is the evidence on which the Opposition is now seeking to draw its inferences and to make its accusations. That evidence was brought out, and it was always intended and understood, certainly by the law officers, that that evidence would be brought out.

As I have said in answer to questions in this place, Mr Byers and I obtained evidence during that period from 10 April to 23 April. We obtained the information which forms the substance of the evidence given by Senator Withers and Mr Pearson. That evidence which was made available to us was forwarded to the Royal Commission immediately it was set up. The object of the Government throughout the whole of these proceedings has been to act speedily and openly and not to conceal the facts from the Royal Commission and thereby from the public. Since the Royal Commission was set up the Government has chosen to take the stand that that was the body to be given all the information and all the material obtained from people who are on oath and who are being rigorously cross-examined by a leading counsel selected by the Government to assist the Royal Commission. Mr Gleeson is subjecting the Ministers and the other witnesses to the most rigorous cross-examination. I would bet that no honourable senator opposite has really read the transcript of proceedings or has seen the way in which Mr Gleeson is conducting the proceedings.

Senator McLaren:

– Don’t be too sure about that.

Senator DURACK:

– If the honourable senator had noted the way in which Mr Gleeson has been conducting the examination of this matter and the way in which it has been proceeding, he would not be under the illusion that there has been any effort to conceal information. We have been saying and we will continue to say that it is entirely wrong for discussions such as this to be raised, and it is even worse for conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, before the Royal Commission reports. In conclusion, I believe that the proceedings this morning are a disgrace to the Opposition. If honourable senators opposite understand fully the implications of their actions they would be ashamed. Not only are they seeking to make judgments but also they have been quoting selectively from the evidence that has been given. The essential point is that because of the sub judice rule, none of these matters should be debated in the Parliament during the period that the Royal Commission is sitting.

Discussion concluded.

page 2674

SURVEY OF HOMELESS PEOPLE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I table a report entitled ‘A Place of Dignity’ which is based on a survey of homeless people and homeless persons assistance centres.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2674

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) On behalf of the Minister for Social Security, for the information of honourable senators I present the report of an independent inquiry into the operations and capital works program of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. This report is tabled in substitution for the paper of the same title tabled on 31 May 1978.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note or the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2675

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 37 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present a supplementary report of the Law Reform Commission entitled ‘Complaints Against Police’.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I have a particular interest in this one.

Senator Withers:

– I thought it was vice versa, that they had complaints against you.

Senator GEORGES:

– I got out of them. I seek leave to move a motion.

Leave granted.

Senator GEORGES:

– I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2675

WILTONA HOSTEL, WILLIAMSTOWN, VICTORIA

Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I present the report and transcript of evidence from the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations on its inquiry into the establishment, operation and disposal of Wiltona Hostel, Williamstown, Victoria.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator RAE:

– by leave- I move:

I remind the Senate that on 28 February 1978 the Senate requested that the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations investigate and report on the establishment, operation and disposal of Wiltona Hostel, Williamstown, Victoria. The Committee’s task basically has been to establish how and why an asset financed by the taxpayer at an original cost of $2.2m between 1966 and 1971, with a current replacement cost of between $6m and $8m- that is, the Wiltona Hostel- came to be built; why it has remained virtually unused for almost six years; and what is to be done with it. The Committee has concluded that the site at Wiltona is totally unsuitable for use as a migrant hostel, being bordered on all sides by a petrochemical and gas complex. The Committee has consequently also concluded that the consultative process and the criteria used in the unfortunate decision in 1965 to rebuild Wiltona Hostel were unsatisfactory. However, the new procedures governing the use of Commonwealth property, which have been introduced progressively since 1974, should ensure that no repetition of such a decision occurs.

The Committee determined that the major reason that Wiltona has remained virtually unused for almost six years is the bureaucratic maze created by the large number of Commonwealth, State and local government authorities involved in the attempts to dispose of this public asset for some productive use. The Commonwealth Government apparently intends now to re-open Wiltona for use as a migrant hostel. As the report indicates, the Committee accepts the temporary use of Wiltona for housing refugees if there is an immediate and pressing need for hostel accommodation. However, I would like to stress that this acceptance is subject to the implementation at Wiltona of various fire safety procedures which have been recommended by the Commonwealth Fire Board. Unless and until those procedures are implemented, the Committee considers that the hostel should not be used. 1 also mention that the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Authority regards the hostel as being unusable for accommodation at any stage, even with such procedures as the Commonwealth Fire Board suggests.

Moreover, because of the fundamental unsuitability of the site, the Committee considers that the Commonwealth should plan the early disposal of the hostel. It therefore recommends two measures to enable this planning to commence immediately. Firstly, it recommends that the Commonwealth commence negotiations now to sell both the Wiltona Hostel and the nearby Williamstown Rifle Range, with the proviso that the Commonwealth reserve the right to use the hostel for a specific interim period. The Williamstown Rifle Range is near the Wiltona Hostel and its sale with the hostel, as a package deal, makes attractive the proposition to accept Wiltona Hostel, which otherwise might be described as something of the nature of a white elephant. Secondly, in order to overcome further delays of protracted negotiations, there should be an early meeting of the relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers, together with the Mayor of Williamstown, to negotiate the disposal of both properties and cut through the bureaucratic maze which appears to have kept this valuable asset unused for about six years. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

page 2676

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Estate Duty Assessment Amendment Bill 1 978. Estate Duty Amendment Bill 1978. Gift Duty Assessment Amendment Bill 1978. Gift Duty Amendment Bill 1978. International Sugar Agreement Bill 1978. Loan Amendment Bill 1978.

page 2676

AUSTRALIA AND THE MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– by leave- This statement about Australia and the multilateral trade negotiations was put down by my colleague the Acting Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) in the other place last night. It has received a great deal of publicity. I would therefore seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

During the months immediately ahead, the main trading nations will be making decisions which will be of crucial importance to the future of the international economy and world trade. The Tokyo round of trade negotiations, which began in 1973, is now entering its final stages. The United States is aiming for an outline package of decisions by mid-July. By the time the Parliament resumes, therefore, decisions will have been taken which will be of far-reaching consequence. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they could set the climate within which international trade will be conducted for the rest of this century. If the negotiations achieve their objective of reducing barriers so that world trade can continue to expand, they will have made a major contribution to the further growth of the world economy and to the raising of living standards in both the developed and the developing countries. On the other hand, if the negotiations fail, there is a serious risk of a world-wide retreat to protectionism. That is what happened in the 1 930s and it would be a tragedy if it were to happen again. It is in Australia’s interests, as a country heavily dependent on world trade, to avoid that outcome. We also have a responsibility, as a member of the international community with a special opportunity to understand the interests of both industrialised and developing countries, to do all that is within our power to make the negotiations a success. If they are not, it will not be for any want of trying on our part.

Australia was one of the foundation members of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and for 30 years has been amongst the strongest supporters of its principles. As one of the world ‘s most responsible trading nations we have participated in all the GATT rounds of trade negotiations to date. A principal source of disappointment to Australia has been the failure of these GATT rounds and the GATT itself to come to grips with all the problems of world trade. While world trade has grown, its benefits have been unevenly distributed. In the Government’s view, the world economic and trade situation is at u critical point. That is why we believe that all countries have a responsibility to seek every avenue to support the continued growth of world trade. There is no section of the Australian economy that does not benefit directly or indirectly from a buoyant world trading economy. Our mineral exports are dependent on the major industrialised nations being able to find expanding outlets for their products. Our objective of a strengthened and more export oriented manufacturing sector geared to our abundant natural resources depends on the availability of a growing world market, particularly in Asia. We have the ability to supply larger quantities of agricultural products to meet the needs of growing numbers of people with improving standards of living. Thus it is not a question of a trade off between .the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. All sectors of the Australian economy stand to benefit from a favourable outcome from the negotiations; equally all would suffer from a major setback to world trade.

Although the multilateral trade negotiations had its genesis in a period of unparalleled prosperity, the subsequent changes in world economic conditions have given it a much different practical and psychological significance. If the MTN does not achieve its objectives the great global effort to free up trade will have left many of its participants less than satisfied. Disappointment at .such an outcome would undoubtedly encourage the emergence of ‘beggar my neighbour’ policies around the world. The world trading situation would go into decline with all the consequences that has for both the western and the developing worlds. If this were to happen there is little doubt that Australia as a trading nation would be a net loser. The Government is, therefore, determined to do all it can, consistent with fairness on all sides, to make the MTN work.

In line with this attitude the Government has decided that Australia should engage fully in every aspect of the negotiations. The negotiations are the most wide ranging and comprehensive ever undertaken. They are not concerned solely with tariffs. In fact tariffs are becoming increasingly less significant in many countries’ protective systems. The structure of the negotiations reflect this fact. Apart from tariffs, the negotiations are concentrating on non-tariff barriers both as they apply to specific products and in terms of codes, covering such things as standards, import licensing and customs valuation. The adequacy of the GATT to deal with current and prospective trade problems is also under examination. Not the least amongst the questions being addressed in the negotiations is that of special and differential treatment for developing countries where this can be provided.

We have so far stood aside from the formula approach adopted for the negotiation of reduced tariffs on industrial products. Our decision to .do so was not taken lightly. It followed agreement among the major industrialised countries, reached in the face of strenuous Australian opposition, that negotiations in the agricultural sector, unlike those on industrial products, should take place on a selective item-by-item basis. The Government took the view that it was entirely appropriate for Australia to adopt a similar itembyitem approach on industrial products and we have made offers on that basis. I am bound to say that, in a negotiating sense, that decision has been well vindicated by developments to date. The offers of concessions so far made to Australia on agricultural products provide little or no prospect of growth for Australian exports.

Nevertheless, for the reasons I have already mentioned and having regard for the determination expressed by the United States that a significant liberalisa’tion of agricultural trade should be achieved in the MTN, it is clear that the Aus.tralian stance must be predicated on an assumption that the negotiations will bring benefits to all participants. The Government has therefore been- examining closely the implications of adopting the formula approach to the reduction of industrial tariffs taking into account its policy objectives of encouraging the development of a more efficient and productive Austraiian manufacturing sector in the long run while avoiding short run economic and social disruption. This examination showed that with appropriate exceptions and safeguards the formula approach could be applied in a way which is consistent with the policies outlined in the Government’s White Paper on manufacturing industry.

In the light of these considerations the Government has decided to issue a challenge to the leading participants by upgrading the Australian offer. We will challenge them to greatly improve their own offers, particularly in regard to trade in agricultural products. Subject to full reciprocity and appropriate safeguards Australia will offer to negotiate within the framework of the industrial tariff formula. It is important that it be clearly understood that the use of a formula is merely a convenient way of settling a basis for negotiation. It is an approach which, if it is to be implemented, must be reciprocated if not in this part of the negotiations, then somewhere else. A fundamental principle of the negotiations, as stated in the Tokyo declaration, is that -they should advance on the basis of mutual advantage and reciprocity. Reciprocation can come in two ways- by upgrading offers or scaling down offers.

Most of the developed countries participating in the negotiations including the United States of America, Japan and the European Economic Community have already decided to adopt a formula approach to the reduction of tariffs on industrial products. The formula is intended to achieve a trade weighted average reduction of 40 per cent in the tariffs on these goods which are defined as all the goods, other than agricultural products, falling within chapters 25 to 99 of the Tariff Nomenclature. This overall reduction is to be made in eight annual steps beginning in 1 980.

There are variations as between countries in the way in which the formula will be applied. The details are confidential to participants but some information is available publicly. The United States, for. example, is obliged under its Trade Act to exclude products that are subject to emergency import relief action. Canada has announced that its offer is subject to conditions including the possibility of excluding some items. Japan has also announced that its offer is subject to exceptions. It can be expected that to the extent that some countries depart from the strict application of the formula, other countries will make compensating adjustments during the course of the negotiations. Similarly the offer by Australia to adopt the formula approach will bc subject to conditions of this kind appropriate to our circumstances including the following:

We reserve the right to vary the offer at our discretion if less than full reciprocity is gained.

We will specify a base date that will mean that credit is given for the 25 per cent and subsequent tariff cuts.

We will except from tariff reductions items subject to temporary protection.

We will modify the formula for items where tariffs have been increased since 1 973.

We reserve the right to rationalise and simplify the tariff.

The offer must, of course, be on the understanding that the existing GATT provisions which allow countries to apply temporary protective measures such as temporary duties and quantitative import restraints to prevent serious disruption to domestic industries will be continued on an acceptable basis. The practical effect of all of these conditions is to enable Australia to make adjustments to or withdrawals from its offer during the negotiations. No government participating in the negotiations is committed to implementing offers if, in the light of the circumstances of the time, that action would not be in the nation’s overall interests. This is a consideration which goes beyond the particular question of reciprocity.

I reiterate that Australia’s offer is firmly premised on full credit being given for the 25 per cent and subsequent tariff cuts. Australia claimed this in Tokyo in 1973 as the basis of its participation in the MTN. We cannot accept, as has been argued internationally, that Australia should be penalised because it was one of the few countries in the world to make any substantial reductions in tariff since the Kennedy Round. I have already mentioned that reductions under the formula approach are to be made in eight annual steps beginning in 1 980. This, taken with the tariff reductions Australia has already made, means that, even if the offer were to be implemented in full, any further cuts will be much less on average than the overall formula figure of 40 per cent. Moreover, in those circumstances, current tariff rates for most items would not have to be reduced before 1 984 or 1 985.

Australia ‘s assistance machinery will continue to operate during the negotiations. As already mentioned products which are subject to temporary protection have been excluded from the offer and further exceptions will be made where the Government considers temporary protection is warranted following the normal inquiry by the Temporary Assistance Authority or Industries Assistance Commission. Recommendations in reports received from the IAC on matters other than temporary protection will be considered by the Government in the usual way and adjustments made to Australia’s offer if the Government considers this is warranted.

I must emphasise that there are significant differences between the adoption of this formula approach and the July 1973 across the board tariff cut of 25 per cent. it is an offer and not a commitment to cut tariffs at this point reciprocity will be required for any further cuts which are implemented quite apart from the question of any further reductions, the 25 per cent and subsequent tariff cuts will now become subject to reciprocity any cuts will be phased in small steps over a period of years the reciprocity requirement will ensure that the only conditions under which implementation will take place will be those that will bring overall economic benefit to Australia.

Important opportunities for Australia’s future development structure would flow from a successful outcome to the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. In a world with a growing demand for resources Australia stands in an advantageous position. Though our population is small, the nation possesses large resources in its pastoral and agricultural industries, its developed and potential reserves of minerals and energyproducing materials, and the yet-untapped resources of its surrounding seas and continental shelf. This situation implies new opportunities for our industries to serve world markets.

In its election policy statement the Government foreshadowed various measures which will assist Australian manufacturing industries to take advantage of these opportunities. These included export incentives, a review of industrial research and development and action to encourage the development of export industries processing Australian raw materials. Comprehensive export incentives have already been announced and action is proceeding on the other commitments. The Government is convinced that, in adopting this approach, Australia is supporting the continued growth of international trade which is so vital to the improvement of the standard of living of the people of developed and developing countries alike.

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to respond very briefly to the statement. Firstly, I would like to say that the hopes of those people in the agriculture area- the area in which I am primarily interested- who believe that this statement constitutes, or is likely to lead to, a significant improvement in their terms of trade will be misplaced for a variety of reasons. I say this because firstly, the statement will have no impact at all, as I understand, until 1984. Secondly, their hopes will be misplaced because of an exclusion. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) when making this statement in the House of Representatives said:

No government participating in the negotiations is committed to implementing offers if, in the light of the circumstances of the time, that action would not be in the nation’s overall interests.

In other words, that is an escape clause through which one could drive a team of bullocks. The governments will not be committed to observe the timetable if at a particular time they do not feel like doing so. The other very significant exemption is that commodities the import of which is already restricted by non-tariff barriers are, I understand, to be excluded from the negotiations for a general lowering of tariff. That has a secondary significance. If such a policy is to be proceeded with in respect of commodities which currently are protected by non-tariff measuresthey are the commodities produced by industries which require the greatest amount of protectionand if tariffs on industries that presently require a lesser amount of protection are to be reduced, the net effect of those changes on the structural efficiency of Australian industry is likely to be adverse. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2679

FOREIGN INVESTMENT POLICY AND EXCHANGE CONTROL PROCEDURES

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I seek leave to make a statement relating to a review of foreign investment policy and exchange control procedures impinging on capital inflow and to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. The statement has been made in another place and its contents are generally known.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

It is now just over two years since Senator Cotton announced the Government’s foreign investment policy in a statement to the Senate dated 1 April 1 976. In the light of experience gained in that period, it is timely that the policy be reviewed. The Government recognises that, despite Australia ‘s high level of domestic savings, we will continue to require overseas capital to assist in the development of our industries and resources. A primary objective of the Government’s policy remains therefore to encourage foreign investment in Australia. It is against this central consideration that the Government has undertaken a review of foreign investment policy. The Government has decided that there should be no fundamental changes to the basicobjectives of the policy, as announced to the Senate by Senator Cotton. In arriving at this decision the Government has been mindful of the fact that the present policy has achieved widespread acceptance from the business sector, including both Australian and overseas companies, and from the Australian community at large. This has led to the establishment of a stable investment climate in which overseas investors can plan their future operations in Australia.

Nevertheless the Government wishes to relax procedural requirements wherever experience has shown this to be possible. Accordingly, the Government has decided that forthwith: proposals for foreign investment in new projects will not require government approval under the foreign investment guidelines unless the project involves an investment of $5 million or more- this does not apply to investment in the financial sector and uranium; in the case of investments coming within the scope of the Foreign Takeovers Act, the Government will not normally seek to intervene if the assets of the company being taken over are less than $2m, unless there are special circumstances or the business is in the financial sector or some other area where special considerations apply; and individual real estate acquisitions of less than $250,000 will no longer require approval.

The Government has also referred for detailed legal study certain possible amendments, essentially of a .technical kind, to the Foreign Takeovers Act. The principal proposal under consideration would remove the need for compulsory notification to the Government of acquisitions of substantial shareholdings in Australian companies- many of which do not change the ultimate ownership and control of the enterprise, being corporate re-arrangements, and acquisitions of shelf and shell companies, which are of no policy significance. It was never intended that the Act cover these proposals. Repeal of this provision (section 26) would eliminate a large number of proposals which are currently notified as a technicality but which are not subject to action under the Act. It would not reduce the

Government’s capacity to examine takeover proposals which would result in a change in control. The possible legislative amendments will be the subject of further detailed examination by the Treasury in conjunction with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department

I turn now to another aspect of the foreign investment guidelines which the Government has had under examination. We have been assisted in our consideration of it by recent consultations with a number of companies and have taken into account the range of views expressed. The Government’s policy is to welcome opportunities for Australians to participate in the ownership and management of foreign owned companies operating in this country. A number of largely owned companies have expressed a willingness to increase the level of Australian ownership in their operations. Some have already achieved significant levels of Australian ownership.

A concern which has arisen under the present policy is that, short of a company becoming majority Australian owned and Australian controlled, it remains unable to develop a new mining project on its own within the Government’s guidelines so far as the mining area is concerned. The guidelines provide that there be, as a general rule, at least SO per cent Australian equity and joint Australian/foreign control, although there is provision for flexibility. This reduces the incentive for foreign owned companies to embark upon the long term objective of introducing majority Australian equity. It may be some years before the level of Australian equity could be increased to 50 per cent. Even then, unless a company were Australian controlled it would not normally be able to develop a new project in its own right within the existing guidelines.

The Government does not believe it is in Australia’s interests that foreign companies which are already substantially Australian owned and which are prepared to introduce majority Australian ownership should suffer such a disability. It believes that Australia can gain from the development of jointly Australian and foreign owned companies which bring together in partnership the skills and resources of overseas interests with Australian investors.

The Government has therefore decided to modify the existing guidelines in a manner which will enable partly Australian owned foreign companies to proceed more easily with their investment plans, by providing an incentive to them to increase Australian ownership. The modifications, which the Treasurer announced yesterday, are designed to provide a framework for the ‘naturalisation’ of foreign owned companies over a period of time. The broad arrangements are consistent with the Government’s policy of administering the 50 per cent guidelines flexibly, with provision for the gradual phasing in of Australian equity. These modifications do not affect the policy in relation to uranium projects or the requirements of the Foreign Takeovers Act. In announcing these modifications, the Government is in no way suggesting that companies should feel that they are expected, or have an obligation, to proceed to Australianise. I emphasise that it will be for individual companies to decide, on the basis of their own commercial judgments, whether they would wish to do so.

A company wishing to take advantage of the benefits available under the arrangements will be required to meet certain pre-conditions:

  1. a minimum 25 per cent Australian equity;
  2. amendment of its articles of association to provide for a board a majority of which are Australian citizens; and
  3. a public commitment to increase Australian equity to 5 1 per cent subject to agreed understandings between the company, major shareholder interests and the Government, and regular discussions with the Foreign Investment Review Board on progress towards achieving 5 1 per cent Australian ownership.

A company which achieves 5 1 per cent Australian ownership and has an Australian board- as outlined above- would be classified as a naturalised company, lt would be able to proceed with new projects in its own right, in partnership with an Australian company, a naturalised company or a naturalising company, within the Government’s guidelines for new projects. However, a naturalised company would, in the absence of special circumstances, be precluded from undertaking a project as a joint venture with a wholly overseas owned company, as this would involve a departure from the 50 per cent guideline.

A company in the process of naturalisation would be given prior credit for achieving 5 1 per cent Australian ownership and would therefore be able to proceed with a new project on the same basis as outlined above. The Government would expect the naturalisation process to takeplace primarily by way of new share issues to Australians to fund new projects and expansions, rather than by takeovers which will remain subject to case-by-case examination under the

Foreign Takeovers Act. The rights of a naturalising company would be withdrawn should it not adhere to the agreed understandings. A company wishing to participate in these arrangements would be required to reach an understanding with the Government on practical arrangements for achieving 5 1 per cent Australian ownership. The Government does not believe that it would be realistic to impose a strict timetable because of commercial considerations outside the company’s control. As pan of the arrangements there would need to be a general understanding with the major shareholder interests of the company on the process of naturalisation and the exercise of voting powers in respect of the Australian business.

I would make it clear that the Government remains of the view that the objective of 50 per cent Australian equity in new mineral projects is a reasonable one. It will continue to administer this policy flexibly to ensure that new investment is not prevented from proceeding where Australian equity capital is not available or Australian participation in the circumstances of a particular project is not commercially practicable. This policy has to date served well Australia and foreign investors alike. It has created a favourable climate for foreign investment while providing opportunities for Australians to participate in new projects. The Government believes that the changes which the Treasurer announced yesterday are consistent with its desire to encourage foreign investment in this country while at the same time preserving the fundamental elements of the existing policy. I add that we will be keeping policy in this area under review in the light of experience and changing circumstances.

Exchange Control

As part of the overall review of factors which could inhibit foreign investment in Australia, the Government has also examined the present exchange control procedures impinging on capital inflow. It has concluded that basically the present procedures are appropriate and serve essential policy purposes. Nevertheless, a number of decisions have been made which will streamline the exchange control procedures. The Government has decided that the embargo on overseas borrowings for periods of less than 6 months and certain related indirect forms of overseas borrowings is no longer required in present circumstances and the embargo was therefore suspended as from 9 June. This included the suspension of: the embargo on non-resident deposits with a maturity of less than six months, placed with banks, finance companies and other financial institutions: the restrictions which prohibit non-residents from investing in fixed interest securities with maturities of less than six months; surveillance over movements in intercompany indebtedness. Companies which are indebted to related companies overseas will no longer be required to furnish certificates to the Reserve Bank related to variations in such indebtedness.

The Government has reviewed the present arrangements whereby the Reserve Bank does not grant exchange control approval to a foreign investment proposal until after the Treasurer has decided that there is no foreign investment policy objection to it. In future, foreign investors who submit applications to the Reserve Bank that satisfy exchange control requirements will be able to receive exchange control approval in advance of foreign investment approval by the Treasurer. The exchange control approval will be subject to the condition that any necessary foreign investment approval is obtained. The effect of this change in the procedures should be to minimise delays to the foreign investor. At present, decisions taken on exchange control and foreign investment matters are subject to the provisions of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act. The implications of using the provisions of this Act in relation to exchange control and foreign investment matters will bc reviewed in the context of the review of the Act which is presently taking place. The result of the review will be announced in due course.

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2681

GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATION COMMISSION 1979-81

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- In April I tabled volume 1 of the Tertiary Education Commission’s report and the report of the Schools Commission for the 1979-81 rolling triennium. At the suggestion of the commissions the Government agreed to the preparation of the reports to assist it in framing firm guidelines for 1979 and indicative planning guidelines for 1980 and 1981 under the rolling triennial procedures.

In taking its decisions on the reports, the Government has had to weigh needs and standards in education against other high priority areas. In the education sectors, as in other major areas of spending, the Government is looking to maintain a balance between its commitment to support important programs and its concern to contain the deficit. In the current financial year, expenditure on education is estimated to be almost 9 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays. This constitutes a substantial share of total Commonwealth expenditure. It is inevitable therefore that in the current economic situation the Government, in the interests of maintaining a responsible overall fiscal policy, should exercise close control over education expenditure. We have had regard also to the financial responsibilities of the States in education, particularly for schools, and to the capacity which the States now have to contribute to their own priority areas of expenditure from their own revenues. Through the combined efforts of the Commonwealth and the States, resource levels in schools have improved significantly over recent years.

The Government continues to give high priority to technical and further education and it has accepted the Tertiary Education Commission’s recommendations for an increase of about 19 per cent in technical and further education funding in 1979. This will include the first instalment of the additional capital program announced at the last Federal election. For universities and colleges we will provide a small increase in recurrent funds to sustain intakes of students at present levels and to accommodate the Commission’s projected increases in total enrolments. It has been necessary to impose substantial restraint at this stage on the capital programs for universities and colleges of advanced education in 1979. However, after further consideration of budgetary priorities the Government may wish to review the capital allocation for 1 979. The position of the three tertiary sectors taken together will be a marginal reduction of half of one per cent as compared with 1 978. In recognition of the problems faced by the Tertiary Education Commission, the Government has responded to the Commission’s recommendations by agreeing to fixed recurrent funding for the 1979-81 triennium, apart from equipment. I believe that this decision will greatly assist the Commission in co-ordinating programs and in achieving fuller consultation with authorities and institutions. Funds for capital projects and equipment will be provided in firm amounts on an annual basis on the assumption that the Commission will continue to plan building programs for some years in advance.

For schools we will provide an increase in funds of one per cent in 1979 as compared with 1978. This will allow the Government to maintain the present overall level of support for recurrent costs in government schools and to continue the policy of linking per capita grants to nongovernment schools to average government school running costs. We will also take a further step towards the payment of 20 per cent of average government school running costs as the minimum Commonwealth contribution towards the running costs in non-government schools. There will be an increase in the special grants for migrant and multicultural education in line with the recommendations of the Galbally Committee for the first year of its special program. Joint programs for the benefit of both government and non-government schools will be maintained at the same level as in 1978. However, capital grants for government and non-government schools will be reduced in total by approximately $9m on the 1978 figures. As a result of our decisions the base amounts in 1979 compared with 1 978 are set out in the following table:

I emphasise that these comparisons are in real terms as expressed in estimated December 1977 prices and that the amounts for 1979 will be subject to the same cost supplementation arrangements as apply in 1978. I now turn to details of the guidelines for the Tertiary Education Commission for the 1979-81 triennium.

Tertiary Education Commission Guidelines

In accordance with the provisions of the Tertiary Education Commission Act, the Commission will have the overall responsibility for recommending programs for 1979 and subsequent years of the 1979-81 triennium for each sector within these guidelines. The total funds allocated include provision for the Australian National University, the Canberra College of Advanced Education and the Australian Maritime College. The Commission should prepare its recommendations on the following basis, which I now outline.

The Tertiary Education Commission recommended that in place of the rolling triennial arrangements the Government should fix firm guidelines for the triennium for recurrent expenditure and determine annual cash allocations for capital works. The Government acknowledges the merit of these recommendations and, whilst economic restraints preclude their total acceptance, we are prepared to implement them in very large measure. From the beginning of 1 979 the Government has decided to reintroduce for the tertiary sectors fixed triennial funding arrangements in respect of recurrent grants, other than equipment grants, and to provide annual cash allocations for expenditure on capital works and equipment. For universities and colleges it is envisaged that the level of recurrent funds to be provided under the fixed triennial arrangements will accommodate the enrolment levels proposed by the Commission.

Universities and Colleges of Advanced Education

For 1979 the Government expects that total student intakes into universities and colleges will continue to be maintained at their present levels. The Government notes that intakes to preservice teacher education courses have been falling in recent years and believes it important that the Commission have discussions with State and institutional authorities- as, indeed, the Commission has foreshadowed in its Volume 1 Report- with a view to achieving further reductions in intakes into these courses in 1979 in response to the present and prospective surplus in the supply of teachers. The Commission should continue to monitor this situation.

The Government has found it necessary to restrict the funds available for capital expenditure in 1979. The Commission is therefore asked to reassess in consultation with the States, all major capital works projects under existing programs, except those for which contractual building commitments have been entered into by 9 June 1978 to ensure that total capital expenditure in 1979 is contained within the total funds allocated. Although the allocation for capital works is significantly below the level recommended, the Government invites the Commission to explore the possibility of making a start on some new projects in 1979.

After further consideration of Budget priorities, the Government may find it possible to review the capital allocation for 1979 and the Commission is asked to have in reserve some high priority projects which could be added to its recommended program.

The Government has decided that from 1 January 1979 State co-ordinating authorities in advanced education should no longer be funded by the Commonwealth. This change will also apply to any new co-ordinating body in tertiary education established by a State. It is considered appropriate that the States themselves should finance their own operations in this respect.

The Commission’s recommendations for an allocation of $180,000 within the guidelines for 1979 to establish a program of evaluative studies in all three sectors is endorsed by the Government.

The Government has noted the proposals in the Commission’s report for new procedures for course approvals. Subject to reactions from the States, it has no objection to the details of the new arrangements which have been subsequently developed. It wishes to be kept informed about their development and effectiveness.

The Government has also noted the provisional proposals for the devolution to the appropriate State authorities of decisions regarding the allocation of recurrent funds to individual colleges of advanced education, and will await the final recommendations of the Commission in its volume 2 report before making a decision.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting for the lunch I had commenced to outline education funding in its various sectors and was in the process of indicating the details of the guidelines that are necessary to effect that funding. I now turn to deal specifically with technical and further education.

Technical and Further Education

The allocation for technical and further education in the States in 1979 will be a base program representing an increase of 19.4 per cent in real terms over 1978, as recommended by the Commission. Included in the 1979 allocation will be the first instalment of $6.5m of the additional $52m- in estimated December 1977 prices- that the Government undertook to provide for capital works in the technical and further education sector over the period of the next triennium. The Government accepts the Commission’s view that the most effective use of these additional funds will be achieved if their expenditure is spread over four years. The additional funds will be subject to cost escalation. The Commission is asked to continue its work in the development of co-operative arrangements with the States for the allocation of resources in accordance with their degrees of need and on the understanding that the States will maintain fully their own financial responsibilities in this area.

Expenditure in 1979

The Government will provide the following base level of funds for tertiary education for 1 979 as compared with 1 978:

Cost supplementation arrangements applicable to the 1979 program for cost increases during that year will be the same as apply in 1978. For the year 1979, the Commission is asked to make detailed recommendations on the allocations for universities and colleges of advanced education and, subject to these guidelines, may exercise a degree of discretion in recommending final allocations between recurrent and capital expenditure, within the total funds determined for these sectors. The Commission is asked to submit its report by 3 1 August 1978 to permit time for consideration of its recommendations and passage of the necessary legislation during the Budget sittings of the Parliament.

Expenditure in 1980-81

The total allocation for universities and colleges for the base programs of recurrent grants, other than equipment grants, for 1980 and 1981 will be maintained at the same level in real terms as that approved for 1979. The firm funding levels for these years will therefore be determined in the light of Government decisions on the recommendations of the Commission in volume 2 of its report and on the final allocations of funds for 1979 between sectors and between recurrent and capital expenditures. For TAFE, the base programs for 1980 and 1981, will be determined by the Government after consideration of the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. The base program level for recurrent grants, other than equipment grants, in 1980 will be determined by adjusting fully the approved base amounts for 1979 for increases in all relevant costs during that year. The amount thus determined will be subject to the same cost supplementation arrangements which are to apply during 1979. A similar arrangement will apply for 1981. When Government decisions have been made on the firm 1979 base programs of the Commission in respect of the recurrent expenditure other than equipment, the Commission will be asked to provide advice on the detailed allocation of the fixed triennial programs for 1980 and 1981 between institutions and States as appropriate.

Schools

The Schools Commission has made recommendations for each year of the triennium for all of its programs. The Commission’s proposals constitute a substantial change to existing policies. The Government has studied the Commission’s report together with comments on it provided by the States, non-government school authorities, parent and teacher organisations and members of the public. We have decided not to make any significant changes to present programs and procedures during 1979. The Government was mindful of the almost universal reservations of one sort or another expressed to it about the Commission’s proposals and of the requests for a longer period for examination and public discussion. It noted that acceptance of the Commission’s recommendations would have required a substantial increase in expenditure involving an additional 5 per cent in real terms in 1979.

I have prepared a supplementary statement which summarises the principal responses to the Schools Commission report, and seek leave of the Senate to have it incorporated in the record, following this statement.

Leave granted.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government acknowledges the considerable work done by the Commission in producing its report and valuable basis which this has provided for subsequent discussion of issues of fundamental importance in school funding. The Government welcomes the Commission’s intention to produce a public discussion paper later in the year on the issue of funding for government and non-government schools. I believe it will be helpful to the subsequent discussion if I, as Commonwealth Minister acting on behalf of the Government, also issue a discussion paper.

The objective will be for the Government to make decisions on the fundamental issues arising from public discussion for application to the Commonwealth programs for schools from 1980. I hope the Australian Education Council will shortly agree to make public the report of the recently completed study on comparative capital costs of government and non-government schools in Australia. This study will be valuable to the Commission, State governments and nongovernment school authorities in improving the efficiency of their school building programs. The Government wishes to encourage choice and diversity in education and to assist parents to exercise the right of choice of schooling for their children in either government or non-government schools. Its programs of grants towards running costs recognise this principle and also the expectation that the States and the non-government schools will continue to make reasonable contributions towards the operating costs of their schools and systems.

I turn now to the guidelines for funding for schools in the States for the 1979-81 rolling triennium.

Schools Commission Guidelines

Expenditure in 1979

The Government will provide grants totalling $63 1 .6m at estimated December 1 977 cost levels as the base level for the programs of the Commission in the States in 1979. This program, comprising $16 1.7m capital and $469. 9m recurrent, represents an increase of one per cent in real terms on the base level program for 1978. As in the past, the precise level of grants may be varied in accordance with the actual level of enrolments in non-government schools. All figures for schools in this statement are expressed in estimated December 1977 price levels; the cost supplementation arrangements to apply in 1 979 will be the same as in 1978.

In considering the level of funding to be provided for government schools in the States the Government took into account that by the end of 1 978 most States will have reached or passed the resource use targets established by the Karmel Committee and reaffirmed by the Schools Commission as minimum desirable levels of resource use, and that by the end of 1 979 all State systems may well have done so. Account also was taken of the enhanced financial position of the States in terms of the new tax revenue sharing arrangements and the tendency in some cases for increased capital funding by the Commonwealth to be at least partially offset by reduced State efforts. It has also noted that from 1978 total enrolments will begin to fall in most States.

The Government will provide $360. 6m in total as the base level of programs for government schools in 1979. The allocations for disadvantaged schools and special education will be at the same level as 1978. As will be discussed further later, there will be a net increase of $lm in the migrant and multicultural education program. The combined amount provided for the general recurrent and capital programs of $312m represents approximately $8m less than in 1978. Whilst the Government envisages the recurrent program being generally held at the 1978 level and the adjustment being made to capital, the present arrangement under which States are able to transfer marginal amounts between these programs will be continued. The Commission will make its recommendations on the distribution of general recurrent grants so as to assist States with below average resource use levels. It is also requested to consult with the States about the distribution between general recurrent and capital allocations.

The automatic linking of recurrent grants to non-government schools to the average per pupil expenditure in government schools will be continued, at an estimated additional cost in 1979 of $9.1m. A further step will be taken in the Government’s policy of providing by 1980 a basic per pupil grant to non-government schools equal to 20 per cent of per pupil running costs in government schools. This will be done by increasing grants to primary and secondary schools in level 1 and 2 by two percentage points and by increasing grants to secondary schools in level 3 by one percentage point, that is, to 20 per cent. This increase is expected to cost $2.4m in 1979. The Government also reaffirms its view that its basic grant to non-government schools of 20 per cent of per pupil running costs should bc matched by an equivalent grant from the States. It therefore invites the States to join the Commonwealth in raising their grants, by steps as necessary, to at least 20 per cent of average government school costs.

The Government accepts the Commission’s assessment that schools in level 6 are continuing to fall further behind standards in government schools and that urgent additional assistance is required. In 1979 it will provide increases in grants to these schools of $5 per primary student and $6 per secondary student in addition to the increases from the automatic linkage. This will add approximately $2. 5m to the cost of the scheme. The Schools Commission is requested to advise on the precise level of recurrent grants to non-government schools in the light of these decisions and detailed information on per pupil expenditure in government schools.

As recommended by the Commission, funds for the general disadvantaged school program and for special education in both government and non-government schools will continue at the 1978 levels. Having accepted the recommendations of the Galbally Committee for additional funding for migrant and multicultural education the Government will provide within the total allocation additional amounts of $lm for government schools and $0.5m for non-government schools in 1 979 as the equivalent of the first year of the program of the Galbally Committee. These increased amounts comprise Sim for the teaching of English language in schools and $0.5m for stimulating the teaching of community languages in both government and nongovernment schools. These increases will permit some further restructuring to overcome difficulties, in the existing distribution of the English language section of the program. Further consideration will be given to the precise arrangements for the use of funds for the teaching of community languages in schools. The Schools Commission is requested to provide advice on the detailed distribution of grants under this program.

The non-government capital program will be reduced by Sim to $30.4m in 1979. The total base level of funds for joint programs will be the same in 1979 as in 1978. The Government strongly endorses the Commission’s assessment of needs in the programs for disadvantaged country areas and for children in institutions, as well as the need for the new initiatives proposed for school-level evaluation and the promotion of choice within government schools. Within the limits of the funds available the Government wishes progress to be made in these areas. The Commission is requested to consult closely with the States and non-government school authorities in relation to the new initiatives. The Commission is asked to advise on allocations within the joint programs for 1979 in the light of the Government’s wishes.

The Government asks the Commission to supply further advice within the guidelines by 3 1 July, 1978. The Government will provide the following base level of funds for schools for 1979 as compared with 1978:

  1. Allocation to be recommended by the Commission in accordance with the guidelines.

Expenditure in 1980 and 1981

For planning purposes the base program for 1980 will be determined by adjusting fully the base amount for 1979 for cost increases during that year. The amount thus determined will be increased by one per cent in 1980 and will be subject to the normal cost supplementation arrangements. A similar arrangement will apply in 1981. The Commission is invited to plan on this basis, subject to decisions which may result from the public dialogue which is to take place later this year. The programs I am announcing for schools do not take account of additional measures to relieve the financial burden on parents for the education of handicapped children foreshadowed at the 1977 elections.

Conclusion

I invite honourable senators to note the overall effect of the decisions we have taken notwithstanding a very difficult budgetary situation. For schools in the States we have achieved the planning guidelines of an increase in real terms of 1 per cent in 1979 and, in the tertiary area, while the total is approximately one-half of one per cent less than the 1 978 program, we have once again provided for a substantial increase in funds for the TAFE area. For schools and also for universities and colleges we have provided funds to cover estimated student enrolments, but have been obliged to hold back on capital development.

In the tertiary area, where the Commonwealth has the full financial responsibility, the Government has reintroduced fixed triennial funding for recurrent expenditure other than equipment. During the Budget session and following the presentation of further reports from the Tertiary Education Commission and the Schools Commission in response to the guidelines I have announced today, the Government will introduce legislation to give effect to its decisions.

The document read as follows-

page 2687

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT

Responses by Education Authorities, Teacher and Parent Organisations to the Schools Commission Report for 1979-81

In response to my invitation for advice and comments on the Schools Commission Report for 1979-81 I have received submissions from a wide range of authorities, organisations and individuals concerned with government and nongovernment schools.

Most of the reactions to the Report have concentrated mainly on the general funding procedures for government and non-government schools for which the Commission has recommended far-reaching changes.

There was virtually no unqualified support for the recommended method of determining recurrent grants for government schools and many expressed opposition. Strong objections were voiced by the State Ministers- nearly all called for larger increases in grants and the two States which face a reduction in recurrent grants implied that dislocation of services would result. Several States expressed disquiet at the incentive element of the scheme on the basis that the formula conflicts with the needs principle, would create pressures on State budgets and would penalise States which have made a greater effort and surpassed the targets. Some States also raised objections on constitutional grounds to undue Commonwealth influence on school level education (e.g. Disadvantaged Schools program). Government school teacher organisations argued for increased funds for government schools and opposed the proposed relatively greater increase to non-government schools. State Ministers generally and teacher parent organisations for government schools urged an increase in capital grants and retention of transferability between recurrent and capital programs.

There was a wide variety of reactions to the proposed recurrent funding scheme for nongovernment schools. The new scheme gained a measure of support from some government school parent organisations and from a limited number of groups and individuals associated with the non-government sector.

The majority of comment associated with nongovernment schools, however, opposed the proposed subsidy scheme either wholly or in part; the most frequent objections being: the fees required for Group 3 schools to achieve a minimum 25 per cent share of standard costs would act to restrict freedom of choice and force many parents to send their children to government schools; the breaking of the link with actual government school costs would tend to increase the gap between government and nongovernment schools; many nongovernment school organisations also called for a significant increase in capital grants.

Both the Australian Teachers Federation and the Australian Council of State School Organisations sought increased recurrent and capital funding for government schools. Both organisations regarded the proposed ‘target resource standards’ as a minimum and ATF believes it is inadequate in terms of their own desirable standards. Both argued against increases in nongovernment school funding which would involve transfers from government schools.

Major non.government school organisations including the National Catholic Education Commission (NCEC), the National Council of Independent Schools ( NCIS) and the Australian Parents Council (APC) were very cautious about the proposals but NCIS gave qualified acceptance of the recurrent funding scheme as an interim proposal. NCIS welcomed the Target Resource Standard as a better basis for funding than the present ‘SRRI’ but argued that unless the States also accepted it as a means of stabilising expenditure then non-government schools would continue to fall behind the government schools. The National Catholic Education Commission could not accept the new scheme, but agreed that non-government schools should make a continuing and realistic contribution from private sources. The Australian Parents council argued strenuously against the scheme and was most concerned about the nature of the tri-partite agreement and the effect on freedom of choice.

The Report raises a number of complex issues and while some were compelled to oppose the proposals on principle, many others felt unable to comment effectively in the short time available, in terms of decisions for 1979. There was some support for the minority report by Mr E. G. Dunne.

A large majority of respondents urged the Government not to make immediate decisions on the Commission’s proposals, especially those relating to non-government schools; but to allow time for full public debate and consideration of the discussion paper foreshadowed by the Commission, before taking decisions.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I move:

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I will not delay the Senate very long in commenting on this paper. Unfortunately my colleague Senator Button, the shadow Minister responsible for this area, is not available at the moment to comment on it. I will make one or two brief observations on the statement brought down by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). The statement giving details of triennium funding arrangements to the Parliament is always a major statement. The essence of the Minister’s statement indicates the Government’s continuing stand that no longer will it accept its responsibility in the education area. We see now a complete freeze on Federal spending and education. That is spelt out quite clearly at page 3. There will be no increase. The one per cent increase, allegedly in real terms, is quite meaningless. Anyone who has had any experience of the work of the Schools Commission knows that any figure below a 2.2 per cent increase in real terms means an effective reduction in education funding in Australia. That is what this triennium funding program is all about.

In addition the statement refers in two or three places to the increased responsibility of the States. This, of course, is tied up intimately with the Government’s policy of new federalism in which it is passing the buck for raising taxes on to the States. We will be dealing with that legislation this afternoon. The Minister made it quite clear two years ago that if the States want to improve their education facilities, they can no longer look to the Commonwealth for increased funding. It placed a tax on the States. That is what the federalism policy is all about. It is spelt out quite clearly in this statement. Even though the Minister admits in the statement that there is an urgent need for additional funding in schools and tertiary institutions, especially in the technical sector, the Government is saying to the people of Victoria, New South Wales and every other State in the Commonwealth that if they want increased funding, they should get it from the States. It is saying that they should not look to the Commonwealth any longer. I hope that the parents and teachers in the education profession will get the message that I and others have tried to convey in this place over the last couple of years and finally realise the real intention of this Government.

Notwithstanding that broader aspect, one must question the justice of where some of this money is going. We find, for example, that level 1 and level 2 schools in the non-government sector are the schools with the highest resource capacity. They are commonly termed the wealthier schools. I do not like to use that term either. They are the schools which the Commission -

Senator Walsh:

– They were attended by most of the members of the Cabinet.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, probably. They are the schools which the Commission itself has determined are the schools with the highest resource capacity. They receive the biggest increase. They constitute a small percentage of the total non-government sector. The schools that constitute 80 per cent of the non-government sector, namely the level 6 schools which the Commission has determined are the ones with the least capacity to finance their activities and, 1 might add, which constitute the great bulk of the Catholic schools, receive the least assistance. There is a $17 a head increase for level 1 and 2 schools and a S5 a head increase Ibr level 6 schools. Where is the equity in that? This is the trend that this Government established two years ago when it went directly against the recommendation of the Schools Commission that it should provide” more support for the level 6 schools to give them more equity. This Government went against the recommendation of the Schools Commission and gave more money to level I and 2 schools, the ones with the highest resource capacity. We see this being done again in the forthcoming triennium.

Further on in the statement the Minister refers to the urgency to deal with the problem, the need for belter schools and so on. Yet ;he capital grants for both government and nongovernment sectors are being reduced. Grants for the government sector are to be reduced by

S8m. Although the Minister read the figure he did not draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it represents a cut. I took particular notice of that. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it is a cut. The section of the statement dealing with capital grants shows that they have been reduced by S8m for government schools and Sim for non-government schools. Unfortunately this is the sort of deal that is to be given to education in Australia for as many years as this Government may be in office. Over the past two and a half years we have heard from Senator Carrick- who is responsible not only for education but also for the new federalism policy- all the hoo-haa and the stories about the great deal the States are getting from the Fraser Government. All the States from Queensland to Western Australia are a wake up to the real nature of the deal. This speech only drives another nail into the coffin of the States’ capacity to serve the people who live in them.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 2689

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Motion ( by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

1 ) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs: The desirability and practicability of referring all legislation introduced into the Parliament to a Committee of the Senate for the purpose of its examining the legislation and reporting to the Senate as to whether there are provisions in the Bills, whether by express words or otherwise, which-

place the onus of proof on a defendant in a criminal prosecution;

b ) confer a power of entry on to land or premises other than by warrant issued according to law;

confer a power of search of the subject, land or premises other than by warrant issued according to law;

confer a power to seize goods other than by warrant issued according to law:

e ) purport to legislate retrospectively:

delegate authority to amend any Act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or to create exemptions from the operation of any such Act, by means of subordinate legislation;

authorise administrative decisions, affecting the rights and liberties of the subject without prescribing objective criteria to govern such decisions or without providing a right of appeal to a Court or competent Tribunal:

affect the liberty of the subject by controls upon freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of expression, freedom of religion or freedom of peaceful assembly; or

otherwise trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties, or make the rights and liberties of citizens dependent upon administrative rather than judicial decisions.

That the Committee report to the Senate by 15 November 1978.

page 2689

ACCESS TO OFFICIAL INFORMATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I seek leave of the Senate to make a statement relating to access to official information.

Leave granted.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

Honourable senators will be aware from public statements, such as the Governor-General’s Speech at the opening of this Parliament, of the Government’s concern to ensure that the Australian community has access to official information where this can be done without endangering another overriding public interest. The interests of all sections of the community need to be taken into account by the Government when it moves to widen the opportunities for gaining access to official information. We have, however, been particularly mindful that any such initiatives must take account of those individuals and groups traditionally seen as having specific claims to access to such information. Broadly these are: Senators and members; the other levels of government in Australia: individuals, groups and organisations who seek information to allow them properly to pursue their legitimate interests- for example, those seeking to press claims to benefits, rights, or other entitlements individuals and groups representing a particular section of society seeking legitimately to advocate their particular views with respect to matters of government policy: the media: and persons undertaking academic research. Obviously these categories overlap.

There are. of course, many means properly open already, both within and outside the Parliament, by which official information can bc obtained. Some involve compulsory processes, others arc voluntary. Honourable senators will know that much official information is made available, for example, in answers to parliamentary questions, in ministerial policy statements, in second reading speeches, and by the tabling of papers and reports. In appropriate cases Bills and reports are left to lie to promote informed public comment and debate.

In the parliamentary statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of 9 December 1976 and the recent parliamentary statement on the setting up of legislation committees in the other place, references were made to a number of recent and proposed initiatives having a bearing on access to information such as draft guidelines on the handling of information requests by senators and members to departments and authorities; draft guidelines on appearances by public servants before party committees; and a study of the possible scope for improvement in the arrangements for provision of explanatory memoranda on Bills. The statement of 9 December 1976 also contained guidelines on pre-election consultations by the Opposition with officials.

Existing extra-parliamentary avenues available to a member of the Australian community to obtain information are wide-ranging and include government material published and distributed through the Australian Government Publishing Service, such as the Commonwealth Record, as well as many types of material produced internally by departments and instrumentalities, and often distributed through the various liaison- advisory services of those departments and instrumentalities.

In line with its recognition and overall concern that a member of the community may better protect his individual rights, the Government has already been active in ensuring that, when legislation was passed to establish an external review system, the citizen’s opportunities for access to information were buttressed. Subject to the need, in the public interest, for confidentiality in certain circumstances, these recent measures such as the setting-up of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the appointment of a Commonwealth Ombudsman and, once commenced, the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review ) Act provide ways in which a member of the public can gain access to relevant official information not previously available. Taken together, these legislative initiatives provide unparalleled opportunities for the redress of perceived grievances arising from administrative actions. The Commonwealth’s external review system is recognised as being one of the most advanced in the world.

I now wish to inform honourable senators of a number of recent decisions and further initiatives being taken by the Government to provide additional arrangements for access to official information.

Policy Information and Policy Discussion Papers

The report of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System recommended that governments adopt the practice of presenting to the House of Representatives Green Papers and White Papers relating to proposed legislation’, and the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration recommended ‘that wider use be made of ‘Green Papers’ to open up public debate before programs are finalised’.

The Government has decided to formalise the practice of issuing Policy Information- Whiteand Policy Discussion- Green- Papers in appropriate cases and to use this terminology-Policy Information and Policy Discussion- in a uniform way so that in future a Policy Information Paper will be an information document setting out the policy, philosophy and reasoning of Government decisions affecting the community and which presents policy to which the Government is firmly committed; and/or offers explanation to the general community of government decisions or intentions; and /or indicates the broad lines of proposed legislation and possibly of future executive action; and /or provides the factual basis for informed parliamentary and publicdebate.

A Policy Discussion Paper will be a discussion document setting out alternative courses of action and which indicates the policy options available in respect of a particular matter with a view to seeking the opinions of informed and interested parties; and /or presents tentative proposals or options for discussion but specifically and on its face does not commit the Government to adopt any of the options expressed in the paper: and /or gives the Parliament an opportunity to address itself to policy matters before decisions are taken; and/or encourages publicdiscussion while policy is still in the formative stage. Such papers will not be officially designated as Policy Information or Policy Discussion Papers unless they are to be presented to the Parliament.

New instructions are being issued to ensure that, in the preparation of policy proposals for consideration by the Government, Ministers and officials give specific consideration to what factual material and analysis embodied in documents which, because of an overriding public interest, the Government would wish to retain as confidential, might be released publicly and whether or not such material might be presented suitably as a Policy Information or Policy Discussion Paper. It needs to be recognised, of course, that issue of a Policy Discussion Paper docs not mean that particular action, such as issue of a Policy Information Paper, will necessarily follow.

Improving Government Information Activities

Considerable effort and resources are involved in government information activities. In harmony with its twin desires for improved public access to information and greater efficiency and effectiveness in administration, the Government has been giving some thought to current arrangements.

In this regard, honourable senators will be aware that the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration made several recommendations relating to public access to government information. In particular, it recommended that there be a review of departmental information programs. The Government accepted this recommendation and each Minister was asked to review the ways in which his or her Department disseminates information to the public on government programs and activities.

Following a preliminary examination of these matters, the Government has decided to establish a small inter-departmental task force to make recommendations to Ministers on the effectiveness of particular departmental information activities, including: Information for disadvantaged groups; an examination of the most effective uses of printed material and the non-print media; methods of distribution; the role, operation and staffing of departmental information units; evaluation procedures in departments; means of recording information expenditure; and scope for cost recovery.

The Government has also decided to establish a small information unit to encourage more effective communication to the public of government decisions and actions. This unit will have a similar role to that defined for the Government Public Relations Office established in 1951 by the Menzies Government and which operated until 1973. These efforts will, the Government expects, contribute to a continued improvement in access by the public to information on government activities.

The Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants has shown that ethnic groups have particular problems in obtaining access to information. As the Prime Minister announced on 30 May, the Government will implement the Review’s recommendations including those relating to new and additional special information services for migrants. In this respect the Government will move to strengthen coordination of information services and advice to ethnic groups. There will be an extensive survey of migrants’ need for information and its dissemination. Further, .in accordance with the recommendations of the Review, steps will be taken to improve the ways in which migrants get information in areas of special need, including information relevant to employment, health, consumer protection, bail procedures, the Commonwealth Ombudsman and legal aid.

Departmental and Instrumentality Annual’ Reports

Honourable senators will be aware that, unlike many Commonwealth instrumentalities, departments of state are not statutorily required to make annual reports for tabling in the Parliament. Nevertheless, some departments have done so. The Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration made several recommendations on this subject. The Government has considered those recommendations and, in the interests of wider dissemination of information on the activities of government, has agreed that all departments produce annual reports.

The detailed content of each annual report will be the responsibility of the permanent head concerned. An interdepartmental working party is being established to prepare broad guidelines on the desirable content of such reports, and to undertake a review of the range of financial information suggested by the Royal Commission. The working party will take into account the findings of the report of the Joint Committee on Publications- August 1977- following its inquiry into the purpose, scope and distribution of the parliamentary papers series, and the implications of proposed freedom of information legislation.

I should mention that the Government has been concerned that there have, over many years, been delays in the tabling of some reports required by statute. It is obviously most desirable that these reports be available as quickly as possible after the end of the year to which they refer, not the least because of their assistance in providing information to honourable senators. The Prime Minister has therefore recently written to all Ministers specifically drawing this problem to their attention, with a view to ensuring that reports are presented to the Parliament in proper time.

Counter Staff Services

A related aspect of the Government ‘s administrative program to facilitate the provision of information to its ‘clients’, the public, was its decision to establish the Interdepartmental

Committee on Improvement in the Quality of Services Provided to the General Public by Counter Staff in Commonwealth Departments. That committee, which considered the views of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, investigated ways and means of improving the Government’s counter services and put recommendations to the Government.

The Government has reaffirmed its desire to upgrade the standard of counter staff facilities and improve counter staff services. Whilst the Government has endorsed a number of the committee’s recommendations and directed that departments and agencies implement them, it has also requested that additional studies be undertaken on some recommendations prior to further consideration by the Government. The Government will be making material, including the committee ‘s report, available publicly once it has concluded its examination of the report’s recommendations. One particular initiative, however, should be mentioned in this statement. The Government has commissioned preparation of a simple directory of the more common services provided by Commonwealth bodies, for use at counters.

Information through Consultation Processes

In addition to general access to material through normal governmental and departmental operations, information relevant to development of Commonwealth policies and programs is also made available to other levels of government in Australia, and to a considerable range of representatives from the community, through advisory-consultative bodies which the Commonwealth has established or in which the Commonwealth participates.

The establishment by this Government of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations, and agreement at the October 1977 Premiers Conference on new, broader consultative processes between the Commonwealth and the States on treaty matters and the use of the external affairs power, have proved noteworthy additions to the inter-governmental consultative processes. Such recently established bodies as the National Consultative Council on Social Welfare, the National Women’s Advisory Council, the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, the National Aboriginal Conference and the National Labour Consultative Council are examples of the Government’s desire to bring a wide range of interest groups in the community into the policy advising processes of government.

I now turn to significant legislative initiatives about to be taken by the Government.

Freedom of Information Bill

I shall be introducing later today the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 which is a unique legislative measure in a government system with a traditional Westminster type of responsible Executive. The provisions of the Bill are based largely on the recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee report on Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation which was tabled in the Parliament on 9 December 1976.

Broadly stated, the Bill will give members of the public enforceable rights to access, subject to specified exceptions, to future documents in the possession of departments- other than the parliamentary departments- and of statutory authorities and other Commonwealth agencies, and to official documents in the possession of Ministers. The person seeking the document will not be required to ‘prove an interest’ in that document and the procedures to gain properly authorised access will be kept as simple as possible. Access may be refused to documents where disclosure would be contrary to the publicinterest on one or more of the grounds set out in the Bill. Except in specified circumstances the question whether a document qualifies for exemption will be reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Bill would not prevent Ministers and officials from providing access to documents, even though they qualify for exemption, where such access can properly be granted. It also requires in specified circumstances that access be granted to documents with exempt material excised. In addition the Bill will require the publication or making available of information concerning the functions of departments, authorities and agencies, and of various materials such as procedural manuals, often referred to as ‘hidden law’ which may affect persons in their dealings with a government agency.

Archives Bill

I shall also’ be introducing later today the Archives Bill 1978, which replaces current administrative processes. It will statutorily establish the Australian Archives and provide for: The preservation of Government records of continuing value and of related material of national significance; and access by scholars and the public to the archival resources of the Commonwealth in accordance with the Government’s ‘access policy. Detailed descriptions of records and other archival materials- including those in the custody of other institutions- will be recorded in the Austraiian National Register of Records.

The legislation will provide that the generality of government records more than 30 years old are to be made available for public access. Records to which the public is entitled to have access under the legislation will be recorded in an Australian National Guide to Archival Material which will also include details of records hitherto made available under existing administrative arrangements and other archival materials of general public interest. The Guide will be available for public inspection and, as an interim measure, while the Guide is being compiled, the reference services of the Archives will be available to assist in identifying, material to which the public is entitled to have access.

In accordance with general arrangements to be approved by the Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for the Archives will be empowered, in consultation with the responsible government agency, to make whole classes of records which are less than 30 years old, available for public access, and to allow access, by persons for specified purposes, to records not otherwise available.

Mr President, excessive secrecy would be unwholesome and inimical to the democratic process. Unfettered access to all official documents would make government impossible. The aim of the Government initiatives I have announced is to balance the acknowledged interest of the public in obtaining increased access to official information against other public interests which require that certain information should remain confidential. Such a task is never completed and among other things costs need to be monitored. But the evolutionary process towards a more open governmental system, is continuing as evidenced by the advances now announced.

page 2693

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL 1978

Bills presented (by Senator Durack).

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Freedom of Information Bill 1978, the Copyright Bill 1978 and the Archives Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Senator Georges:

– It is not usual for the Senate to allow the Minister presenting a Bill to incorporate his second reading speech but as the Bills are being introduced so that they can be perused during the recess, there will be sufficient time for all of us to read the second reading speeches.

Leave granted.

Senator Durack:

– I add that it is not usual for the Minister presenting a Bill for the first time to seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech but my reason for so doing is the same as Senator Georges outlined. 77j<? speeches read as follows-

Freedom of Information Bill 1978

The Freedom of Information Bill represents a major initiative by the Government in its program of administrative law reform. It is, in many respects, a unique initiative. Although a number of countries have freedom of information legislation, this is the first occasion on which a Westminster style government has brought forward such a measure. This Bill, together with the Archives Bill, which is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), will establish for members of the public legally enforceable rights of access to information in documentary form held by Ministers and government agencies except where an overriding interest may require confidentiality to be maintained.

The basic principles of the Freedom of Information Bill are simple:

  1. Government departments and authorities should make their structure and functions known to the public and publish the rules and guidelines they apply in making decisions affecting members of the public;
  2. members of the public are entitled to access to documents held by government departments and authorities unless there are special reasons for not making those documents public.

Such a right of access cannot, of course, be absolute. Complete openness of government is not possible. For some purposes, confidentiality is essential. It is widely recognised that governments, like individuals, families and business organisations, cannot operate effectively without a certain amount of privacy. The crucial element in drafting the Freedom of Information Bill has been to strike the appropriate balance between openness and secrecy. The need for this balance was expressed in the report on the United States Freedom of Information Bill by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the following terms:

At the same time that a broad philosophy of ‘freedom of information’ is enacted into law, it is necessary to protect certain equally important rights of privacy with respect to certain information in Government files, such as medical and personnel records. It is also necessary for the very operation of our Government to allow it to keep confidential certain material . . . it is not an easy task to balance the opposing interests, but it is not an impossible one either . . success lies in providing a workable formula which encompasses, balances and protects all interests, yet places emphasis on the fullest possible disclosure.

In the present Bill, the Government has tried to achieve that workable formula referred to in the report of the United States Senate Committee.

The Bill establishes the general principle of openness. At the same time, it identifies and defines those circumstances in which the Government considers that confidentiality must be maintained. Thus the Bill contains provisions to protect personal privacy and confidential commercial information, vital national interests such as security and defence, and the conduct of government activities for which confidentiality is essential. But even in these cases the Bill does not prohibit information being made available. The Bill emphasises that Ministers and agencies are free to make information available or to give access to documents in any case where this may properly be done. The statement I have made today on behalf of the Government on access to official information has stressed the Government’s intention to make as much information as possible available to the public.

The Westminster system of government, as we know it, is distinguished by a particular relationship between the Executive government and the Parliament. The Executive government of the day bears a responsibility to the Parliament and, through the Parliament to the people, for the proper discharge of the government of the country. Care must therefore be taken in adapting to the Australian system of government legal concepts derived from countries having different systems of government. Thus, for example, the freedom of information legislation in the United States operates in a quite different administrative context. There the Executive government is not directly accountable to the legislature. The Cabinet members are appointed officials under an elected President and are responsible to him. Even the Swedish system of government, which in many respects is more like our own, is nevertheless different in important features.

There is a good deal in common in freedom of information laws in other countries in the kinds of information protected from mandatory disclosure, notwithstanding differences in the constitutional and administrative structures within which those laws operate. The exemption provisions in the present Bill do not therefore represent any special novelty of principle. In essence, as I have indicated, the exclusions are based on the need for confidentiality in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the Bill contains provisions necessary to recognise the particular features of Cabinet government and to give proper weight to the function of Ministers to make decisions relating to fundamental issues of government for which they have ultimate responsibility and to the relationship between Ministers and officials.

In this regard it is significant that Ministers in our system of government, as members of the Parliament, are subject to questioning on matters within their ministerial responsibility both without notice and upon notice by members of the Parliament. By second reading speeches on Bills and by their participation in debates, and by the making of ministerial statements Ministers also give much information about government activity directly to the Parliament. In addition, papers and reports are tabled in the ‘Parliament and much informative material is published by the Australian Government Publishing Service. This includes publications such as the Commonwealth Gazette and the Commonwealth Government Directory, which between them give a certain amount of information about the functions and structure of government. In’ addition, material is made available by departments and authorities, including the participation by departmental officers in seminars and conferences. The Government has encouraged Ministers and departments to make as much information available to the public as possible, consistent with the requirements of necessary confidentiality.

Existing laws under which information is required to be made available will not be affected by the Bill. These include the tabling in Parliament of reports by statutory authorities, the requirement to produce, subject to Crown privilege, documents before courts and other tribunals, and the giving of evidence before parliamentary committees for example, the Estimates committees of the Senate. In addition, recent legislation requires the giving of full statements of reasons for a decision at the instance of a person aggrieved by the decision.

The Freedom of Information Bill operates on a wider scope than any of the existing means of obtaining access to information. Access to information under the Bill will not depend on the person seeking access having to show a special interest in obtaining the information. Lack of a special interest will not be a ground on which information can be withheld. The Bill provides for a legally enforceable right of access to documented information. This represents a radical change of approach. Except in the cases where the disclosure of certain information is compulsory- for example by an order for discovery in legal proceedings- the disclosure of government information is now largely a matter of discretion. The Freedom of Information Bill will require Ministers or departments seeking to withhold information to justify their decisions to deny access to information.

The Freedom of Information Bill, together with other recent reforms in administrative law, thus emphasises the administrative accountability of Ministers and their departments. In common with that legislation it remains within the concept of a ‘Westminster-based’ system of government, but forms part of an improved system of judicial and public scrutiny of decisionmaking processes within the government.

So far I have referred to those aspects of the Bill which preserve a proper balance of interest in providing for mandatory access .to information. There is, however, the other aspect to the concept of open government embodied in the Bill. The Bill imposes a positive obligation on departments, and authorities to make public their organisation and structure, and the functions they perform. They are also obliged to make available to their ‘clients’ the criteria employed in the exercise of decision-making functions, by making available for inspection and purchase copies of manuals, guidelines, instructions and the like. Some of this material is now available, but not in a co-ordinated form, nor is it easy for a member of the public to find it out. The Administrative Arrangements Order specifies the functions of departments in broad terms and some details of.organisation and structure are given in the Commonwealth Government Directory. Some departments have published manuals and the like for the information of those interested, but this tends to be the exception rather than the rule.

Clause 6 of the Bill requires the responsible Minister of a department or authority to publish a statement setting out particulars of the organisation and functions of the department or authority, including an indication of any decisionmaking powers and other powers affecting members of the public. The clause also requires the publication of a statement of the categories of documents that are maintained in the possession of the agency. The necessary publication must be made within 12 months of the commencement of the clause and must be in a form approved by the Minister administering the freedom of information legislation. After publication, the statements must be up-dated every succeeding 12 months. Publication may be by way of the Commonwealth Government Directory.

Clause 7 requires that copies of documents containing interpretations of enactments or schemes administered by a department and manuals, rules of procedure, records of decisions or similar documents containing rules, guidelines, practices or precedents be made available for inspection and purchase by the public. The clause does not cover material published otherwise than by an agency, for example law reports, nor does it require an agency to publish material published by another agency. The clause also requires that an index be published in the Commonwealth Government Gazette specifying the documents that are available and the place where copies may. be .purchased. These requirements must be fulfilled within 12 months of the commencement of the clause and the index must thereafter be up-dated every succeeding 12 months. . .

Both clauses apply in relation to documents in existence immediately before the commencement of the legislation but do not apply so as to require the disclosure of material that would cause a document to be an exempt document under Part IV of the Bill. There is, however, an obligation on departments to rewrite manuals and the like, if it is practicable to do so, to delete the exempt matter and to publish them in the amended form.

Parts III, IV and V of the Bill are concerned with the right of a person to obtain access to a document in the possession of a Minister or a department or authority. They are based on the principle, as set out in clause 9, that every person has a legally enforceable right to obtain access in accordance with the Act to such documents unless the document concerned is an exempt document. These Parts of the Bill do not, however, provide for access to documents more than 30 years old, to documents open to public access in accordance with other statutory provisions, to documents published for sale to the public or, with certain exceptions, to existing documents already in the possession of agencies when the legislation comes into force.

Two of these exclusions require some explanation. The Archives Bill, which the Government is introducing to regulate the archival collections of the Commonwealth, will deal with rights of access to documents more than 30 years old. Different principles apply to documents that do not directly concern current events and where the requirements of confidentiality are not the same. The other point concerns prior documents. There are those who say that the Freedom of Information Bill should apply to all documents, and not only to those to be brought into existence in the future. To do so would substantially increase the administrative burden and cost of implementing the legislation at a time when the Government is seeking to contain the resources devoted to the Public Service. Clause 10 (2) of the Bill nevertheless provides for access to a prior document where that access is reasonably necessary to a proper understanding of a document to which a person has lawfully had access. Moreover, prior documents may be voluntarily released where this can lawfully be done.

The grounds on which access to a document may be refused are set out in Part IV of the Bill. There is a detailed explanation of these grounds in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated with the Bill to honourable senators. This is the part of the Bill on which most attention is likely to be focused, so I shall explain the principles that have been adopted in drafting it.

As I have said, the Bill provides what the Government believes to be the balance between the public interest served by access to information against the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality necessary for the operation of government and the protection of the commercial confidences and the privacy of those who have dealings with government or about whom information is collected by government. The clauses of the Bill defining the exempt categories of documents are drafted for the most part in terms of the public interest that may be damaged by disclosure of the documents in question. Only in some cases are the exempt documents defined by reference to the nature of the document itself, such as Cabinet and Executive Council documents. lt has always been accepted that a government should be entitled to keep confidential the discussions that take place at the highest levels of government. Of course the tenor of many Cabinet decisions, as well as various Executive Council decisions, are published. The documents which make these decisions publicare not, of course, exempt documents under the Bill.

Except in those cases where a document is in an exempt category by reason of its nature, the Bill requires a decision to refuse access to a document to be made on the balance of publicinterests involved. Thus, for example, a document is not exempt because it relates to CommonwealthState matters; it is exempt only if its disclosure under the Act would prejudice CommonwealthState relations. A document is not exempt merely because it relates to the internal working of a department; to justify refusal, disclosure must cause some detriment to a specified public interest, such as prejudice to the public interest in maintaining the full and frank discussion of issues between officers.

By drafting the Bill in this way, it is intended to emphasise the need to justify any denial of access by reference to a public interest that must, in the particular case, be preferred to the public interest in access to the information in the document. Moreover, where only part of the matter contained in a document is such as to justify a denial of access, the Bill would impose a positive obligation to make a copy of the remainder of the document available if it is practicable to segregate the exempt matter.

In enacting freedom of information legislation within a Westminster-based system of government, the matter of the final authority to decide whether the giving of access would be contrary to the public interest is clearly of central concern. As I have indicated, the Bill embodies what the Government considers to be the proper approach to this question. In .certain matters that touch the fundamental concerns of government the Bill places the final power to decide whether a document should be exempt in the hands of responsible Ministers and the most senior officers of departments and authorities. These are the areas of defence, national security, international relations and Commonwealth-State relations, the relations between Ministers themselves, and between Ministers and their departmental advisers. In all other cases, the question whether a document is in an exempt category and therefore access may be refused may be taken on appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The class of documents that have come to be described as internal working documents is a particularly important class of documents. These are defined in clause 26 of the Bill. They are the documents that are concerned with the deliberative and policy forming processes of government. Documents of this kind are normally protected from production in judicial proceedings by Crown privilege notwithstanding the detriment this may cause to a party to the proceedings. It is well recognised that it would be prejudicial to the free and frank exchange of opinion for many documents of this kind, particularly those at the more senior levels of government, to become publicly available. The neutrality of public service advisers, and the ability of governments of differing political complexions to have confidence in the impartiality of advice given by their public service advisers, would be damaged if officials became identified with particular advice, whether or not that advice was accepted by the Ministers to whom it was given.

The courts have always emphasised the need for confidentiality in these matters. In the case of Conway v. Rimmer Lord Reid said:

I do not doubt that there are certain classes of documents which ought not to be disclosed whatever their content may be. Virtually everyone agrees that Cabinet minutes and the like ought not to be disclosed until such time as they are only of historical interest. But I do not think that many people would give as the reason that premature disclosure would prevent candour in the Cabinet. To my mind the most important reason is that such disclosure would create or fan illinformed or captious public or political criticism. The business of government is difficult enough as it is, and no government could contemplate with equanimity the inner workings of the government machine being exposed to the gaze of (hose ready to criticise without adequate knowledge of the background and perhaps with some axe to grind. And that must, in my view, also apply to all documents concerned with policy making within departments including, it may be, minutes and the like by quite junior officials and correspondence with outside bodies. Further it may be that deliberations about a particular case require protection as much as deliberations about policy. I do not think that it is possible to limit such documents by any definition. But there seems to me to be a wide difference between such documents and routine reports. There may be special reasons for withholding some kinds of routine documents, but I think that the proper test to be applied is to ask, in the language of Lord Simon in Duncan’s case, whether the withholding of a document because it belongs to a particular class is really ‘necessary for the proper functioning of the public service. ‘

It is therefore essential that documents of this kind should not be subject to mandatory disclosure. The class of document specified in clause 26 is, however, a wide class, necessarily so to cover many diverse situations, and it is apparent that the disclosure of particular documents falling within the class might not be prejudicial to the public interest: Clause 26 therefore requires a department or authority, when denying access to a document under that clause, to specify the ground of public interest on which access is denied. There is an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on the question whether a document falls within the description given to sub-clause 26(1), but there is no appeal to the Tribunal on the question of public interest.

The matters of business confidentiality and personal privacy have also been of particular concern in drafting the legislation. The Government obtains a good deal of information of a confidential commercial character, much of it on a voluntary basis. It is necessary to the proper working of many departments that they can deal frankly with business organisations on the basis that confidentiality of information will be respected. Accordingly, clauses 32 and 34 of the Bill are intended to ensure that confidentiality can be maintained.

With regard to personal privacy, clause 30 of the Bill provides that access to a document may be refused- other than to the person involved- if disclosure of it would be an unreasonable disclosure of the personal affairs of any person. Where letters written by members of the public to Ministers and departments relate to the personal affairs of the writers, those letters will be exempt documents under the Bill. Clause 30 is to be regarded as an interim solution to this matter, pending consideration of the report on privacy to be made by the Australian Law Reform Commission. When that report is available, the Government will review the provisions of clause 30 of the Bill.

Where only part of a document contains exempt matter, there is an obligation to make available a copy of the document with the exempt matter deleted, if it is practicable to do so. This is provided by clause 20 of the Bill. Moreover, in those cases where the Bill provides for a certificate to be conclusive of the fact that a document is an exempt document, and only a part of the document contains exempt matter, the certificate must identify that part.

I now turn to the agencies to which the Bill applies. Broadly speaking, it applies to all Commonwealth departments, to Commonwealth statutory authorities and to the holders of statutory offices. Provision is made for non-statutory bodies established by the Commonwealth, incorporated companies or associations under the control of the Commonwealth and the holders of non-statutory appointments to be brought within the scope of the Bill by regulation. The Bill does not apply to the parliamentary departments, the Legislative Assemblies of the Australian Capital

Territory and the Northern Territory, royal commissions, the courts or the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and other authorities exercising conciliation and arbitration functions. Provision is made in clause 5 of the Bill for agencies or certain functions of agencies to be excluded from its scope by regulations. The Government will be giving consideration to excluding the business undertakings of the Commonwealth such as the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and the Australian National Airlines Commission. It will also consider in due course whether any other agencies should be excluded.

Ministers and departments are also proceeding to an examination of categories of documents not intended for publication that do not clearly fall within any of the exempt categories under the Bill. These categories include reports on such matters as air and sea traffic accidents, the general register of seamen and documents containing highly confidential commercial information such as those relating to the functions of the Foreign Investment Review Board. Clause 5 of the Bill also provides for agencies to be excluded in respect of documents of any prescribed description. It is contemplated that, where appropriate, regulations might be made under this power to exclude those categories of documents that require special protection from disclosure. In some cases, where the relevant legislation does not now include special provisions restricting or prohibiting disclosure of information, it may be appropriate to amend that legislation. Where secrecy provisions of this kind are included in other legislation, clause 28 of the Bill provides a mechanism by which documents covered by those secrecy provisions may be made exempt documents for the purposes of the Bill. I would remind the Senate that, in any case where an agency or a document is proposed to be excluded by regulation from the scope of the Bill, the exclusion would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and might be disallowed by either House of the Parliament.

The procedures for obtaining access under the Bill involve a minimum of formality. The Bill requires that a decision on a request for access be given as soon as practicable and in any event not more than 60 days after the request is received. It is thought that the imposition of a more rigid time limit would impose undue strains on the administration of departments, and require the diversion of an undue amount of departmental resources to dealing with freedom of information requests. The time limit applies to a request that is identified as being made under the Freedom of Information Act and that is sent to the agency concerned at an address of the agency specified in the regulations. If a request to an agency is not dealt with within the 60 day period, the applicant will be entitled to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as if his request had been denied.

The Bill provides, in clause 37, for a general right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against all decisions refusing the grant of access to a document in accordance with a request. There are, however, some exceptions to the right of appeal. The Tribunal may not review a decision to give a certificate establishing conclusively that a document is an exempt document, nor may it review a decision to refuse access to an internal working document on the ground that disclosure would be contrary to a specified public interest. Except in those cases where a certificate is conclusive evidence that a document is an exempt document, the Tribunal is entitled to inspect the document for itself if extrinsic evidence does not establish that the document is exempt. In all cases the onus of establishing that a document is exempt is on the agency concerned.

A person seeking access to a document is required to supply such information relating to the document as is reasonably necessary to enable the document to be identified. A request for access may not, however, be refused on the ground that the document has not been sufficiently identified unless the agency concerned has first given the applicant a reasonable opportunity to consult the agency to assist him in formulating a request that will sufficiently identify the document he is looking for. I should say that this positive obligation on agencies to assist applicants is a feature of the Australian Bill, not found in the United States legislation.

The Bill thus establishes a system designed to encourage wide access to documentary information. The following characteristics of the Bill are of particular importance:

  1. the mandatory publication of information about government agencies and the rules, practices and guidelines on which they base their functions or which they use in dealings with the public;
  2. the establishment of a legally enforceable right of access to all documents held by Ministers and agencies except where those documents are specifically exempted from mandator)’ disclosure under the Bill;
  3. there is no requirement for the applicant to establish any interest in the documents to which access is sought;
  4. the formal requirements for making requests have been kept to a minimum:
  5. agencies have a duty to assist applicants in identifying the particular documents they require and to consult with applicants, if necessary, for this purpose;
  6. where a document is exempt from mandatory disclosure because it contains exempt material a copy of the document must be produced, if practicable, omitting the exempt material and access granted to that copy;
  7. requests must be answered promptly and, where identified as requests made under the legislation, not later than 60 days after receipt;
  8. a system of internal review and review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is established, the applicant may also complain to the Ombudsman in cases of undue delay in answering requests.

I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard as an addendum to the second reading speech a list of documents that would ordinarily be made available under the Bill.

Leave granted.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The list is not exhaustive; it is intended merely to indicate the range of material that would normally be open to access. In any particular case, a document included in the list may be exempt on special grounds. For example, a technical study relating to a new defence project would remain secret where publication would be prejudicial to defence.

The Government believes that there should be ample opportunity for a full public discussion on the details of the Bill. Accordingly the Bill is introduced at this time with the intention that the debate on it will be resumed during the Budget sittings of the Parliament and that it will be passed this year. As I have indicated, the Government believes that the principles on which the Bill has been drafted are the proper principles on which to base a Freedom of Information Act. The tabling at the end of 1976 of the inter-departmental committee report on the subject has provided an opportunity for public debate on the principles. In drafting the Bill, the Government has taken account of what has been said about that report.

The Government believes that the Bill represents a major step forward in removing unnecessary secrecy from the administrative processes of government. The Government expects that the legislation will be administered in accordance with its policy that as much information as possible should be provided to those seeking it. For example, it would be consistent with that policy that departments receiving legal advice from my Department should be encouraged in consultation with my Department, to make the substance of that advice available where this can be done without disclosing exempt matter that ought properly to remain confidential. Together with the legislation already on the statute book, and the measures announced in my earlier statement to the Senate on access to information, the Bill will advance the Government’s intention to make Commonwealth administration more responsive to the public need. I commend the Bill to the Senate. 77te- addendum read as follows-

DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD ORDINARILY BE MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL 1978

The following documents are examples of the kinds of documents that would ordinarily be made available to the public under the Freedom of Information Bill. The Bill would not, however, require mandatory access to be given to any document of the kind mentioned in the following list insofar as it comprised or included exempt matter in a particular case.

Reports of commissions of inquiry or committees, councils or other bodies established by the Government outside the ordinary departmental structure for the purposes of making inquiries and reports and recommendations to the Government;

b ) Reports by valuers:

Reports of specialist investigatory bodies within the departmental structure, such as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Bureau of Transport Economics;

Environmental impact studies;

Statistical surveys;

Feasibility and other technical studies relating to proposed Government projects;

Reports on product tests carried out for the purpose of Government equipment purchasing;

Studies, surveys, reports and other factual documents compiled by departmental officers in the course of their duties;

Reports of courts and boards of inquiry, including evidence given before such courts or boards (other than evidence given in camera);

Correspondence dealing with factual material.

Copyright Amendment Bill 1978

This Bill is consequential upon the Archives Bill 1978. Its purpose is to provide for the Australian Archives to be the depository of certain material under the Copyright Act. The Bill will amend the Copyright Act 1978 to enable broadcasting and television organisations to deposit with the Australian Archives the so-called ephemeral recordings which the Director-General of the Australian Archives certifies as being of exceptional documentary character. The present provisions of the Copyright Act provide for deposit of these recordings with the National Library.

An ephemeral recording is a recordingwhether videotape, cinematograph film or sound recording- made by a radio or television broadcaster for the purposes of broadcasting a copyright work. The Copyright Act entitles a broadcaster, who has a licence to broadcast a copyright work, to make such a recording without further permission, so long as the recording is either destroyed within twelve months, or such longer period as is agreed to, or delivered to the National Library for archival retention. The Berne Copyright Convention requires the destruction of such recordings unless they are preserved in official archives on the ground of their exceptional documentary character. Now that the Archives is to be established on a statutory basis, with rights of access to be defined, it is appropriate that the Archives be entitled to receive this material.

Particulars of all ephemeral recordings received by the Archives will be kept, under the provisions of the Archives Bill, in the Australian National Register of Records established by that Bill. Recordings received from governmentfunded broadcasters will be kept as appropriate in one of the repositories maintained by the Archives around Australia. With the consent of the National Librarian, recordings received from private broadcasters will be lodged by the Archives, under the provisions of the Archives Bill, with the National Library of Australia where they will be kept together with like material deposited by non-governmental bodies. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Archives Bil) 1978

This Bill provides machinery which will improve, in many important respects, the management of the Commonwealth ‘s own records. The proposed legislation replaces existing ad hoc arrangements and conventions and establishes firm procedures governing the custody, destruction, retention, storage, conservation and public accessibility of this vast mass of record material. A need for reform in this area has long been recognised. Sustained examination of the problems involved began some four or five years ago, and has resulted in a Bill which, I believe, is likely to commend itself to both sides of the House. In undertaking these reforms, the

Government is concerned, in the first instance, with the needs of efficient administration. These require that the origins, development, organisation, functions, activities and methods of Government agencies be adequately recorded and that information safeguarding the rights and entitlements of individuals and organisations be preserved.

With the passage of time, however, this great accumulation of information opens up a vast wealth of research material of vital interest to almost every profession and of great significance in the recorded history of this nation. The Government wishes that, consistent with the claims of national security and individual privacy, this great national resource should be put at the disposal of the public through a network of archival facilities and reference services. Accordingly, the legislation makes detailed and comprehensive provisions for the administration of records of departments and other agencies. It requires, for example, that records be transferred to archival repositories as quickly as possible; that retrieval services be provided; that conservation procedures be available; that proper arrangements be made for public access and that adequate reference services and facilities be provided.

However, the Commonwealth recognises that its own records form only a part of the wide variety of material which records events of both national and local significance and that archival resources, in general, comprise an important part of the national heritage. Therefore, without intruding into the arrangements made by States, institutions or individuals for their own records, the Commonwealth proposes to give to the Australian Archives a limited but significant national role. For example, it is intended that the Archives organisation should be able to lead the way in developing techniques of archives administration. It should also be able to provide training in the practical application of these techniques, and to be equipped to offer advice and assistance as requested concerning the preservation and utilisation of archival materials. On a co-operative basis with States, institutions and individuals, it will compile a national register of archival resources. It is also desirable that every effort should be made to explore with other archival authorities ways and means of establishing a network of facilities which will ensure that the historical records of all levels of government or organisations and of private individuals are readily accessible for the widest range of research and educational, cultural and community activities.

The Government is concerned that there should be a more systematic and national approach to the administration of archival resources within Australia. Improvement will depend on the development of techniques of Archives administration which can deal with all levels and types of archival material and which encourage as much uniformity of approach as possible. This, in turn will promote the development of a profession with its own qualifications and recognised standards, and whose members are equipped to move more readily from institution to institution. Again, the possibility of using joint public facilities and the provisions of services in common which could then follow, are aspects which need to be encouraged in order that resources, which will always be limited, are utilised to the maximum in the interests of the public. The measures which I have just outlined will, I believe, allow the Australian Archives to take its proper place alongside other institutions in stimulating developments which are long overdue. Success will depend on co-operation and enterprise, but if it can be achieved, Australia will move to the forefront in this field of national endeavour.

I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill. It will be the function of the Australian Archives to have the custody and management of all Commonwealth records which are not required to be readily available for on-going needs of government administration. A Commonwealth record is defined as any record which is the property of the Commonwealth, but the term does not extend to material in a collection maintained by the Australian War Memorial, the National Library of Australia, or the Australian National Gallery. Special provision is made ‘for certain Commonwealth records separate from those of the Public Service and associated government agencies, such as the records of Parliament, the GovernorGeneral, the courts, Cabinet, the Executive Council, and royal commissions, which are to be treated in accordance with arrangements made by the persons responsible for them with the Archives and not subject to the compulsory provisions of the legislation applying to the generality of records. In addition, the Archives will have power to seek the deposit in its custody of other records closely associated with the origin, history, and functioning of the Commonwealth Government and to take steps to ensure that such material is properly preserved. Together, all these materials will constitute the archival resources of the Commonwealth which it will be the special function of the Archives to care for and maintain. The Archives will also have the function where appropriate of encouraging and fostering the preservation of all other archival resources relating to Australia.

The most significant single function of the Archives will, of course, be the care and management of Commonwealth records no longer required for current use in Government administration. The Bill makes specific provisions concerning transfer and custody and it is important that the significance of these arrangements be clearly appreciated. In essence, specific provisions of the Bill are designed to ensure that records begin to flow into bulk storage repositories as soon as they are no longer required for immediate administrative use. To complete this process, no Commonwealth records more than 25 years old will, as a general rule, remain in the custody of agencies. Bringing together noncurrent records in this fashion has a number of advantages. Office space can be released and put to proper use and the records can be kept in good physical condition. Once transferred, they can be managed throughout Australia on behalf of agencies by retrieval and storage procedures. This allows a systematic application of agreed programs to weed out records which have become valueless, thus further reducing costs. It also allows the permanently valuable records, as they pass the 25-year mark and approach the public open access period, to be listed, indexed, described, examined for the purposes of conservation and generally prepared for further use in administration as well as for public availability under the provisions of the Government’s access policy.

It is important that groups of records so treated remain as stable as possible, otherwise the work of preparation, designed to provide information on the structure of Government and to describe interrelationships between its records at any given time, will be rendered progressively obsolete. Accurate information of this sort is essential for the full understanding and use of these records. It is also important that the main body of records eligible for public use should remain intact and accessible. The Bill, therefore, further indicates that agencies will be expected when it is necessary to consult records which are in the public open access period and in Archives custody, to consult the records on Archives premises. If this cannot be done for sound administrative reasons, then such records recalled to agencies are not to be altered in any way, or incorporated into their current records, except in most unusual circumstances. This, of course, is one of those occasions when it is necessary for Governments to balance the expectations of the public against the needs of administration.

Careful attention has also been given to the question of regulating the disposal and destruction of Commonwealth records, including those in automated form. The Government felt that the existing arrangements by which such matters are dealt with through ad hoc administrative instructions and conventions do not provide a sufficiently firm foundation for effective management or for the support of important aspects of Government policy. Accordingly, the Bill prohibits the disposal, destruction or transfer of custody or ownership of Commonwealth records unless these procedures meet certain requirements. The central role of the Archives is established and, in general, all practices and arrangements relating to disposal or destruction must have the approval of the Archives, as well as the consent of the responsible Commonwealth institution. However, special provision has been made to ensure that the requirements of other laws and of the normal processes of administration which, for example, may involve the exchange or transfer of records between Commonwealth institutions in the normal course of public business, are not interfered with.

Under these provisions, the great majority of Commonwealth records must be brought within the scope of procedures, developed’ by the Archives and the responsible Commonwealth institution, which will allow the value of specific records, or whole classes of records to be assessed. These decisions will be incorporated in schedules which will also indicate the length of time for which records are to be kept and act as the authority for any destruction. The schedules will be reviewed from time to time, so that they will reflect changing administrative needs and community standards. Such arrangements are crucial to the effective management of the vast bulk of Commonwealth records permitting, as they do, an orderly and systematic weeding out of valueless material. They are also crucial to all government policies relating to the availability of Commonwealth records for public access. For these policies to be effective and credible, it is essential that the decision concerning which records are to be kept and which destroyed must be made by reference to a comprehensive and authorised system capable of definition, explanation and review. In this the Bill establishes a central role for the Archives which, in consultation with responsible Commonwealth institutions, will decide proper procedures.

Much of the Bill is concerned with a matter of special interest to the Government, that is, with the question of public access to Commonwealth records. The relevant provisions of the Archives Bill and the measures contained in freedom of information legislation have been carefully coordinated in order that together they should constitute comprehensive arrangements covering the public accessibility of the widest range of Commonwealth documentation. Broadly speaking, freedom of information covers material which is thirty years old or less, while the arrangements under Archives legislation relate to records more than thirty years old. Access under Archives legislation is designed to meet the needs not only of those who wish to consult single, specific documents but also of those who wish to search through a large number of records in order to find the information which they desire. In other words, the arrangements are intended to meet the needs of comprehensive research and general enquiry, as well as to cater for those who already know which records they are looking for.

It is expected that under these arrangements the great majority of Commonwealth records more than thirty years old will become available for such purposes. There is also provision for special access to and accelerated release of records less than thirty years old. Inevitably, however, in the interests of personal privacy, good government and security, some exemptions will have to be applied and these will be very similar in principle to those provided for under freedom of information legislation. However, it is expected that relatively fewer records will be withheld under Archives legislation because this deals, in the main, with older records.

In determining questions of release for publicaccess, the examination of older records for access purposes is to take place as a continuing process under arrangements made by the Director-General in consultation with the responsible Minister, and in accordance with programs determined by the Director-General. The programs of examination will cover records which are still in the custody of agencies, as well as those already transferred to the Archives. Particulars of such examinations, except in the case of exempt records in respect of which a certificate has been made, will be entered in the National Guide to Archival Material, an updated copy of which will be maintained in ali Blanches of the Australian Archives. This will allow the public to ascertain which records are open for use and which have been closed.

The Bill provides a right of appeal. Administrative decisions to close all or part of a record which is in the open access period, except material covered by a certificate or where it has been determined that access to a record would physically jeopardise that record, can be challenged by the public. This is to be done through an internal process of review or reconsideration and then, if necessary, by an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant is to receive all reasonable assistance in identifying the record in question and the onus of establishing that the record is an exempt record lies with the party claiming the exemption.

In what I have said so far I have dealt only with the major aspects of the legislation. I have not referred, for example, to the proposed advisory council which will include both officials and private individuals and which can advise the Minister and the Director-General on all matters relating to the functions of the Archives. The field covered by the legislation is large and complex but the Bill will lie on the table until the Budget session so that honourable members and interested members of the public will have ample time to study it in detail and to make representations.

The Government recognises that progress towards the state of affairs envisaged in the Bill will inevitably be gradual and will not be achieved by legislation alone. Consistent with relevant Budget policies, it will be necessary to maintain a steady construction program and to ensure that these Australia-wide facilities are backed by adequate resources. Much progress has already been made in providing properly designed buildings for use by departments and the public. Suitable repositories now exist in Sydney, Darwin and Perth, and extended facilities in Adelaide will be completed within a few months. In Canberra, construction of a new repository in the suburb of Mitchell is in progress and this building, in addition to its primary function of servicing departments, will also be used temporarily to accommodate the public until such time as a fitting national building has been completed. Construction of the latter has been recently approved in principle and preparations for a national design competition are now under way. Projects covering facilities in other States are being developed and will be implemented as financial considerations allow.

Nevertheless, the significance of this legislation is fundamental. For the first time since Federation, doubts and obscurities concerning the preservation of and access to Commonwealth records will be replaced by a comprehensive system of management embodying measures of which the purpose can be defined and the effectiveness assessed. The objective of the Government is to achieve a proper balance between the requirements of administration and the reasonable expectations of the public. 1 am satisfied that in the measures which I have outlined such a balance has been struck. I am also confident that in the closely interlocking arrangements which protect the records themselves and provide for their custody, which recognise the needs and autonomy of departments and which at the same time make available the vast range of archival resources for public access through well defined channels and procedures, there is the foundation of an integrated system second to none. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2703

PRESENTATION OF MACE TO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– by leave- I move:

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– The people of the Northern Territory and the Government of the Northern Territory will welcome the expression of goodwill in this motion in the Senate today, lt is fitting that this momentous milestone in political and constitutional change in the history of the Northern Territory should be marked with a most acceptable gift from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and the Federal Parliament. In the last 4 years many discussions have taken place between the Northern Territory and officers of the parliament on what would be a suitable gift to commemorate this momentous occasion. The mace which has been chosen and which will have engravings in keeping with the character of the Northern

Territory will have a place of honour in the Parliament of the Northern Territory.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– It gives me much pleasure to join in the support for this motion. It is particularly relevant at this time following the debate we had in this place last night on self-government for the Northern Territory. One could perhaps wryly observe that the Government must have been fairly confident of getting the Bill through last night to have gone to such a lot of trouble. It is pleasing to see the Federal Government being associated with its colleagues in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in the mace and the dispatch boxes which we had the privilege of seeing some time ago. I think all of us would agree that tradition has a place in all communities as it has a part to play in the culture of all countries. We must be conscious in Australia of developing our own traditions. I think the Order of Australia award was a step in the right direction.

We must also be conscious of not allowing tradition to militate against any sort of progress or advancement. We must also learn the best we can from tradition. We have a great advantage in Australia by the very nature of our multicultural society. We have a number of traditions that we can follow and cultures from which we can learn. We have much to learn also from our Aboriginal friends. Some of their culture and traditions may possibly be included later in our own traditions. It is natural that we of Anglo-Saxon stock would look towards Westminister not only because it is part of the old country but also because it is the system which has been adopted by many countries not only those with this sort of ethnic origin.

Last night during the debate I drew attention to the danger I saw in the argument that all the States do this. That falls into the category of Forty thousand Frenchmen cannot be wrong’, which I do not think we necessarily support. I tried to make the point that the Territory is different. The different problems it has may need different solutions. We are starting our new traditions in 1978, not in the middle of the 1 9th century. We have an opportunity at this time to innovate as well as to learn from the past. I believe that like the Chinese we should stand on the shoulders of those men who have gone before us.

I am very pleased that a delegation will be going from the Federal Parliament to present the Mace. I trust that you, Mr President, will be part of that delegation. I trust that an opportunity will be given to the people of the Northern Territory to take part in some way in the presentation of the Mace. You may recall from your previous visit, Mr President, that because of the size of the chamber it was not possible for the people of th. Northern Territory to take part. With respect, 1 make the suggestion that perhaps some sort of public activity might take place outside of the chamber to allow the people of the Territory to be involved in this historic, this momentus step; then perhaps the Mace could be carried into the chamber after that.

I have put forward that suggestion very seriously because I know that the people of Darwin in particular would like to be involved. I only mention the people of Darwin because they are on the spot and they do not want to be on the other side of the wall. I regret that on this occasion I will not be able to accompany- if I were invited to do so- the delegation to visit the Northern Territory. I will be overseas, but like Burns: ‘I mind ye still tho’ far awa’. I support the motion. I am confident that the people of the Northern Territory will gain inspiration from these traditions.

The PRESIDENT:

– I look forward very warmly to the great occasion which lies ahead. I will give consideration to the suggestion put forward by Senator Robertson to see whether in some way it is possible to work in that direction.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2704

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 15 August 1978 at 3 p.m., or such other day and hour as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by one of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees upon the request of the Government and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2704

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

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

page 2704

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– We have been requested not to take up too much time on the Primary Industry Amendment Bill and the other legislation which is to be passed before the session ends. It is a characteristic of this Government that in the last day or the last week before Parliament rises a number of agricultural Bills are pushed through the Parliament with little time for debate. Of course, that shows something about the priorities of the Government and the esteem in which it holds the agricultural sector. This Bill amends the 1977 Rural Bank Act and makes basically two changes. The first changes the name to the Primary Industry Bank, which is not important. It is probably a good idea, I think; otherwise there may have been confusion with other banks in the States. Far more importantly, clause 8 of this Bill amends the original Act in a way that completes the delivery of this institution into the hands of the Australian Bankers Association. I will say more about that later.

Originally, in 1975, a promise to establish a rural bank was incorporated in the Liberal and National Country parties ‘ election program. The idea was opposed strenuously by the private trading banks but the Act was finally passed at the end of 1977. That Act was passed in the dying days of the last Parliament, which again shows how seriously the Government took this measure. For 22 months after it had been elected it did nothing but brought in this legislation and passed it in the week before the Parliament rose for the last election. Throughout that period, the idea was opposed strenuously by the private trading banks. They had their way, even with the original legislation, to a very substantial degree.

The Act passed last year made very few things clear, but two things that it did make clear were, firstly, that the Rural Bank, as it was then, would be constrained by lender of last resort provisions, that is, it could pick up only those customers who had been rejected by other financial institutions; and secondly, that it would not be permitted to provide the complete range of specialist financial services that the rural sector wanted and probably deserved. That sell-out to the Australian Bankers Association has been advanced substantially by this Bill and by the undertakings given in the Minister’s second reading speech. Firstly, clause 8 of this amending Bill changes section 7 of the principal Act in a way that allows the lending policy to be not as determined by the Treasurer of Australia but as determined by the Treasurer and agreed to by the Bank. In other words, it gives the Bank board power of veto over lending policy. Given that the second reading speech made it quite clear that the majority of the directors in this new institution will be drawn from the private trading banks, that effectively completes the transfer of control of this institution into the hands of the Australian Bankers Association.

In 1977 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) returned to the Rural Bank for the purposes of his election policy and said ‘that it would provide long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest’. After considerable endeavours to get clarification on the interest rate question, the honourable member for Grey, my colleague Mr Wallis, last Wednesday put a question to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in the House of Representatives. At the end of a long and rather incoherent answer, Mr Sinclair finally revealed quite clearly what the interest policy would be when he said: . . the Primary Industry Bank of Australia would make available long term funds at interest rates set at approximately the same level as for overdraft accommodation on similar amounts of money.

So the concessional interest rate mirage, which was shimmering before the last election, has now disappeared. The Prime Minister’s election undertaking was clearly repudiated last Wednesday by the Minister for Primary Industry. In notes pertaining to this Bank which were circulated in January of this year by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and Mr Sinclair, the two Ministers stated that they did not believe this Bank would be an appropriate institution to provide finance for machinery and stock purchases, the type of finance that is usually provided by either stock and station agents or hire purchase companies. That led the Western Australian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Old, after he had caught up many months later with what was going on, to deliver a rebuke to the Government. The West Australian of 18 May reported that Mr Old was worried that the Bank might not be able to refinance loans for farmers’ machinery. He had asked the Australian Bankers Association whether the bank would cover loans made by hire purchase companies, and the answer was no. That is another service that the Bank will not be providing. Those primary producers who thought they would be able to obtain finance at reasonable rates of interest, instead of the normally extortionate rates of interest charged for livestock or machinery purchases, will again be disappointed. The Minister for Primary Industry, in a speech delivered on 24 January this year, said:

It is expected that the Australian Rural Bank will be in a position to make its first loans in the second quarter of 1 978.

The second quarter of 1978 finishes in about three weeks’ time. Yet we still have not been told when this Primary Industry Bank, as it is now to be known, will be open for business. The Treasurer, in his second reading speech, said that it should be open about mid-year- whatever that means. So, this institution which started out as a gimmick in the coalition Parties’ 1975 general election program, to the degree, if any, it is not a gimmick, is now a complete captive of the Australian Bankers Association. According to the Minister’s second reading speech, six of the 12 directors will be selected by the private trading banks, which excludes the Commonwealth Bank. One director will come from the Commonwealth Trading Bank, one will come from the State rural banks, two will come from primary industry and one will represent the Government. I shall be moving an amendment on this matter in a few minutes.

The other matter to which I wish to refer- I referred briefly to it earlier- is clause 8 which deals with the lending policies laid down by the Treasurer. Section 7 of the principal Act is to be amended by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) ‘as he determines’ and substituting the words ‘as are determined by the Treasurer and agreed to by the Bank’. So the Government will not control this institution: Control will effectively be in the hands of the directors who are appointed by the Australian Bankers Association which did not want the institution from the very beginning, but which of course has quietened down its opposition since the Government obligingly transferred control of the Bank to it.

Another mystery was opened up by the recently appointed chairman of the as yet, nonexistent institution, Mr Walter Ives. At the National Press Club on, I think last Wednesday fortnight- about 16 days ago- Mr Ives was asked:

Can you see any danger of the private banking system unloading high risk rural debts on to the new Primary Industry Bank?

It had long been suspected, of course, that this would be the one service which the Primary Industry Bank would provide: It would be an institution on which the private banks could unload their bad risks. Mr Ives replied:

Not within the reference that has been drawn up. The Primary Industry Bank of Australia will be a refinancing institution and the basis of the operation will be that an impending borrower will go to his own bank and if that bank decides that his proposition is viable then that bank will go to the Primary Industry Bank and ask for the funds.

Mr Ives continued:

But the prime lender takes the risk. That is the safeguard. Under those conditions I would think that propositions that are wheeled up will be soundly examined before they are put forward.

So if Mr Ives’ statement is accurate- and it has not been contradicted by the Minister or, to my knowledge, by anyone else- all that we will have is an institution which provides credit at commercial risks after the proposition has been accepted by the trading bank. This then leaves us without any reason whatsoever for the existence of this Primary Industry Bank, except to provide a costly facade to save face for the Government which in two election campaigns made a major issue of the establishment of this institution. The Minister said that it provides credit at commercial interest rates: The Chairman of the Bank, Mr Ives, says it provides credit only for propositions which have been approved by the client’s private trading bank. So, what is the purpose of having the institution other than as a face saving gimmick for the Government and for the reckless election promises which the Prime Minister made in November 1977 to provide long term loans at concessional rates of interest and so on.

It has not even been entirely successful as a means of fooling the public or as a means of creating an illusion of action. The Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, in a Press release dated 23 May 1978, indicated extreme concern about a number of matters. One of those matters mentioned in the Press release is as follows:

Extreme concern over the Banker dominated Board in that the Primary Industry Bank could only serve as a tool for the present Banking structure to ‘off load ‘ its high risk investment in agriculture to the Primary Industry Bank.

Mr Ives has said that the Bank will not do that. The Press release also indicated that the AWMPF was extremely concerned at the fact that interest rates at current overdraft rates would be prohibitive to the vast majority of agricultural producers. Interest rates of that character are precisely what the farmers will get. So the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation is most unhappy about the control of the institution being handed to the private banks and about the fact that concessional interest rates will not be available. I notice that last night Senator Young put forward the proposition that the views of the farmer organisations should be accepted by parliamentarians and that parliamentarians should act upon them. The instance to which Senator Young referred concerned the export of merino rams. At an election the view of the farmer organisations was repudiated by 73 per cent of the farmers. Disregarding that little weakness in Senator Young’s proposition, if he really believes what he has said, then he ought to vote for the amendment which I am about to move. The effect of the amendment is to remove control of this institution from the Australian Bankers’ Association, that is, the private trading banks. Incidentally, the Labor Opposition in the

House of Representatives intended to move an amendment to this effect to clause 8 of the amending Bill but it was informed that under Standing Orders it was not permitted to do so. So we have been forced to resort to moving an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. I move:

That is instead of the seven representatives proposed by the Government-

  1. the numbers of persons representing the interests of primary producers to be increased to four and (c) one person with special qualifications in such areas as non-bank rural financing, rural reconstruction or related fields to be appointed ‘.
The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I second the amendment.

Senator WALSH:

– This amendment is clearly required by the farmer organisations. I hope that Senator Young will vote in support of it, consistent with his remarks last night. The Opposition is not opposing the establishment of this institution. We believe- we have consistently stuck to this view for two years- that certainly it does not provide what is needed by the rural sector, namely, a full range of specialist banking services. Our policy has long been that the Commonwealth Development Bank should have had its charter and its physical operations extended. That Bank is an adequate vehicle to provide a full range of specialist banking services which the rural sector requires and needs. Clearly this institution will not do those things. It is explicitly prohibited from providing those services. It will be controlled by the private trading banks and it will not provide finance at concessional rates of interest, which was a promise made by the Prime Minister in his 1 977 election campaign.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– We are debating the Primary Industry Bank Amendment Bill 1978 which seeks to amend the Australian Rural Bank Act. I shall deal, first of all, with some of the matters raised by Senator Walsh. Before dealing with the comments he made in the debate today, I shall refer briefly to some of the comments he made last night. He made quite a vicious attack on Sir William Vines. I thought that attack was completely unwarranted. His defence of his statements last night was very weak, to say the least. In spite of what Professor Lloyd said in his book, there is an argument to be made out that, in the case of wool, supply and demand laws do not apply. I have had several discussions with leading members of the Australian Wool Corporation who will support that point of view. In regard to the honourable senator’s claim that, because of the actions of Mr Mick Cotter, the honourable member for Kalgoorlie in the other place, the Liberal member for the Tom Price area-

Senator Walsh:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. I do not mind debating these matters with Senator Thomas when the proceedings are being broadcast but I would like to know what relevance the points he is making have to this legislation. If he wants to debate with me these matters that he is raising, either on radio or at a public meeting. I will be more than happy to do that, but I do not think he should be allowed to raise them in the debate on a Bill such as the Primary Industry Bank Amendment Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator is correct. The relevance must be maintained.

Senator THOMAS:

– In the first comment that Senator Walsh made in his speech today he claimed that the Government was rushing through legislation in the dying hours of the Parliamentary session. He and other honourable senators will recall the complete waste of time this morning and the complete waste of time over the last few weeks when Opposition senators have proposed matters of so-called public importance. We have heard members of the Opposition filibustering for weeks. The Government has not gagged debate and it does not intend to apply the guillotine to any Bills unless the Opposition makes it completely impossible for it to complete the program of legislation. Plenty of time has been allowed for consideration of legislation and there is absolutely no intention of gagging the debate on any Bills.

Senator Walsh complained that there had been delays in bringing this matter before the Senate, but those delays are understandable. This is a completely new matter, and I would be the first to criticise the Government if it were not given full consideration. I was fortunate to be a member of the back bench committee which considered this matter in great detail, and I can assure the Senate that it was only after a great deal of consideration and time that we reached our conclusions and made our recommendations to the Government.

Senator Walsh contradicted himself quite amazingly when he tried to claim that this Bill will not provide any substantial change in the interest rate. I point out to him, in case he does not know, that the only money available at the moment on up to 30-year terms is lent at extremely high interest rates, much higher than those which the proposed bank will be charging. Although it has not been stated yet, 1 suspect that there will be at least a 3 per cent or 4 per cent reduction in interest rates under the proposed new bank compared with what is available now for long-term lending. Many of the details of the new bank will not be worked out until the board is formed. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition. Let me also point out to Senator Walsh, who tried to claim that the proposed bank will perform no useful function, that much of the information I have received from rural organisations is completely to the contrary. There is a serious gap in rural lending as long-term funds are not available. Whereas many items that are purchased by farmers can be expected to be paid off over a short term- over the normal bank term- there are many items of expenditure that cannot be expected to be financed over the short term. The Government’s proposal to form this bank to provide long-term lending for farmers fills a very great gap in lending facilities.

Senator Walsh revealed his true thinking when he suggested in one of his final comments that control of the bank should not be in the hands of the people who are putting up the money- the shareholders. Of course, he wants to have another socialised bank. He wants another government controlled bank, similar to the disastrous proposals of the Australian Labor Party years ago in Australia. He wants the Government to take over the funding and to tie the rural community down completely to the Government’s whim.

The only effect of this amending Bill that we are debating will be a change of name. That is explained clearly in the second reading speech. The name originally suggested was the Australian Rural Bank. That conflicted with the names of some State banks in New South Wales and Western Australia. The other major change contained in this legislation is that it will require the Treasurer, when obtaining agreement from the banks, to determine the terms and conditions under which loans will be made to this bank. I think that is a perfectly reasonable change. No other substantial changes are to be made to the original legislation. The purpose of the bank is to provide long term loans to farmers and fishermen. This service will fill a much needed gap in the present lending policy.

As Senator Walsh mentioned, the seven trading banks and the State rural banks will be shareholders in this bank. The Commonwealth will also be a shareholder through the Commonwealth Bank. Hopefully there will be other participants. It is to be hoped that the Commonwealth Development Bank, the pastoral houses, insurance companies and any organisation that traditionally lends money to farmers will be participants. The initial capital is to be a total of $5,625,000 and the equity shareholders will each contribute one-ninth of that amount. It is to be hoped that the bank will attract substantial loan funds on the open market. There is also provision for the Government to make quite substantial contributions to it.

As Senator Walsh mentioned, its board is to be made up of 12 persons, but I will not go into that matter in any more detail. Many more details are to be worked out but, as I said before, it is quite reasonable to expect the board, when it is formed under Mr Walter Ives, to work them out. I would just like to warn the Government and the proposed board members that, from information I have received from grower organisations, private farmers and bank managers themselves, there will be an enormous initial demand on the facilities of this bank. No doubt the banking sector participants will try to transfer as much of their hard core debt as possible to the Primary Industry Bank. I think the directors should be forewarned of this situation. I am also afraid that many of the rural producers who have had bad seasons in the last two or three years will be looking to this bank, with quite an unreasonable amount of expectation, to solve all their problems. I think it only fair that the Government should say that it will not be a solution to everybody’s problems. Of course, there is no need for me to say that there are many problems in the rural area.

Finally, I have contacted many farmer organisations who are disappointed that their representation on the board of the bank will not be greater, but I think it is only reasonable, given the contribution from the banking sector, that those banks should be well represented. I sincerely hope that many of the problems that are experienced by rural producers in dealings with their banks at the moment will be overcome by the establishment of this bank. One of the problems facing rural producers at the moment is that in many situations bank managers do not understand rural lending. They have no experience and no expertise at all in what is quite a specialised area. I hope that when this bank is finally formed specialists in these areas will be made available to help the bank managers in handling applications for loans. I think this is very important. I remember very well that when the Commonwealth Development Bank was first formed this was done. The managers who were appointed in each State had expertise in rural lending. I would like to stress to the Government that, if this bank is to be as successful as I hope it will be, it is terribly important that the people who are responsible for it have a great deal of experience in rural situations and rural lending because that area is a specialised area.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I wish to make some very brief comments. Late last year the Government provided the legislative framework for the establishment of an Australian rural bank. That move was widely acclaimed throughout the community. This Bill seeks to amend that legislation for a number of purposes, one of them being to change the name to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia because of the confusion with names in other places. Members of the Labor Party have made a series of critical comments and proposed an amendment. The Government will oppose the amendment. Without being carping, the Labor Party now sees virtue in increasing the primary industry representation on this bank. This view is expressed in its amendment. Let me simply say that the Labor Government throughout its term of office continuously reduced primary industry representation on all primary industry bodies under its purview. The Opposition now sees some virtue in providing money to farmers under the Commonwealth Development Bank or some similar body. I can only commend that clear crystal view of virtue held by the Labor Party when in Opposition which had no reality when it was in government. The present Government is in fact facing up to its responsibilities.

I would like to deal with one matter only, and that is the question of the banks forming a majority of the shareholders of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. They certainly will. They will contribute about eight-ninths of the capital and considerable expertise in finance as well as branch facilities. It is important to note that the Primary Industry Bank will be subject to the general banking and monetary policies as appropriate and to the specific provisions of the Primary Industry Bank Act through which the Government will be able to ensure that the bank meets the Government’s objectives. The objectives include: Firstly, the fact that appropriate conditions may be attached to the granting of the banking authority, so the Government has a full say in this respect: secondly, the participation of the Commonwealth as a shareholder in the bank and with direct representation on its board: thirdly, the need for the banks memorandum and articles of association to conform with general objectives as set down in the schedule of the Act: fourthly, the requirement placed on the bank to keep the Treasurer informed of its policies and proposed policies and to consult with him at his request; fifthly, the ability of the Government to attach appropriate terms and conditions to any financial assistance that might be provided from time to time.

Of course, not only the banks will have access to the new facility. It is also expected that a wide range of established financial institutions will apply for lender status under the Act. 1 understand that the Opposition will not oppose the passage of this legislation. Therefore, 1 commend what is a significant reform to the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative’.

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

page 2709

HOUSING ASSISTANCE BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 May, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania

-The Opposition will be moving an amendment, which has been circulated, to this Bill. The Bill authorises an agreement which sets out the terms and conditions which will apply to the provision of Commonwealth funds to the States for housing for the next three years commencing at the beginning of the next financial year. The agreement involves a major change from previous agreements. There is a significant difference in particular areas. For example, it gives a much greater freedom to the State housing authorities to determine what they will do with the funds, lt also places a much greater emphasis on home ownership rather than on the provision of rental housing, ft provides for much more flexible mortgage conditions than have applied in the past, lt makes adjustments to interest rates which have applied in the past and it provides that any surplus generated by the. use of funds is to be ploughed back into housing.

The Opposition views this new arrangement as a mixed bag. We have considerable misgivings about a number of aspects of the agreement but we believe that it does contain some interesting innovations which could well be beneficial. The major problem with the agreement is that it leaves very great discretion in the hands of State housing authorities. This need not be a bad thing but in the past we have seen different attitudes on the part of various State governments some of which have reflected a much greater interest and responsibility towards housing than has been the case in other States. Some of the housing commissions have become very powerful within the States. They are autonomous bodies; they are not readily susceptible to government policy either at the Federal or State level. In particular they have often resisted some innovative changes which have been suggested by Federal governments. This is not true of all the States. For example, the South Australian Housing Trust probably has a reputation for being one of the most innovative housing authorities in the country. But that could not be said for all the States. There is also the problem of the use to which the funds may be put. In recent times we have seen the Victorian Housing Commission totally misusing millions of dollars by pouring them into speculative land deals under conditions which are highly dubious. A repetition of the experiences in Victoria must not be allowed if the agreement is to work at all.

In the Minister’s second reading speech he set out some of the basic policy objectives mainly in the form of what may be termed ‘motherhood’ statements. For example, he said that the Government wants to ensure that every household is able to obtain housing. That is a rather curious statement. He said it will encourage home ownership. Of course, we all encourage that. He said that it will improve housing styles. Naturally, we are all in agreement with that too. He said that it will ensure that there are economic conditions within which a stable and adequate building industry will develop. We have been hearing that statement now for the last two years. There is of course no sign of such conditions as yet. The building industry remains one of the most depressed industries in the country.

As honourable senators know, since this Government came to office it has had a deliberate policy of depressing the economy in order to lower inflation. That has had several repercussions of an undesirable nature with which we are all familiar, such as increased unemployment. It has also severely reduced the funds that are available to home buyers. It has substantially cut much of the capital works programs in the States which have such a beneficial spin-off effect on the building industry. Over the last two years we have seen a net decline of some hundreds of millions of dollars in capital payments to the States for specific purposes, the bulk of which are a direct benefit to the private sector, and of which that sector is now largely deprived. As a result of all this, the building and construction industry is in a parlous state. People are not able to afford to buy the homes that they would like, and even those who can obtain finance have great difficulty in paying homes off. If and when the promised recovery takes place there will be great pressures on the building industry, as there were some years ago, because of the shortages that will have built up, because so many people have left the industry in the last two years, because of the significant backlog in providing houses, and because of the increase in the number of people wanting them.

An important item to note about the agreement is that it provides no funds to the States. Those funds will continue to be made available through the Budget. We will see from this year’s Budget, in the allocation it provides to the States under the Agreement for the next financial year, just how strong is the Government’s commitment to providing housing for the people of this country. 1 suggest that that allocation will result in a further cut in real terms in the funds available for housing.

It is entirely up to the Government to make available to the States the necessary finance to reactivate the building industry and the capacity of people to buy their own homes. With at present about 100,000 people seeking a home in which to live, it is obvious that the backlog is not being satisfied at all, by either the Government sector or the private sector. The initiative must be taken by the Government and, although we do not of course oppose the legislation, we express in our amendment the reservations which we feel it is important that we as an Opposition should express. I therefore move:

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

the Commonwealth Government should meet the cost of rental rebates to a minimum uniform level agreed to jointly between the State and Commonwealth Governments;

rents charged for Housing Commission dwellings should be set

for persons with incomes up to 135 per cent of average weekly earnings at not more than 85 per cent of the rates of rental on the open market, and

for persons with incomes in excess of 135 per cent of average weekly earnings at the rates of rental on the open market:

the interest rates charged for Home Purchase Account ‘on lent’ to other lending authorities should rise in line with capacity to pay:

the Commonwealth Parliament should have the opportunity annually to debate the appropriation to determine the progress made on the spirit of the understanding contained in the Bill:

the Housing Authorities in co-operation with the Commonwealth should develop a strategy as part of overall urban and regional planning to ensure a social mix in housing estates as well as ensuring that public housing tenants have access to social and cultural amenities and job opportunities: and

the Commonwealth should provide sufficient funds to Housing Authorities to ensure that a target completion rate of 15.000 dwellings a year to overcome the backlog on the Housing Authority waiting lists can be met ‘.

Essentially, we are looking to the Government to ensure that what is necessary to provide additional housing in Australia will be provided. The forthcoming Budget will show whether the Government is prepared to provide the necessary funds at a level which would reflect the interest it claims to have in overcoming the housing problems of this country.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Housing Assistance Bill authorises the Commonwealth to enter into a three-year agreement with the States to give lower and moderate income earners increased opportunities for home ownership, and to continue to advance the States’ low interest funds for rental assistance. It also provides for new pensioner housing arrangements which are an improvement on the existing dwellingsforpensioners schemes.

The Opposition has indicated that it does not intend to oppose the Bill but seeks to intrude an amendment to it. I shall be brief and confine my remarks to the amendment, with one rider: Over the decades of the 1 950s and 1 960s the provision of housing in Australia was moving forward at a very successful level. It was possible for a person on an average weekly wage to purchase a home by outlaying one-quarter of that wage. That capacity was destroyed during the inflation and high interest rates of the Whitlam Government’s term in office. The first major reform to be achieved in housing is the restoration of the economy.

I say that against the background that the Opposition has moved an amendment made up of a series of parts. The first of these states that the Commonwealth should meet the cost of rental rebates to a minimum uniform level. In principle I am advised that this concept would ensure that subsidies were truly directed to need; that therefore it would appear to be attractive. However, I understand that the proposal was offered to the States in the initial stage of negotiations on the agreement and that all States rejected the idea and sought a continuation of concessional interest rates. I am advised that the idea is considered to be worthy of further study and investigation during the next three years. That is part of the reason why the operation of the agreement was limited to that period. The agreement requires the Commonwealth and the States to seek ways of moving towards a uniform approach to rental rebates. It was not possible during negotiation to find a common approach. Each State operates a different system. The rebates issue is extremely complex in many ways. Work has started at the officials level to find a solution. We are optimistic that by the end of the present Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement we will have achieved a uniform system.

I now turn to deal with the suggestion that rents be related to a proportion of the market rent. This proposal, in many respects, is similar to the requirements of the agreement. The agreement requires States to charge a rent related to the market rent to those people no longer in need. For example, the present New South Wales policy is to charge 80 per cent of market rates. This is consistent with the agreement. Rebates are provided for those people in need. This results in lower income families being charged rents much lower than 85 per cent of the market rate. The amendment would introduce an element of inflexibility which the States would not accept. I now deal with part (c) of the amendment which seeks to bring the home purchase account on lending in line with the capacity to pay. The Opposition obviously supports the principle of increasing repayments as family circumstances improve. The one-half per cent increase per annum is modest and is an administrative device to ensure that subsidies are tailored to need. The States, are asked to make provision for reductions in cases of hardship. Some of the flexible lending policies to borrowers are strictly related to capacity to pay- for example, incomegeared loans. The suggestion in part (d) of the amendment is for an annual debate on housing. The Government is not trying to do anything to stifle debate on housing. For the first time, an annual report on housing will be made to Parliament. This can only help to keep honourable senators fully informed of the position. The Government would welcome a debate at the time of presenting the report.

Part (e) of the amendment seeks to improve the social mix of urban planning. This is the difference in approach between the Government and Opposition. The Government believes that States have to solve these problems and that the solutions cannot be dictated from Canberra. There are no easy solutions. The matter has been discussed at the Housing Ministers conferences and no doubt will continue to be talked about by Ministers and State authorities. The agreement goes some way towards providing possible solutions. We have broadened the purposes for which funds can be used and incorporated a statement of philosophy. Finally, part (f) of the amendment deals with a minimum level of 15,000 dwellings a year. In our view, this would be an inflexible aim. The 1973 housing agreement did not seek to incorporate such an objective. We recognise the need for stability in forward planning. Over the last 3 years there has been a growth in Commonwealth funding. There are many issues to consider in deciding an appropriate level of activity. I commend the Bill to the House.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2712

STATES AND NORTHERN TERRITORY GRANTS (BLUETONGUE VIRUS CONTROL) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Opposition is not opposing the States and Northern Territory Grants (Bluetongue Virus Control) Bill and will not be moving any amendments to it. I will not detain the Senate for long but I want to make a few comments about the Bill. It is obvious that the Government considers this to be a very important Bill, so important that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) muscled in on it and made the announcement about the introduction of the Bill without the knowledgement of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). When the Minister for Primary Industry discovered that he had been elbowed out of the way by the Prime Minister announcing this matter, he announced it himself a second time. The introduction of the Bill was announced on the same day by two Ministers, by the Prime Minister and later by the Minister for Primary Industry when the Minister for Primary Industry discovered what the Prime Minister had done. Obviously it seemed to the Government to be a very important measure.

The purpose of the Bill, which is quite clearly set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), is to provide payments of up to S18 per head of cattle to producers in the bluetongue affected areas in Queensland, northern Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The finance involved totals about $3. 6m, a little less than one-third of which is to be provided by the States and the Northern Territory on a $1 for $2 arrangement with the Commonwealth. In addition the Commonwealth will supply some technical equipment for detection of the virus. It is important to note that the Bill ought to be regarded as a compensation measure rather than a control or an eradication measure. Because this Bill has been introduced and no doubt will be passed there is no room for complacency about the potential threat to the nation’s ruminant animals from the apparent presence of a form of bluetongue in Australia. There are areas of vagueness about the financial arrangements with the Territory to which my colleague the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) drew attention in the House of Representatives.

The history of the ultimate detection of the bluetongue virus does draw attention to the longstanding inadequacies of animal disease identification and control measures in Australia. This was the subject of a very caustic editorial in the Australian newspaper of 30 December 1977. Rarely these days does the Australian newspaper publish an editorial that is worth repeating, but I think this one possibly is. It states:

Previous Australian governments, however, arc not in line for congratulations. For about half a century they have been putting off finding the money to build the type of laboratory that this country must have to control stock diseases. Positive identification of the bluetongue virus in northern Australia took 20 months. In this time, samples had to be sent to laboratories in the United States and in South Africa and wait their turn for processing.

It is scandalous that this country, one of the world’s top primary producing nations, docs not have the laboratory facilities to carry out such tests. In the euphoria of the recent election campaign, the Government promised to build a laborator)’ at Geelong- and, even though it will cost $ 100m, this is one promise that must be kept . . . and without delay.

I have some reservations about that last passage. I do not necessarily say that it is wrong, but 1 will comment on it later. The editorial does succinctly draw attention to the fact that after suspicions about the presence of bluetongue or some other disease were aroused it took nearly two years to get a positive identification, and we had to send samples overseas for identification.

I do not know whether my colleague Senator McLaren intends to speak on this Bill, but honourable senators will remember that for some days or weeks he has been jousting with Senator Webster on the question of funding for the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong and the fact that this project was further delayed by the broad-axe approach of the Fraser Government to Government expenditure early in 1 976 and 1 977 when expenditures on capital works were just wildly cut back as a matter of ideological prejudice rather than a matter of economic need for rationality. The National Animal Health Laboratory was one of the victims of that ill-conceived economic policy. The editorial in the Australian castigates with some justification every Australian government for the last 50 years, which may be going back a bit far. All past governments have been guilty of some negligence. That negligence not only continued during the early years this Government was in office but also was exacerbated by the Fraser Government which actually turned back the clock on this question.

Another relevant matter which I believe has not been adequately publicised is the detection recently in northern New South Wales of a different strain of bluetongue-type virus. I confess that I do not really understand the technicalities of this matter. It seems to me that one has to have some medical or veterinary training to comprehend the technicalities of this virology, I think it is called- perhaps Senator Baume could advise me.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It seems to be a virus without a disease. We do not know whether it means anything. That is the fact.

Senator WALSH:

– I am grateful to Senator Baume; he probably understands these technical details- I certainly do not. I am led to believe that the virus which has been detected in New South Wales appears to be of a different type and one which is highly virulent among sheep should it become established among sheep. So unless we have effective control, or preferably eradication, it seems that the sheep flocks throughout Australia will be under some danger because of this.

I make one other comment which arises from the Australian editorial. There appears to have been not just government financial neglect but a lack of planning over a very long time in animal disease control. The report of the Independent Inquiry into the Operations and Capital Works Program of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories drew attention to the apparent lack of coordination on this matter between various arms of government. On pages 46 and 47 of the report the matter of co-ordination between the policies of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories and the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory are referred to. The report states:

The Inquiry therefore recommends that the packagingdispatch building of CSL be upgraded at the earliest opportunity according to the proposals embodied in CSL’s 1977-78 capital works submission but deferred through budgetary considerations.

The report continues:

In the CSIRO submission to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works dealing with ANAHL (9.9.1974), the statement is made that CSL will not have the capacity to manufacture foot and mouth disease vaccine because this requires facilities with maximum microbiological security’. The Inquiry finds it extraordinary that this claim is not amplified by arguments, as CSL currently deals with severe human pathogens such as yellow fever virus.

The report continues to make the same point about rabies, namely, that CSL believes it has sufficient security within its existing institution to produce a vaccine for rabies. In summary, the report concluded.

Is the Inquiry to believe that CSL is competent to deal with rabies but not with foot and mouth disease?

The Inquiry might have added ‘not with bluetongue’. But the point which arises from this is that there might be problems with the scale of production which is required. Although CSL has the degree of security required, it might not have the capacity to produce animal vaccines in the volume which might be required. But one arm of government does not appear to know what another arm of government is doing. It is being asserted that a special institution has to be set up purely on the grounds of microbiological security to produce particular vaccines for the control of animal diseases and that these facilities do not’ exist in Australia. Yet it is apparent that in another institution there are facilities which are capable of producing, and in fact are producing, vaccines for virulent human diseases. I am not attempting to blame the Government in particular for this. The reason I raise the matter is that I think it is a matter on which the various Ministers concerned- not just the Minister for Primary Industry- ought to be calling for co-ordination to complement the policy of speeding up the provision of the facilities at the National Animal Health Laboratory.

We will not be opposing the Bill. In closing, I repeat that, although this measure will provide very welcome compensation to cattle producers in the north of Australia who have been hit not only by bluetongue but also by the longstanding recession in the beef industry, we should not be lulled into a false sense of security and believe that there are no potential dangers. Because of the problems which baffle apparently even professional people in this area it is difficult to assess how great the danger is. The threat of a serious outbreak of bluetongue or a bluetongue-type disease still hangs over not only the Australian beef cattle industry but over the national sheep Hoek as well.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– The most telling point made in this debate so far was put forward by way of interjection a few minutes ago by Senator Peter Baume. He said that in Australia today bluetongue is only in a virus form and not in a disease form. A better understanding of this situation will be to the advantage of the cattle industry. I support this Bill which, under financial arrangements with the States and the Northern Territory, makes provision for payments to cattle producers affected by the control measures instituted by animal health authorities to prevent the spread of bluetongue virus. The Bill also provides for the acquisition and installation of virology laboratory equipment in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory for the purpose of improving cattle blood testing services.

The discovery of the bluetongue virus- I stress the word ‘virus’- had a serious effect on the live cattle export industry in the areas where it was located. It was found to be present substantially in the northern areas of Queensland and the Northern Territory and to a lesser extent in Western Australia. It actually destroyed a nicely developing industry. In the last three or four years the export of live cattle by ship or aircraft to our northern neighbours, particularly Hong Kong, has considerably increased. Eighty per cent of the live export cattle from the Northern Territory was shipped to Hong Kong. The fear that the purchase of live cattle from those areas of Australia would lead to the spread of the bluetongue disease to the countries of our clients to the north of Australia has meant that practically all export of live cattle has ceased except for a small amount to western Malaysia and similar countries. Because of the influence of the Chinese on Hong Kong, which was one of our main markets, exports to that area have ceased. Hong Kong looks to the Chinese to see whether any step that it takes is received favourably. China frowned upon the importation of our cattle. So, Australian cattle exports to Hong Kong have been discontinued.

The cattle normally shipped to overseas markets from the Northern Territory and the Cape York area are of a type ordinarily not sent to abattoirs in Australia. At least this is the situation in the Northern Territory. There the types of cattle are more suited to live cattle sales rather than taking them to abattoirs, such as the Katherine meat works. This area is now an endemic area. There can be no movement whatsoever of live cattle and the cattle must be killed. My understanding is that the Katherine meat works is now so booked out with cattle coming from the western pan of the Territory and the Barkly Tablelands that there is little room for cattle from the endemic area. In fact the frame of the cattle from the endemic area is not well suited to Australian abattoirs. This has brought about a tremendously difficult financial situation, although such a situation existed before the bluetongue scare because of poor prices and lack of markets. Even before the advent of bluetongue the cattle producers in the north were on their knees and in a most serious situation.

This brought about further complications because, as honourable senators will be aware, Australia is endeavouring at the moment to become free from brucellosis and tuberculosis by 1984-85. But the fact is that because of the poor financial situation, many cattle producers were brought to their knees and were not able to handle their cattle, so that mustering went by the board- in fact, one or two people had to move from their stations while some just sat down on their stations and carried out no work or maintenance whatsoever- and cattle were loose and on wildlife and Aboriginal reserves. Also there is a very large buffalo and wild pig population. All this has to be taken into consideration in regard to the eradication of brucellosis. The point I am making is that the bluetongue scare has brought stock maintenance practically to a standstill so that it is most difficult to carry out an eradication or testing campaign for brucellosis. I suppose that one must be grateful for the financial assistance which the Government is now providing. At least it is financial assistance to these people. 1 hope that it will enable them once again to bring money into the industry so that once more the activities of the cattle stations will commence and stock will be brought under control.

The setting up of the virology laboratory will be of tremendous assistance. The bluetongue virus, when it was discovered, caught Australia unprepared to a significant degree because it was not possible to handle the large number of stock whose blood requires testing. In the last few months there has been much discussion in the industry. There have been delegations from the Northern Territory and north Queensland. Together they have made representations to the Government indicating that because of the severity of the financial strain, the maintenance of properties is practically nil. For the benefit of all Australians it is up to the Government to give financial assistance to bring about some easing of the situation. I point out once again that bluetongue is a virus and not a disease. It does not affect the cattle. As a layman I do not know, but perhaps bluetongue can be associated with the three-day fever from which cattle suffer. In any case it appears to have no effect on the cattle. In fact, I understand that when the cattle are killed, bluetongue disappears from the carcass within hours. So meat sales are not affected. All these controls and regulations have been introduced to protect the sheep people of the South. Cattle producers have to put up with them and it is only right that they should be given some financial assistance to keep them in the game at least.

I notice that in the last few weeks there have been indications that a new bluetongue virus has been discovered in New South Wales, perhaps a very virulent one. I remind honourable senators that it is a virus, not a disease. Perhaps because of the sophistication of the laboratories and the expertise of the technicians in them, or because there is more awareness of the problem since bluetongue was found in samples tested in America, Australia is more wary and is looking for more of this type of virus in cattle. No one can put a date on when the virus discovered in New South Wales arrived in Australia. Perhaps it came out in the First Fleet. Perhaps the bluetongue virus in the north of Australia- there is no way of disputing its existence as it has been there for many years- came out with the first settlers.

The point I am making is that while we have to be wary and protect the sheep and wool industry in other parts of Australia, we have to be careful that we do not continue to develop a scare campaign that will destroy Australian markets overseas forever and a day. Once again I say that we are talking about a virus, not a disease. There is no bluetongue disease in Australia as far as I know. Perhaps bluetongue disease can be produced in a laboratory under exaggerated conditions but it does not exist outside laboratories in Australia. In view of the sophistication of laboratories now I think it is on the cards that we will see more and more of this type of thing emanating from laboratories. If we publicise the discovery of every new virus we will put the fear of Hell into our overseas markets. We may destroy them. We have to consider the whole situation. The Government should become a type of buffer for the work that comes out of the laboratories. I am suggesting that the Government should firmly indicate what a new virus is rather than have statements coming out from laboratories all over the country saying that a new type of bluetongue virus has been found and so destroying our cattle export markets.

I welcome this legislation. Many other things have to be done to ensure the future of the cattle industry in the Northern Territory. I know that what I suggest is a monumental task but 1 think Australia will have to face up to bringing about a financial situation in the North whereby the cattle population can be handled and such things as blood testing carried out. Australia has to look seriously at the eradication of wild buffalo- and I am not referring to the buffalo kept within fences. I think the day has come when Australia must look to the eradication of the buffalo and feral pigs. That would be a monumental task but for the good of the beef industry in northern Australia we have to face up to these issues.

Senator Georges:

– I suppose you would follow that up with the eradication of kangaroos and other fauna.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I could be wrong but I understand that, fortunately, other animals, such as kangaroos, do not carry this disease. As far as I know it is carried only in pigs, cattle and buffalo. I support the Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– As Senator Walsh, who is the Opposition’s spokesman on agriculture, pointed out when he spoke to this Bill, the Opposition does not oppose this legislation. We welcome it. Senator Walsh referred to the fact that I have spoken quite often in the Parliament on the need for an animal health laboratory. I spoke at length on that matter yesterday. The very introduction of this Bill highlights the fact that when the Labor Government was in office it was acutely aware of the need for an animal health laboratory to do the necessary work and to examine viruses of the type with which we are now faced. Mr Whitlam made a Press statement on 2 April 1 974 in which he said that the Labor Government was allocating$56m for the construction of an animal health laboratory at Geelong in Victoria. He said:

The laboratory complex will provide protection by performing the following functions: diagnosis of exotic animal disease, testing of vaccines required for exotic disease control, research on major virus diseases in Australian animals, the production of foot and mouth vaccine if required.

It is unfortunate that because of a whole set of circumstances which I outlined yesterday the construction of that laboratory is not now nearing completion. Of course, that is water under the bridge. We hope that the Government has now seen the error of its ways and will get on with constructing that laboratory as quickly as possible. The bluetongue disease is of great concern to every State. It is of very great concern to my own State of South Australia, so much so that on 16 November of last year the State Minister for

Agriculture, Mr Brian Chatterton, made arrangements to call an urgent meeting of representatives of all sectors of the livestock industry and everyone else concerned about the dangers that could be attributed to the bluetongue disease if it became rampant in our sheep flocks. As Senator Kilgariff and Senator Walsh have pointed out, it does not appear to have any great harmful effect on cattle but it has a very harmful effect on our sheep population. A Press statement issued by Mr Chatterton on 14 November 1977 reads:

In addition to State action the local industry could influence national action, he said. Already movement oflivestock from the Northern Territory and the Kimberley district to other parts of Australia had ceased.

The Acting Chief Veterinary Officer, Dr John Holmden, said his officers were test monitoring livestock, particularly in the northern part of the State, and all field staff and private veterinarians have been alerted to the clinical signs of bluetongue. They were also tracing movement of livestock from the Northern Territory to SA in recent years.

When we imposed restrictions on livestock from affected areas it placed great hardship on livestock owners. Even though their livestock may not have had the virus they were not allowed into South Australia. A number of livestock owners suffered. But those precautions had to be taken, otherwise we could have been faced with a serious epidemic. The people in South Australia could have lost a lot of their flock. I refer to an article put out by the Animal Health Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in South Australia. This may be of some assistance to people who feel that they have the problem on their properties. The article reads:

Clinical signs in sheep and goats are characterised by a number of animals showing one or more of the following signs: a rise in temperature over 6-8 days, lameness. swollen lips with superficial ulcers on the inside, excessive movement of the tongue and mild salivation.

Senator Georges:

– It sounds like a sick politician.

Senator McLAREN:

– The article continued:

A watery nasal discharge. Cyanosis of the lips and tongue. Loss of condition and muscle wastage.

Senator Peter Baume:

– What does that mean?

Senator McLAREN:

– As Senator Georges said, politicians could also show those clinical signs. If any of us are showing those signs I hope that we have not contracted the bluetongue virus. If we have, in view of the fact that our learned Senator opposite was able to help Senator Walsh with the pronunciation of one of the clinical terms, he no doubt will be able to try to treat us and cure us. Senator Baume may be able to do that. The Opposition welcomes this legislation. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) indicated that the costs incurred in the Northern Territory up to 30 June 1978 are to be borne entirely by the Commonwealth. He said:

Under clauses 3 (2), 4 and 5 costs incurred in the Northern Territory after1 July 1978 will be borne equally between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory, that is under the same basis as for the States. The total cost of these proposals, including the States’ shares, is estimated to be $3. 768m. The Commonwealth share is estimated to be $2.426m. It is proposed that the scheme be administered by the States and the Northern Territory.

As I said yesterday, it is my intention at the end of next week to go to the Northern Territory and to pay another visit to Beatrice Hill and also to pay another visit to the station at Berrimah to see what work is being done in helping to eradicate this virus. I am looking forward to seeing the work that is being done by the authorities there in their endeavour to control this disease and to see that it does not spread to any other part of Australia. I welcome the legislation.

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

– in reply- The problem of bluetongue in Australia certainly is not the subject of political argument. Both sides of the Senate support this Bill. It is an important measure and one in which the Commonwealth recognises its obligation to supply funds to the States through their normal organisations so that producers can be compensated in some way for the various costs that have been incurred by them in attempting to locate the disease and to have serological tests in order to track down the bluetongue virus. These contributions financially are particularly great, but as Senator Kilgariff pointed out it is difficult for anyone to understand the disaster that has arisen with the discovery of bluetongue on various properties in the Northern Territory.

For some years- this problem has been discussed at length in the Senate and the House of Representatives- this has been an enormous problem for various areas of production. We in the southern States have been particular fortunate that the disease has not been found there. Senator Walsh mentioned that in New South Wales there has been some identification of what might be another strain of some sort. It is perhaps appropriate to reiterate the comment that technology appears to be running ahead of common sense because there has been absolutely no pathogenic quality in the disease that has been found. I think sufficient has been said in both Houses of Parliament and abroad generally relating to the introduction of exotic diseases in Australia. Various government organisations have responsibilities in this field, particularly the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which has been very active in assisting in this situation. Of course, it was from tests that have been carried out on arbo viruses in the Northern Territory which located the original strain of the bluetongue virus. It brings to light the comment that Senator Walsh made in relation to the development of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory which is going ahead at this stage at Williamstown in Victoria. That will be a major facility for the development and testing of viruses in future years.

This is not a matter which should be argued politically. We should be very pleased that the first sods have been turned on that particular instrumentality within the last six months. Comment was made by Senator Walsh about the report of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Without taking the time of the Senate, I direct Senator Walsh’s attention to an answer 1 gave to Senator Jessop on 7 June relating to this matter. If the challenge is that within the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories report someone has suggested that there was not sufficient liaison with that excellent organisation, CSL, in the development of the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, I think I can dispel that with the comment that Dr Lane, the former head, was in consultation with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation at all times in relation to this undertaking. As we know, CSL is a part of the Department of Health, which has played a major part in carrying forward the requirement for a totally secure laboratory in Victoria.

This Bill brings substantial funds to producers in the Northern Territory and other areas in relation to mustering of cattle, serological testing and surveillance blood testing, as well as the movement testing that must take place in regard to cattle. It was very heartening to hear the comments of honourable senators in their total support for this Bill. I thank them for their contribution and recommend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2717

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– The Opposition does not oppose this Bill but will be moving five amendments at the Committee stage. I understand that honourable senators have already received copies of the amendments. The first amendment relates to clause 5, in which the functions set out for the Australian Science and Technology Council are the functions outlined by the Interim Australian Science and Technology Council. The Opposition believes that one further and important function should be added; that is, consideration of the impact of aspects of science and technology on society. Our amendment to clause 6, which is self-explanatory, is designed to prevent a Minister receiving a report and sitting on it, as the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) did with the last ASTEC report.

The amendment to clause 8 is designed to give the Council more freedom in performing its functions so that it will not be a total tool of the Minister. Our proposed amendment to clause 10 is also self-explanatory. It deals with the manner in which the Council is constituted and with the qualifications of the members. We propose an increase in the number of scientists on the Council from the one scientist provided for in the Bill. Our amendment to clause 1 1 proposes to ensure a more rapid rotation of members of the Council, except in exceptional circumstances. Finally, with regard to clause 26 which refers to secrecy, the Opposition makes the comment that the clause is a little inflexible in relation to the scientist’s capacity to discuss with his colleagues. However, we do not propose an amendment to that clause.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its general support for the second reading of this Bill. I shall await the further comments, if any, which the honourable senator has to make at the Committee stage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 4- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

The functions of the Council are to investigate, and to furnish information and advice to the Commonwealth Government in respect of, matters relating to science and technology, including the following matters:

  1. ) the advancement of scientific knowledge;
  2. the development and application of science and technology in relation to the furtherance of the national well-being;
  3. the adequacy, effectiveness and overall balance of scientific and technological activities in Australia;
  4. the identification and support of new ideas in science and technology likely to be of national importance;
  5. ) the practical development and application of scientific discoveries;
  6. the fostering of scientific and technological innovation in industry; and
  7. the means of improving efficiency in the use of resources by the application of science and technology.
Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

-I move:

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause:

  1. The functions of the Council are to investigate, and to furnish information and advice to the Commonwealth Government in respect of, matters relating to science and technology, including the following matters:

    1. the advancement of scientific knowledge;
    2. the implications for the community, for the environment, for industry and for Government policy of developments in science and technology:
    3. utilizing science and technology in the development of national objectives;
    4. priorities for scientific and technological research and development, and on policies to give best effect to these priorities;
    5. the organization of and institutional arrangements for the conduct of scientific and technological activities; ( 0 manpower policies for science and technology:
    6. the fostering of scientific and technological innovation in industry;
    7. utilizing science and technology in the achievement of national objectives. ‘.
Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by Senator McAuliffe. The reason is quite simple: The functions as set out in clause 5 of the Bill represent the direction in which the Government desires the Council to go. What the honourable senator has moved on behalf of the Opposition represents the direction in which the Opposition would like the Council to go. I do not wish to get involved in an esoteric, scientific argument in this matter but this is more than just an amendment to a clause: With respect to my friend, Senator McAuliffe, to some extent it alters the thrust, the direction and the purpose of the Bill. For those reasons the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I should have thought that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) would have been more reasonable than he appears to be at the moment. I thought Senator McAuliffe ‘s proposition was a reasonable one that could have been accepted by the Government. I think the Minister sees too much in the intention of the Opposition. He has confessed to some so-called direction being taken by the Government. He says that we are taking the opposite direction. I suggest to him that at this time when the House of Representatives has risen for the winter recess and we are in a position to amend the Bill, this would be an excellent opportunity for us to assert our authority over the other House, just as the Minister endeavoured to assert his authority on another occasion, when, incidentally he succeeded. On 1 1 November 1975, as I recall, this House asserted itself over the House of Representatives. If the Minister wants to be consistent perhaps he can achieve that end by accepting the Opposition’s amendment, which is a reasonable amendment, and bring the House of Representatives back next week.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The Opposition Whip, Senator Georges, puts a fascinating proposition before honourable senators in this place. On the one hand he says that I am being a bit unreasonable because I will not accept the Opposition’s amendment which he claims really seeks to do nothing different from what the Government is doing. If the amendment in its thrust and direction seeks to do nothing different, why move it at all?

Senator Georges:

– I did not say that.

Senator WITHERS:

– I am sorry if I put the wrong interpretation on what I thought Senator Georges was implying. If Senator Georges thinks he has the numbers to carry his latter proposition, I would be delighted if he would divide the Committee on this clause.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6.

  1. Where the laying of a report before the Parliament in accordance with sub-section (2) would result in-

    1. the disclosure of information that would, in the opinion of the Minister, be contrary to the public interest by reason that it would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth or relations between the Commonwealth and any State: or
    2. the disclosure of information received by the Council in confidence. the Minister shall, in his discretion-
    3. cause the report to be laid before the Parliament with such deletions as he thinks necessary to avoid that result: or
    4. cause the report not to be laid before the Parliament until he is satisfied that laying the report before the Parliament would not have that result.
Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

Paragraph (b) of sub-clause (3) of clause 6 deals with confidentiality of information. We accept that that provision will lead quite properly to the deletion of confidential information before a report is presented to the Houses of Parliament. However, paragraph (a) of sub-clause (3) of clause 6 presents a more questionable set of circumstances in relation to delay in the laying of the ASTEC report before the Parliament. For instance, it refers to the disclosure of information which would, in the opinion of the Minister, be contrary to the public interest by reason that it would prejudice security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth or relations between the Commonwealth and any State. These conditions, in the view of the Opposition, require more scientific definition and overview. Material affecting security or defence intelligence are obvious matters in which such delays and protections by the Minister might occur.

The prejudicing of Commonwealth-State relations and international relations could, we feel, require clarification by the Minister; or some controlling mechanism should be introduced to ensure the proper openness of ASTEC reports and their availability. The ASTEC report invited by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on energy research and development in Australia is a case in point. The report was presented in October 1977. It was tabled in the Parliament on 4 April 1978. Accordingly a period of six months elapsed between its completion and presentation to the Parliament. In that period it was not available to the Opposition, to interested heads of statutory authorities- for example, the Chairman of the Australian Atomic Energy Commissionor to members of the National Energy Advisory Committee. The National Energy Advisory Committee’s report to the then Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) on a national energy policy was released on 15 December 1 977. It is not clear from a reading of the ASTEC report on energy research and development why the report should have been withheld. The withholding did not assist the report of the National Energy Advisory Committee. I ask the Minister what sort of matter concerning the relations between the Commonwealth and the States or relations between the Commonwealth and other nations is deemed to need protection?

As was stated by the Prime Minister, the Australian Science and Technology Council was set up for the purpose of providing independent advice of the highest calibre and for the purpose of opening up debate on science and technology policy. He also said that the disclosure of its information should be strictly controlled. Disclosure should not occur for political purposes. The mechanism we suggest to keep the reporting system as open as possible would require that, as the Bill suggests, the Minister report to the Parliament, within 15 sitting days after the report is received by the Minister, on the following matters: Firstly, the existence of the ASTEC report; secondly, the reason for not making it available; and, thirdly, the date when the report will become available. Those are the reasons why we are supporting these amendments.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I can perhaps understand the sincere and honest motivation behind what Senator McAuliffe has attempted to do, but may I put to him and to the Committee that what he is doing by his subclause (4) is ensuring that, the moment it came into operation, the matters which were deleted would have to be disclosed. That is the dilemma in which we would find ourselves. At the moment, as the honourable senator would know, there is a discretion under sub-clause (3) to delete certain things. The moment one has to lay before the Parliament the grounds on which such deletions were made, inevitably someone would be able to ascertain what was the reason for the deletions. I hope I am making myself clear. Duc to some circumstances beyond my control, my brain is not working as well as it ought to be at this stage of the day.

The honourable senator in his proposed subclause (5), suggests that, where the Minister exercises his discretion in not laying a report before the Parliament, he should disclose the grounds for not tabling it. That has the same effect. After all, one should not always believe that everything done in politics is sinister or evil -

Senator Georges:

– It depends.

Senator WITHERS:

– I am one of those people who believes that good triumphs over evil. I know that people in politics, and sometimes interesting lawyers, see nothing but conspiracy or something sinister in an operation which is quite normal and proper. As the honourable senator would know, sub-clause (3) (a) refers to the disclosure of information that would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of the Commonwealth. Everybody would say that that is a good, valid and proper reason why something ought not to be disclosed. There are several conditions imposed upon a Minister preventing him from acting capriciously or in a sinister fashion. Firstly, of course, it is very difficult to do anything in this interesting city of Canberra without its appearing in the Press before one has even thought of it. The way in which some of the places around here leak, it is rather difficult for anything to be kept in true confidence anyhow.

That being left aside, most likely it would not be obvious from the face of a document when laid before the Parliament that deletions had been made. If the Minster had caused deletions to be made, 1 suppose his colleagues would believe that he had acted with the highest of motives and his political opponents would believe that he had acted with sinister motives. But I do not believe government could operate in such a sterile, non-political vacuum. I would say to the honourable senator that if his amendment were carried and the grounds for deletion were set forth, that of itself would lead to the exposure of what were the security, defence or international relations implications. I realise that Senator McAuliffe has moved the amendment with great sincerity, but the Government cannot accept it because it defeats the actual purposes of sub-clause (3) of clause 6 of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8.

  1. I ) The Council shall perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with such directions as are given to it by the Minister in writing.
Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

I have moved this amendment quite seriously because it is designed to give the Council some freedom in performing its functions rather than make it a total tool of the Minister.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I would draw the honourable senator’s attention to clause 6 sub-clause ( 1 ), which reads:

The Council shall furnish to the Minister such reports as the Minister requests . . . and may furnish to the Minister such other reports on matters relating to its functions as it thinks fit.

The honourable senator will see from that subclause that the discretion of the Council is unhampered. The normal directional power se.t out in clause 8 sub-clause ( 1 ) cannot override the intent of clause 6 sub-clause ( 1 ). The Council has a mandatory function and a discretionary function. Its mandatory function is set out in the following words:

The Council shall furnish to the Minister such reports as the Minister requests . . .

That is fair enough. That is part of the power of direction. But it also has an enormous discretionary power contained in the following words:

  1. . and may furnish to the Minister such other reports on matters relating to its functions . . .

I think it would be agreed that its functions are broad. The sub-clause continues:

  1. . as it . . .

That is. the Council- thinks fit.

So there is no hampering of the Council or its capacity to communicate with the Minister and make its views quite clearly known. For those reasons the Government will not accept the amendment.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I do not have the benefit of legal training but I can see from clause 6 sub-clause (1) that what the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) says is true. The sub-clause states:

  1. . and may furnish to the Minister such other reports on matters relating to its functions as it thinks fit.

That is quite right; but clause 8 sub-clause ( 1 ) is very specific. It states:

The Council shall perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with such directions as are given to it by the Minister in writing.

The Minister’s explanation was given too quickly for me and I was not able to absorb it. But I am not completely satisfied that his explanation is sufficient. Clause 8(1) specifically states:

  1. . in accordance with such directions as are given to it by the Minister in writing.
Senator Georges:

– That is direct ministerial control, is it not?

Senator McAULIFFE:

– Yes. The Opposition proposes that sub-clause ( 1 ) be deleted and that the following sub-clause be substituted:

The Council shall perform its functions and exercise its powers as it sees fit and shall act upon any directions given to it by the Minister in writing.

I do not want to be difficult. However, despite the Minister’s explanation that provision is made in clause 6 ( 1 ) for what we propose, I would like to hear argument that was a little more convincing to show that the Opposition’s amendment does not have any effect that is undesirable.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Basically what the honourable senator is putting up is a contradiction in terms. First he is saying that the Council will exercise its powers as it sees fit but at the same time it shall act upon any direction given to it by the Minister. That really is a contradiction.

Senator Georges:

– No, it is not.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator cannot say that the Council can do as it thinks fit but at the same time it will carry out the instructions of the Minister. He cannot have it both ways.

Senator Georges:

– Having taken into consideration the first part.

Senator WITHERS:

-I say to the honourable senator quite gently that if there are no directions given by the Minister the Council acts, as it thinks fit. That is a logical sequence to the proposition. What Senator McAuliffe is proposing is in fact a contradiction. I only wish I could recall the fallacies of logic. I remember someone here put forward an illogical proposition the other day. I thought that the proposition that he put forward was fallacious because it propounded the fallacy of the undistributed middle. I could not recall what the undistributed middle was. Perhaps I should seek the advice of the learned Clerks in this respect.

Senator Georges:

– I would not bring a book of logic into this place.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator, clause 8 provides that the council will be subject to the general direction of the Minister except in relation to the content of any information or advice or report. The Minister cannot direct what the Council will report back. He does not have the capacity to tell the Council what advice it will give. The clause requires the Council in providing its advice to take notice of such government policies as the Minister communicates to it. It is not a matter of what one might call partisan party political direction. However, as honourable senators would know, there is generally an obligation on departments of State and other authorities to understand what is the broad thrust of government policy.

I remember that, when our predecessors were in office, it was not uncommon for the policy speech to be circulated among departmental officials- I did not take exception to this practiceas an indication to them what the then Government wished to achieve and the direction in which it was going.

Senator Georges:

– Yes, and ignore it at your peril.

Senator WITHERS:

– I do not think you ever said that, Senator.

Senator Georges:

– No, but you have.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, I was talking about what your Government did. But I am delighted for the information that the government of which the honourable senator was a supporter also told departments of State: ‘Ignore our policy speech at your peril’. I would not have thought that such a lot of kindly, old gentlemen who comprised the Whitlam Government would have done such a thing.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Don’t be too soft on them.

Senator WITHERS:

-Well, kindly in the Claudian sense. There is nothing improper in a government communicating to an instrumentality the broad direction in which it would like to go. For those reasons, the Government believes that it cannot accept the amendment which has been put forward by the Opposition.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

  1. 1 ) The Council shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not less than 3, not more than 13, other members.
Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– The Opposition has an amendment to clause 10. 1 move:

Leave out sub-clause ( 1 ), insert the following sub-clause:

1 ) The Council shall consist of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not less than 7, not more than 15, ordinary members of whom at least 2 shall be persons professionally qualified as social scientists, 3 shall be scientists currently involved in research and 2 shall be members of the Australian Parliament appointed respectively by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.’.

We believe that our proposed amendment to clause 10 is self-explanatory. It makes provision for additional professionally qualified members on the Council.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I would be surprised if it were acceptable to any honourable senator. Fancy this great Senate, accepting a proposition that two representatives of the national Parliament be appointed to the Council by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition where? Does the Opposition’s amendment mean the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate?

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are splitting hairs.

Senator WITHERS:

-Oh, no. I thought honourable senators held the principle fairly dear that if the national Parliament were to be represented on any body that the Parliament should elect and appoint the representative. If Parliament is to give away those rights it is really giving away some of the most fundamental principles that we have.

Senator Georges:

– Will you accept the amendment if we reword it?

Senator WITHERS:

-No. I am not here to act as the honourable senator’s unpaid and incompetent draftsman. I have spent most of my life correcting the Opposition’s mistakes. I do not think that that is the right approach to take as a Senate. I am grateful that Senator Sir Reginald Wright and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, the great defenders of the Senate, are not in the chamber to hear such a proposition. It would be a terrible blow to them to think that, after their defence of this institution for 28½ years, an honourable senator should propound such a thing. I have no doubt that Mr Odgers will include a chapter on this situation in his book. The other real problem is that the Opposition in its proposed amendment alters the numbers. That really defeats the basic principle in the Bill of appointing individual members on their individual attributes. In forming this group we are not looking for people in categories. We are not pigeonholing a council. But there is no reason to specify- as the honourable senator has done- a social scientist, a scientist involved in research and somebody else. We might as well specify an economist, a geologist, a medical practitioner, a pharmacologist, a zoologist, an anthropologist or somebody who is interested in tautology.

When we get to that sort of situation we are starting to wreck the whole of the scientific world. As this Council is to deal with both science and technology I could understand if the honourable senator were attempting to give representation to all the scientific and technological disciplines. I do not know how many separate disciplines there would be in the science area. There would be some quite separate and distinct disciplines. I imagine that there would be far more than could be covered by the 1 5 people whom the honourable senator proposes as members of the Council. I imagine that it is most likely that there are 20, 30 or 40 recognised scientific disciplines. I suggest that it is a very dangerous principle for Parliament to try to define the disciplines from which Council members should be drawn. As time changes representation from a cross-section of all disciplines will be needed. Occasionally one finds eminent people that one would want to sit on this body and who may not fit any of the disciplines exactly but may nevertheless have a breadth of experience and knowledge which would embrace a number of them, and could bring it to bear. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I do not wish to prolong the debate, but surely Mr Odgers will have more important things to write about in his book Australian Senate Practice than that proposed by the Minister for Administrative Services. I speak subject to correction, but the Minister made great play of the fact that governments appoint members to boards. He did not like the idea of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition appointing representatives to the Council. He said also that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack and Senator Sir Reginald Wright would be horrified if this were to happen. I have always been under the impression that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition appoint members to the Australian National University, and that those appointments are ratified by the Parliament. I think the intent here is that the nominations by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition also would be ratified by Parliament.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 1 1 .

  1. 1 ) Subject to this Part, a member holds office for such period not exceeding- la) in the case of the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman 5 years: or (b)in the case of any other member- 3 years. as is specified in the instrument of his appointment, but is eligible forre-appointment.
  2. A person shall not hold office as the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman for a continuous period exceeding 10 years.
  3. 3 ) A person who has held office as the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman for a continuous period of 10 years is not eligible for re-appointment as the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman, as the case may be, for a term of office commencing within 12 months after the expiration of that period.
  4. Subject to sub-section (6), a person shall not hold office as a part-time member for a continuous period exceeding 6 years.
  5. Subject to sub-section (6) a person who has held office as a part-time member for a continuous period of 6 years is not eligible for re-appointment as a part-time member for a period of office commencing within 12 months after the expiration of that period.

  6. Where-

    1. a aperson has held office as a part-time member for a continuous period of 6 years or. by virtue of a previous application or previous applications of this sub-section, a continuous period exceeding 6 years; and
    2. the Minister certifies in writing that, in his opinion, by reason of exceptional circumstances specified in the certificate, it is desirable for the person to continue in office, the person may be re-appointed as a part-time member for a period of office commencing on the expiration of the period referred to in paragraph (a).
  7. A person who has attained the age of 65 years shall not be appointed or re-appointed as a full-time Chairman or Deputy Chairman and a person shall not be appointed or reappointed as a full-time Chairman or Deputy Chairman for a period that extends beyond the date on which he will attain the age of 65 years.
  8. In this section, ‘part-time member’ does not include the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman.
Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I move:

  1. In sub-clause (1), leave out ‘but is eligible for reappointment ‘.
  2. Leave out sub-clauses (2) to (6), and sub-clause (8).

I shall not delay the Senate. The amendments are self-explanatory and designed to ensure a more rapid rotation of members of the Council. We feel that, except in exceptional circumstances, a member of the Council could be reappointed.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendments. The honourable senator shot down his own argument by using in his argument, the expression ‘except in exceptional circumstances’. If the amendment were carried consideration could not be given to exceptional circumstances. I would have thought that the proper basis for reappointment should be the merit and performance of the person concerned. The Government feels that it cannot accept the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

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

Senator McAULlFFE (Queensland) (4.55) - The Opposition would like to have my comments recorded in respect of clause 26 of the Bill. We have not moved an amendment to the clause but I would like to have this comment recorded on behalf of the Opposition: We feel that the clause is a little inflexible in relation to the capacity of scientists to discuss matters with their colleagues. It might be possible for the Minister to look at that position.

Senator Withers:

– I cannot add to that.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2723

MINISTERS OF STATE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 June, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1978 seeks to increase the annual sum provided for the payment of Ministers under section 66 of the Constitution. An amount is payable out of Consolidated Revenue for the salaries of Ministers of State. Provision for this is made under the Ministers of State Act 1952-73. The second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) was a short one. I can understand why. This would be the sort of provision that the Government would like to put through the Parliament before it came to the notice of Senator Sir Reginald Wright.

Senator Withers:

– He agrees with this.

Senator GEORGES:

-Does he agree with it? I should have thought that, with the honourable senator’s zeal to protect the public purse, he would have expressed himself at length on this Bill. Now that I have read the second reading speech for the first time, I realise that there is another way in which the Government could have achieved the result which it is seeking. The Ministers of State Act was last amended in 1973. Apparently the annual sum appropriated under it is now insufficient to meet the current ministerial salaries recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal. TheGovernment. is suggesting that the Senate should pass this BUI and increase the amount made available. But there is another way of going about this matter. The Government could decrease the numbers in its Ministry. A glorious opportunity is presented to us with the introduction of this Bill to look at the position of the Ministry. If we had the time we could go through the portfolios one by one and examine whether they are justified. We could examine whether the holders of the position of Minister were, shall I say, worthy of the amount which the Remuneration Tribunal makes available to them. We could have what is termed in the vernacular a real ball on this one.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Why do you not? Because you have not got the numbers.

Senator GEORGES:

-It is not a matter of having the numbers. Unfortunately, we really do not have the time. However, the temptation is great to go throught the list and ask questions. For instance, let me deal with the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee). What has his portfolio achieved? What are the results? What is the size of the Department of Productivity? How many people are employed in it? Every time we create a portfolio we also create a bureaucracy. It can always be argued that the previous Government had a certain number of Ministers and that therefore this Government is entitled to have the same number of Ministers. But that is contrary to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He said that he would confine the size of his Ministry to what he considered to be and what many other people consider to be a reasonable number- twenty. I suggest that 20 positions is not sufficient to allow for the ambitions of those people within the Government party room.

Senator Withers:

– Oh, no.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not reflecting on Ministers in this place because I believe we do not have a sufficient number of Ministers here. Sooner or later we will have make a decision on whether we are to have any Ministers at all in this place or whether there is a sufficient number in this place to represent the Government properly. My view is that there is not a sufficient number of Ministers in this place to allow for a proper accountability of or to provide explanations for, shall we say, the actions of the Executive. One could go through the list of the 27 ministries and ponder whether several of them are justified. In order to correct the problem that arose during the election- a problem that faced the then Treasurer, Mr Lynch- another ministry was subsequently created, that of Finance. There was then a Treasurer and there was a Minister for Finance. There was a division in responsibility for financial matters.

Senator Missen:

– We did that earlier.

Senator GEORGES:

-Is that so? All I can say, whether it was done earlier or not, is that there were two establishments- two ministeries- and this addition to the bureaucracy meant additional cost to the public purse. The story does not end there because in Queensland Mr BjelkePetersen would say: ‘Ha, they have 27 in Canberra. That is a grave reflection on the sovereignty of the State of Queensland; we will have twenty-eight’. New South Wales would follow suit as would Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the new Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory.

There has been an unjustified increase in the number of ministries, an unjustified increase in the size of the bureaucracy, and this has led in this instance to a demand of the sort set out in this legislation, which is brought before the Parliament at a time when we cannot properly debate it.

Senator Missen:

– Are you not aware of the safety in having a multitude of counsellors?

Senator GEORGES:

– I could go on and try to number them. One can no longer count the parliaments in Australia. One has to use not only one’s hands but also one’s feet, if one has difficulty through running out of digits. One would need to use a computer to ascertain the number of parliaments, the number of parliamentarians and the number of councillors throughout Australia who govern 14 million people. In talking about structural problems we might be looking at the very problem of a country of 14 million people, over-governed by too many parliaments, too many politicians and too many councillors. What the present Government is doing in pursuing its federalism policy is further developing that trend whereas to the credit of the previous Labor Government, a centralist government, it was endeavouring to arrest that trend.

I put it to the Senate that although a Government is entitled to determine the number of ministries that it wants, the Government ought not to be permitted to escape the criticism that there are perhaps between one and four unnecessary ministries at present. Instead of bringing this sort of legislation before the Parliament and seeking an increase in expenditure to pay for the increased number of ministries, perhaps the correct way to deal with the problem is to look at the list of ministries and begin to prune. If it were left to me I would soon reduce the number to 20.

Senator Withers:

– You would be a toe-cutter.

Senator GEORGES:

– I thought you were referred to as a toe-cutter. I did not really understand what a toe-cutter was until someone described him as a person who used unnecessary force against another individual. In other words, one who pares a person’s nails back to his ankles. That title suits you. It does not rest fairly with me. To get back to the Bill before the Senate, I suggest that even at this late stage it would be far better to consider withdrawing this Bill, going back to the Prime Minister and suggesting to him that the best way to deal with the problem is to cut the Ministry by at least four.

Senator Sir REGINALD WRIGHT (Tasmania) (5.5)- The Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1978, which is before the Senate, makes provision for an increase of $23,000 in the amount payable to the Ministry. We are told that this will increase the amount which is available at the moment, which is $302,000, to $325,000. Of course, that Bill has to be read in the light of the fact that it relates to a special salary for Ministers over and above what Ministers receive by way of parliamentary allowances. It would be useful for the Parliament to know, when a Bill of this sort is introduced, what the total cost of the Ministry is, including both the parliamentary and the ministerial allowances as well as the other electoral allowances and the special ministerial allowances. I think that at the present time those allowances bring the total annual emolument for each Minister to between $38,000 and $45,000. We all recognise the tremendous demands made on Ministers.

The first thing I want to say is that at the Committee stage I should like to be informed of the increase in Ministers’ staffs over the relevant period. Within the past few days I have had before me a list which I think shows a fairly significant increase in the cost of ministerial staffs over this period. My second observation is that I have advocated that during this period of acute inflation and an attempt to restrain, the Remuneration Tribunal is under an urgent duty to keep parliamentary and ministerial allowances fixed. At any rate, we should index them at a rate no higher than the increases granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission during the same period. Last year the Government made a submission to the same effect. This year it has made a submission to the same effect. But as I understand this Bill, it seeks to provide for what the Remuneration Tribunal has provided during this interval, whereas I thought the last award provided no increase for ministerial allowances as such. I should have thought that from the point of view of the Ministers themselves such an exiguous amount might have been forgone as an indication that they are prepared to accept that degree of restraint.

Further, I suggest that there would be far more cohesion, far more effectiveness and far more confidence and strength if our Ministry were composed of 20 Ministers and no more and if they were all in the House of Representatives: and there should be 10 managers of business in the Senate to deal with this chamber’s business, with a confidential relationship between the representative Ministers and Senate managers. This should replace the present impossible situation which requires five Ministers, in addition to their primary responsibilities, to represent another 22 Ministers in another chamber. If we are to have the present system this chamber ought to have at least eight Ministers in a Ministry of 27 people. We have reached the stage where the compression to five Ministers in this chamber ought, I think, to excite this chamber to take into serious consideration the principle whereby the business of the Senate would be advantaged if all the Ministers who are responsible for Executive government were in the House of Representatives and the managers, who would be of equal status to the Ministers and would have the responsibility of managing the business of the Senate, were in a confidential relationship with the Ministry, but occupied that degree of independence which the Constitution requires all senators to occupy.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What would you call Ministers of State who had no actual portfolio?

Senator Sir REGINALD WRIGHT:

-I do not want to get into a discussion as to the nomenclature, Senator Mulvihill, interesting though it is. I am sorry to have to take the time of the Senate on this matter. I leave that thought with the Senate. I also leave the thought with the Ministry that in this period of requirement for restraint it is a pity to come forward with a piddling Bill like this that means nothing to individuals but gives the impression, ‘If the Remuneration Tribunal has awarded it, let’s have it’.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I hope I have not misunderstood what Senator Sir Reginald Wright was saying about this matter. I will give some statistics. Honourable senators will be able to follow them as I give them. In 1973-74 the extra allowances paid to one Prime Minister, one Deputy Prime Minister and 25 Cabinet Ministers amounted to $302,000. That is why that sum was fixed in the Bill. Exactly the same situation applied in 1974-75. The change came in 1975-76. I should perhaps overlook that year as there was a change of government. I just say that in 1975-76 the total sum expended was $270,500 as against $302,000 the previous year. In 1976 the Remuneration Tribunal recommended a structural change in ministerial allowances. Whereas under the previous Labor Government there had been 25 Ministers receiving extra allowances of $10,500 a year each, the Remuneration Tribunal recommended that the Treasurer ought to be paid $ 13,250, that the nine other Cabinet Ministers should receive $ 1 1,750 and that the allowances for the other 12 Ministers should remain at $10,500. The total amounted to $295,000.

The amount recommended by the Remuneration Tribunal in 1976 represented hardly a vast increase, even for the senior Ministers. The amount was still within the allocation of the Parliament. As honourable senators know, last year the number of Ministers was increased. The figure went from 24 to 25, and then to 27. In the current year, realising that no Minister has had an increase in allowances since the recommendation of 1976, because the number of Ministers went from 24 to 25 and finally to 27, the total cost will be $315,200. In a full year the allowances for the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer, together with the allowances of $11,750 for 11 other Ministers and the allowances of $10,500 for 13 other Ministers 27 Ministers- will cost us the total sum of $321,500. It was on the recommendation of the Department of Finance that the figure was rounded to $325,000. I do not think the Senate will argue about a few thousand dollars.

Senator Georges:

– That is neat arithmetic. It is good for accounting purposes.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is easier.

Senator Georges:

– I will do that with my income tax return.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am delighted that the Government pays Senator Georges enough money so that he can pay income tax. The Government is so generous that fewer and fewer people are paying income tax. I point out to Senator Sir Reginald Wright that the increase in the amount resulted solely from the increase in the number of Ministers. If this Bill is passed not one Minister will get a penny more than he has been receiving since the determination of the Remuneration Tribunal in mid- 1976.

Senator Georges:

– I did not say that.

Senator WITHERS:

-No. I think Senator Sir Reginald Wright was making some inquiries. That really is the explanation as to why this Bill has come about. If honourable senators are really interested in any of the statistical informationSenator Sir Reginald Wright may be- I would be prepared to have it incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to do so.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator WITHERS:

– As to the other matter raised by Senator Sir Reginald Wright in connection with the costs of ministerial staff, the ministerial staff levels were set in December 1975. I am trying to recall the numbers. Since that time I think only six Ministers have had an increase in staff numbers. I am one of them. That increase was an extra typist. I cannot give the figures as to the increases in costs. I will have to ask my Department to search through its records.

Senator Sir Reginald Wright:

– I thought figures were circulated a couple of days ago.

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I think Senator Sir Reginald Wright asked for some during the Estimates Committee hearings and officers of my Department said that they would supply them. Whilst staff numbers have not increased, or barely increased, I can well understand that costs have increased. After all, these people are paid at Public Service rates of pay. Their overtime is fixed either by award or by determination of independent tribunals. 1 do not think anybody would suggest that they ought not to be paid the proper rates of normal pay and the proper rates of overtime. Their travelling allowances are fixed by the Public Service Board, generally in consultation with the unions concerned. I do not know whether they are fixed by determination or regulation.

The other cost in relation to ministerial staff is the cost of travel whether it be air fares or otherwise. All I can say, in relation to travel by ministerial staff, is that a fairly rigid discipline is applied. I monitor that travel on a monthly basis and where I believe that a Minister is using too much staff travel, I ring him up about it. I think it is fair to say to Senator Sir Reginald Wright that the cost and the extent of travel by ministerial staff is far less now than it was not only during the time of the Whitlam Government but also during the time of the McMahon Government, the Gorton Government and the Holt Government. I think there would be ample statistics to prove that.

Other disciplines are applied to Ministers. Apart from their entitlement to travel between their home bases and Canberra for sittings of Parliament or Cabinet meetings, no Minister is allowed to travel with more than one staff member except where the Minister has a Press secretary in which case he can take the Press secretary also. If the Minister wishes to take another staff member, he must generally seek my approval and that is not easily forthcoming. The days of Ministers travelling around the country with a caravan of retainers and people dressed in livery are gone. I can assure Senator Sir Reginald Wright that the Government has imposed quite rigid disciplines on Ministers, on their staff and on their expenditures. I think he would find that most of the increase in what might be called in globo costs have been because of factors beyond the Government’s control. The Government does not determine wages, overtime, travelling allowance or costs of travel.

I thank Senator Georges for his suggestions. I will draw his remarks about Ministers to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). As to the suggestions made by Senator Sir Reginald Wright about the relationship of the Ministry with the two Houses of Parliament, I know that it is not only he who holds those views. Quite a number of my colleagues hold similar views. Even though Senator Sir Reginald Wright is leaving this place I am certain that the proposition which he has propounded this afternoon will not be forgotten amongst a lot of my colleagues and will still be promoted with the vigour with which Senator Sir Reginald Wright has promoted it during his time in this place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2727

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I bring up the third report from the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2728

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– The purpose of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, as stated in the second reading speech of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), is to provide for mining companies in the Alligator Rivers Region to retain their current rights on the ownership of and access to existing improvements constructed by them when the land on which the facilities have been erected becomes Aboriginal land. The Opposition is not opposing this Bill. It seems an eminently reasonable proposition. However, one must make the comment that the Bill seems rather unnecessary, particularly in the light of the comments that were made during the debate last evening when the Opposition tried without success to get some details and some specifics put into the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill. Perhaps a more disturbing feature is the apparent lack of faith of the Government in the Aboriginal people.

At this late hour I certainly shall not take the time of the Senate to discuss the fact that the tribal Aboriginal tends to keep faith. I have stressed this point often. It seems to me that the Government could simply have sought an undertaking from the Aboriginal people that the property belonging to the mining companies would remain theirs when the land becomes Aboriginal land. I am confident that the Aboriginal people would have given this undertaking and I am just as confident that the Aboriginal people would have been very happy for the mining companies to recover their property. As I understand the Bill and, I am sure, as the Aboriginal people understand it, it refers to buildings, property and so on at present on the land. If there is anything ulterior or–

Senator Withers:

– Sinister?

Senator ROBERTSON:

-Sinister, as the Leader of the Government says, in the Bill I cannot see it. I am not aware of it. I certainly have no legal background that would enable me to find it. The Aboriginal people believe that the Bill is straightforward and means what it says. In view of the Government’s preparedness to leave many things unsaid and unspecific in the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Bill, this

Bill seems unnecessary. If it is as simple as the second reading speech of the Minister for Science suggests, I shall speak no further on it. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government thanks the Opposition for its support of the Bill. As Senator Robertson said, it is a Bill to provide for mining companies in the Alligator Rivers Region to retain their current rights of ownership of and access to existing improvements constructed by them when the land on which the facilities have been erected becomes Aboriginal land. Other comments that were made by Senator Robertson are in the spirit of the Bill. We are grateful for the acceptance of the Bill by the Opposition. We wish it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2728

TASMANIA GRANT (THE MOUNT LYELL MINING AND RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This legislation provides for continuing assistance to the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd. which is situated in Queenstown on the west coast of Tasmania. It is an interim arrangement which was entered into between the present Government and the Tasmanian Government because of the financial difficulties which the company has been experiencing as a result of the downturn in world copper prices. This matter was the subject of a lengthy debate in the Senate last year. The Senate appointed a committee to look into the matter and see what recommendations could bc made. As the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) pointed out in her second reading speech, the Government last year legislated to allow payment to Tasmania of up to half the amount paid by the Tasmanian Government to the Mount Lyell company. The Government provided this assistance to Tasmania pending consideration of the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on copper. This legislation provides for assistance to 30 June this year pending the final report of the Commission. The two governments entered into a temporary agreement after the interim report on the basis that I have just outlined.

I make one observation about earlier events in the continuing problem of the copper industry. It is, of course, the principal industry in Queenstown. Should the industry fold, obviously that area of the west coast will suffer very greatly. Arguments have been put forward on so many occasions that if that were to happen there would be a significant loss of income, not only to people of the west coast but also to the tax man. There would be a significant increase in outgoings in the payment of social security benefits, unemployment benefit and so on. All those factors weighed together meant that both governments recognised the need to afford the assistance to the company until such time as the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission was available.

I take the opportunity of correcting a statement that was made in the House of Representatives on 6 April by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He indicated that the Tasmanian Government had become sick of the arrangement- that is how he described itwhereby the two governments were jointly underwriting the support scheme. The fact is that the Tasmanian Government undertook to provide to the company its payroll tax, which amounted to almost $500,000 a year. It is ludicrous to think that any State government would be in a position to maintain the sort of support that the Tasmanian Government was prepared to give. I cannot speak for the Tasmanian Government, of course, but I imagine that it is still prepared to afford assistance in some form. I draw attention to the fact that, during the course of his comments, Mr Fraser, when speaking about the Acting Premier of Tasmania, Mr Batt, said:

I believe that Mr Batt should look at his own record and at his own Government’s record and occasionally speak the truth.

Mr Fraser was of course, by implication, calling Mr Batt a liar. Unfortunately, this resulted in some rather sharp exchanges. Mr Batt was the subject of some criticism because he, in turn, accused Mr Fraser of being a liar. I put it on record that if indeed Mr Batt called the Prime Minister a liar he did so with some provocation because, as I have just indicated, he had been described in those terms by the Prime Minister. That is just an unfortunate side episode of this matter. The substance of this Bill, of course, is much more important.

I should like to give the current position. The final report of the Industries Assistance Commission was made available to this Government two months ago. The Acting Premier of Tasmania, Mr Batt, came to Canberra a fortnight ago to discuss the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, who is now Acting Prime Minister. He sought from Mr Anthony the Federal Government’s position in respect of continuing support for the Queenstown mine. It seems that Mr Anthony then suggested to Mr Batt that the Tasmanian Government should approach the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd for the purpose of providing a joint proposal to the Federal Government on a program of continuing support. At the same time, the release of the contents of the IAC report was refused. I put it to the Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) yesterday that he should stress the urgency of this matter to Mr Anthony. I put it to the Senate that it is quite unreasonable to expect the Tasmanian Government or indeed the Mount Lyell company to come up with any proposals when neither knows the contents of the IAC report. That is presumably what was expected of either. I again stress to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) that she should use her good offices to convince the Government that that report ought to be made available almost immediately.

Only today, the company has indicated by means of a circular, I understand, to its employees that it does not consider the prospect of remaining in operation in Queenstown as being very good. But at the same time the circular also states that if the position of the Mount Lyell company can be maintained for the next couple of years- that is, the support arrangements- with the possible return of better prices on the world copper market the Queenstown mine could again become viable. Therefore, it is essential that immediate steps be taken by this government in co-operation with the Tasmanian Government, to ensure that a proposal can bc worked out which will tide over this company on the west coast which has problems. Most members of this Parliament would know that Queenstown is a most remote part of our country. It is a very wild and rugged place. There are very few opportunities for any form of employment or activity apart from the mining industry. The continued existence of this mine is central to the continued existence of Queenstown as we know it now. I ask the Minister whether she will indicate also to her colleague, the Acting Prime Minister, that steps ought to be taken as quickly as possible.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– in reply- What has been said by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt, broadly outlines the background of the Bill which we are now considering. This Bill seeks parliamentary authority for the intended basis of the Commonwealth’s assistance for the second Commonwealth-Tasmania agreement concerning the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited. As a background, I should say that on 15 August 1977 the Government announced that in order to assist the continued operations of the Mount Lyell mine the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments had agreed to meet, on a dollar for dollar basis, the mines cash deficit until the Commonwealth announced its decision on the interim report of the Industries Assistance Commission on copper. Parliament had made provision for effecting such an agreement in the Tasmania Grant (The Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Limited) Act 1977 which permitted the payment by the Commonwealth to Tasmania of up to onehalf of Tasmania ‘s payments in respect of the Mount Lyell mine.

On 8 November last year the Government announced that it had accepted the interim recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission that short term financial assistance to Mount Lyell be continued, and the Government sought Tasmania’s participation in a second agreement for the period from 9 November 1977. However, Tasmania indicated that it was unable to continue to provide assistance on a dollar for dollar basis. To reduce the likelihood of the mine’s closure the Commonwealth Government on 1 1 November 1977 agreed that it would provide to Tasmania the entire assistance which Tasmania grants to Mount Lyell to cover the mine’s cash deficit, less the amount of payroll tax Tasmania would collect from Mount Lyell in the period. As Senator Wriedt has said, the Tasmanian Government did forego the payroll tax it would have collected. I understand that it would have collected an amount of $475,000 from the Mount Lyell Company in a full year. That is the contribution that was made by the Tasmanian Government to assist the mine.

As Senator Wriedt has said, the final report of the Industries Assistance Commission has been received. I understand that it was received by the Government about the beginning of May. That report is at present under consideration by the Government, lt is hoped that the decision on the report will be made by about 30 June this year. It is for that reason that we require the Bill at this stage. It provides assistance and puts into legislative form the arrangements that were made up to 30 June. The Government is sure that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, given the very difficult circumstances of the Mount Lyell Co. I share Senator Wriedt ‘s concern about the difficulties that will be experienced in this area of Tasmania if some solutions are not reached with regard to the permanent support and continuation of the mine.

Senator Wriedt:

– Can you tell us why the Government will not make the report available to the Tasmanian Government? Can we get an answer on that, perhaps in the Committee stage?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am advised that final reports are confidential until a government has made a decision on them. If a draft report is received it can be subjected to examination, but when a final report is received from the Commission, it is a confidential report until the Government makes a decision on it. This is not a departure from the usual practice.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I rise to respond briefly to the answer given by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). Of course Industries Assistance Commission reports are confidential to the Government. That is the normal procedure. But there is nothing preventing the Government from making the report available in special circumstances, and surely these are special circumstances. The Government has requested a State government to take certain action, and everyone who has followed this case knows full well that the Tasmanian Government and the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd can hardly be expected to come up with a proposal to the Federal Government unless it knows what is in the report. Surely these are special circumstances in which the report can be made available to the Tasmanian Government. I do not know why the Federal Government should get so hung up on procedures and perhaps on advice from its bureaucracy that because we have always done it this way we will always continue to do it this way. I put that point to the Minister. I am not going to debate the matter at length. This seems to me to be an obvious and logical way to deal with it.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I do not wish to debate the matter at length either, but I say to Senator Wriedt that the Industries Assistance Commission report is on the whole copper industry and not just the particular mine about which we are talking. The usual practice is that a final report on an industry is confidential until a decision is made by government. If this were a report that related only to the agreement that was attempted to be reached between the two governments concerned that might have been a special circumstance. But the final report from the Commission on the copper industry is one which is regarded by the Government as a report that should be confidential until the Government’s decision is made.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2731

STATES (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 1 1 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

- Mr Deputy President, may I suggest that, with the concurrence of honourable senators, there be a cognate debate on these two Bills and the Income Tax (Arrangements with the States) Bill 1978. This is purely a procedural matter.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is it the wish of the Senate that that course be followed? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I rise to speak in particular on the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1978 and the Income Tax (Arrangements with the States) Bill 1978. 1 shall exclude the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1978 for the time being because the other two Bills are much more important, although the third Bill is included in this cognate debate. The first two Bills that I have mentioned represent what is the most central part of this Government’s economic policy, namely, the new federalism policy of which we have heard quite a lot in this Parliament, but the effects of which have not yet become fully apparent to the Australian people. The Bills have three purposes: First, to provide for the tax sharing entitlements of the States for 1977-78; secondly, to establish a formula for those entitlements in future years; and thirdly, to provide for periodical reviews of the relative proportion of the total States ‘ share of income tax revenue to be paid to each State.

The history of these Bills goes back to late 1975 when the Liberal Party, which was then in Opposition, advised during the general election campaign of that year that if it were elected to office it would introduce the new federalism policy and that that policy would mean that the States would be given the power to introduce a State income tax. It also meant that the States would be given a guaranteed share of the personal income tax collections of the Commonwealth. I shall deal first with the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. In 1976 the Commonwealth agreed with the States that under this arrangement the States would receive 33.6 per cent of the tax collected by the Commonwealth. At that time we were told, and repeatedly so by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) who was the architect of this policy, that this would be a most generous deal for all the States; they would do better under this arrangement than they had ever done under any previous government, in particular, the Whitlam Government.

In order to satisfy those States which still had reservations about the percentage share they were to receive, it was agreed that what was known as the Whitlam formula would apply as a guaranteed minimum payment. That is, under the new tax sharing arrangements in which the States received 33.6 per cent of the total personal income tax receipts, the payments to the States would not fall below the amounts they would have received had the so-called Whitlam formula still operated. That was a different method of arriving at a figure. Nevertheless, the Fraser Government undertook to ensure that the States would receive no less than they had been receiving under the Labor Government.

It is quite obvious that at that time neither the Minister for Education nor the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) imagined for one moment that they would need to invoke the provisions of the Whitlam formula. They were so convinced that this policy would work that they said to the States: ‘By getting your 33.6 per cent of personal income tax receipts, you will be doing better. You can be assured that when we get inflation down and when we get everybody a job again income tax collections will be so good that you can forget about the Whitlam formula; it won’t be needed anymore’. What happened? Within 12 months five of the six States had to fall back on the Whitlam formula- I repeat, five of the six States- because this 33.6 per cent formula was not working. The States had to get together again last year and the Premiers of all the States objected very strongly to the situation. None of them anticipated that the new scheme would start to go wrong so quickly. They agreed with the Commonwealth then that the percentage be increased to 39.87 per cent. This would bring payments to the States in the current financial year to $4,336. The percentage at which they arrived still applies. This legislation is designed to increase that percentage.

Prior to that it was agreed that the Whitlam formula would apply only until 1980. Of course, the trap in these tax sharing arrangements is that the amount paid to the States depends on how the economy is going. If the economy goes bad, unemployment increases, personal tax collections fall below the level anticipated and the States receive progressively less money, depending on the level of tax collections. Of course, the States are held to this figure of 39.87 per cent. When the guarantee arrangements run out in 1980, goodness knows what might be in store for the States. On the face of it they will be in a very difficult position. However, I will not try to predict at this stage what might happen in 1 980.

At the Premiers Conference in February 1976 the Prime Minister suggested that a review of relativities be carried out by an independent body. He wanted that body to be the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The relativities between the States is important in this whole arrangement. The States were opposed to a review by the Grants Commission. They wanted it to be carried out by an independent body. Initially they wanted the Premiers Conference to do it. Finally, the Commonwealth and States reached agreement. This Bill and the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill bring into existence an independent body which is a mixture of the Grants Commission and certain persons nominated by the States to review those relativities. All these areas have proven to be very grey areas indeed. At no time was it ever imagined that stage 1 of the tax sharing arrangements would not work. At least it was not imagined by the Government- ceratinly not by Senator Carrick- although many honourable senators on this side of the House warned time and again that this system of payments to the States would get the States into trouble. We have listened on many occasions to the argument put forward by the Minister for Education that the States are doing better now than they were doing under the Labor Government. We have been through this argument on so many occasions.

It is important to realise that these tax sharing arrangements apply only to general revenue grants, which are only about 45 per cent of the total payments to the States. As the Minister said in answer to a question from me a fortnight ago, if we want to know what is the true position we should look at page 7 of Budget Statement No. 7. If we look there we find the sort of deal that the States have been receiving under the new federalism policy. Let me go through the figures again. In the first year of the Labor Government the States received an increase of 2 1 per cent in their total payments. That is something which the Federal member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) in the other place finally got into his head a fortnight ago. In a discussion which I had with him in Hobart it appeared that he did not understand that we were talking about total payments. He is like the Minister; I think that he has always been trying to avoid admitting the fact, or else he did not know it, that in the first year of the Labor Government we increased those payments by 2 1 per cent; in the second year we increased them by 53 per cent; in the third year we increased them by 32 per cent. These payments were for State government projects in the fields of education, health, roads, hospitals and so on.

Then in the first year of the new federalism policy the payments took a sudden and dramatic drop to 9 per cent, then another drop this year to 9 per cent. So, taking the figures from the Government’s own Budget Papers, we have seen an average increase in total payments to the States of 9 per cent in the first two years of federalism policy. That means that there has been a very direct squeeze on State finances. One wonders whether the Minister himself knows exactly what this matter is all about. I might mention that the introduction of the State income tax is what is known as stage 2 of the federalism policy. The policy is designed to pass the buck to the States on tax collections, to say to the States: We are sick of collecting taxes. You will have to do your own dirty work from here on.’ The Hobart Mercury put it very well the other day when it made just that point.

Stage 2 means, according to the Income Tax (Arrangements with the States) Bill, that the States will now have the power to introduce a State income tax if they so desire or they can give a rebate if they so desire. The Minister continues to tell us that the legislation does not force the

States to do anything. It is quite true. The legislation cannot force the States to do it. But the Government uses a back door method. It squeezes the States of funds and then says: ‘You can go on being squeezed and have less and less money, or else you can introduce a State income tax. That is the option in front of you.’ On 20 April 1977 1 asked the Minister:

  1. . does he agree that stage 2 is, in fact, an essential part of the Government’s new federalism policy?

In reply he said:

That part of stage 2 of the federalism policy which provides a facility for States to use a surcharge -

That means the same thing as a tax- or rebate if they wish is not essential and not fundamental to the total working of federalism.

Subsequently, on 7 June this year, I asked him what the Government means by full implementation of the new federalism. I asked whether that includes legislation to implement stage 2 of the income tax arrangements with the States. His reply seems to be a complete negation of his first reply. He said:

As I understand it the question is: What does the Government mean by full implementation? Yes, It certainly does mean the implementation of stage 2, amongst many other things.

During his reply perhaps the Minister will clarify for us just what he means. In the first case he was saying that the implementation of stage 2- that is, the income tax arrangements with the States- is not essential to the new federalism policy, but on the second occasion he says that it is essential. He is the architect, he is the genius who dreamed up this scheme in 1975, so if he can give us an understanding of just what he intends to do and what the States are supposed to do in respect of this legislation, I would be most interested to hear it.

I know we are short of time this evening and we still have a lot of legislation to deal with tonight. Therefore I will not say much more on this issue, but I want to close with one or two remarks. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was challenged to say whether this legislation would be introduced if he were re-elected. Of course he did not take up the challenge; neither did Senator Carrick. But both of them had the opportunity to do so. At no stage did they say that if their Government were re-elected it would bring in legislation to enable the States to introduce a State income tax. That is why it is wrong for this legislation to be put through this Parliament in the dying hours of this session. There has been ample opportunity to bring it in so that it could have been debated at length. It will be .impossible to deal with many aspects of its clauses at the Committee stage, because of the time factor.

Ample opportunity was given to the Prime Minister to tell the Australian people that the States would be given the power to introduce a State income tax. Here is it. This legislation will be passed tonight. Then the States, one by one, will be expected to introduce legislation into their parliaments for an additional income tax to be levied on the people who live in those States over and above the Commonwealth income tax. That is what the new federalism is. The Federal Government is just passing the buck back to the States; it is making itself look good at the Federal level by reducing taxation. But at the same time, because it has reduced its revenue, it is impossible for the Government to maintain the level of payments to the States and equally impossible for the States to maintain their services. The whole idea of this legislation it to make the situation such that the States have no option.

That is where the force is applied. It is not applied in the legislation; but it is applied in the manner in which the States will have their finances screwed more and more. They will find it increasingly difficult to provide the services that the people have expected of them over the years. I do not know what will happen. I do not know which State will be the first to crack. Will it be Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s or Sir Charles Court’s State? Mr Wran has said that he will not have a bar of introducing a State income tax; the Tasmanian Premier has said the same; Mr Dunstan, the South Australian Premier, has also said the same. Mr Hamer, the Liberal’ Premier of Victoria, three weeks ago made a statement in which he said that he would not have a bar of introducing a State income tax. Sir Charles Court is the only Premier who has indicated that he would be prepared to legislate, but he has not said that he would introduce a tax. As for Mr BjelkePetersen, nobody would know at any time what he would do. Of the five Premiers from whom one could expect some measure of responsibility, four have stated quite clearly that they will have nothing to do with the introduction of a State income tax.

I take my hat off to them if they can continue to operate their State finances on the basis of the assistance that they are receiving from this Government. 1 do not care whether they are Labor Premiers or Liberal Premiers, they will be pretty good operators. That is the scenario that we face. I have no doubt that the crunch will come in the next year or two when the full effect of this continuing squeeze on State finances will be felt. I will be amazed if any State is prepared to go on with it. We will see eventually that this Government will be compelled to back away from the policies on which it has embarked. I move:

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– in reply- The Senate is debating conjointly three Bills which are part of an overall program for the continuous implementation of what is known as the federalism program of the Federal Government. To understand the three Bills one must understand the basis of the program. Fundamental to the program is the principle that the States should have direct and defined access to a major growth tax so that each year they may be able to predict what their revenue shall be. That growth tax should be such that the revenue of the States should grow in parallel with the revenue of the Commonwealth. This arrangement has been the express wish of all Premiers. Indeed, it has had the advocacy of Labor Premiers. The result is that the Commonwealth Government decided that the States should be given a fixed percentage of personal income tax. The States, against the advice of the Commonwealth, agreed that the percentage should be calculated on the current year. The Commonwealth had said that there would be more predictability in taking the previous year for the purpose of the calculation. In fact, one of these Bills undertakes to carry out what the Premiers now seek and that is to relate the fixed percentage to the previous year. It therefore transposes an amount of $4,336m into a percentage of 39.87 for the future.

It is vitally important to the States that they should have a certainty of linkage. The Opposition spokesman, Senator Wriedt, talked about the fact that there had not been the buoyancy of the personal income tax revenue that perhaps some may have anticipated. However, he failed to note the capacity of the Commonwealth, not only to provide this kind of money to the States but also to pass more than $ 1 ,000m in tax cuts to the people of Australia and to index taxation. Therefore, it is significant that this Government has achieved this result against a background of high taxation under the previous Government, and has achieved it so that the States may reduce their own taxes. The legislation basically fixes an amount of $4,336m and defines it as a fixed percentage of 39.87 for the future. It also indicates that there will be regular reviews by a reviewing body of the relativities between the States. I would have thought that no one could find that objectionable in any way.

The second Bill- the Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill- amends the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act to provide for the reviewing body. The Grants Commission has had a magnificent record of achievement. Its reports have been adopted without exception by every government in Australia. The States believed that in addition to the Grants Commission there should be a number of associate commissioners because representatives of both the larger States in terms of population and the less populous States should sit on the Commission. This arrangement has been agreed upon.

The third Bill- the Income Tax (Arrangements with the States) Bill- enables stage 2 of federalism to be developed. I point out that apart from agreeing to the States’ requests that their untied revenue should grow at the same rate as that of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth has always believed, in terms of our Liberal philosophy, that governments that spend taxpayers ‘ money and make decisions on how that money should be spent, should have a significant responsibility in raising that money. That is fundamental to all Liberal philosophy but apparently is diametrically opposed to socialist philosophy and is opposed by the Labor Party. The Commonwealth in its federalism policy has gone as far as to ensure that printed on the tax assessment forms now received by taxpayers is an indication of not only the quantum of their total tax but also of how the spending of that tax is broken up between the Commonwealth, State and local governments.

Also fundamental to the understanding of this matter is the realisation, which few people have in Australia, that the States are not small spenders or starved mendicants with begging bowls but that the States and local government together spend 52 per cent of public moneys. In fact the Commonwealth is the minority spender of public funds. The States have always been very big tax gatherers in terms of both indirect taxes and charges. Indeed under the Whitlam regime they were forced to impose these taxes in a very heavy way. The Commonwealth wants to insist that all governments, Commonwealth and State, should be exposed to the community and to the taxpayer by way of responsibility for decision-making. They should have a flexibility of funds so that they can decide whether to spend money on one policy or another and should also be accountable to the public. I would have thought they were eminently respectable principles. I repeat that the States are very big taxers and very big leviers and chargers of fees.

What the Commonwealth has done has been to indicate that if any State desired to change the amount of personal income tax collected or received by it through the tax-sharing scheme it would be able to do so. I stress that this action would be utterly voluntary; there would be no compulsion and no pressure at all from the Commonwealth. So the third Bill before us provides that a State may if it so desires either vary the amount of personal income tax that it receives either by lowering the amount of taxation and therefore providing a stimulus to the State or by imposing a surcharge and taking full responsibility and odium for so doing. That is an entirely voluntary matter.

The Leader of the Opposition (Sentor Wriedt) has indicated that he and his party totally oppose federalism; the amendment that he has moved proposes to reject it. I think that is fascinating because it must mean that any future Labor Government would aim to reject this concept and return to the centralisation, patronage and wastefulness of the Whitlam Government. Of course we on the Government side would totally oppose that. I repeat that the test of whether this program is working depends on two factors; firstly, that all States which under the Whitlam Government were heavily involved in deficits and high taxes have under this Government been more than able to balance their Budgets, make massive cuts in taxes and indeed, introduce new programs. Secondly, local government, which under the Whitlam Government put up its rates by as much as 30 per cent in order to have basic programs carried out, has been able to abate its rates and to widen its programs. So the success of our program is demonstrable. I do not wish to delay the Senate. I commend the three Bills to the Senate and indicate that the Government rejects the proposed amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2735

INCOME TAX (ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE STATES) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Before the sitting of the Senate was suspended for dinner, and during the course of the cognate second reading debate on this Bill and the two previous Bills, I asked the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to clarify answers he had given to questions that I had put to him on 20 April and 7 June. He has not done so. I ask him again whether he will advise the Committee whether stage 2- as embodied in this Bill- is an essential part of the federalism policy. Does he regard the implementation of stage 2- as he expressed it on 7 June- as a necessary component of the full implementation of the policy? I pointed out then that we had had two answers from him which, as I read them, were directly contradictory: One, on 20 April, saying no; and one on 7 June, saying yes. I would also express, as a general observation, my very strong objection to a Bill of this complexity being introduced in the dying hours of this session. I know that I would win no bouquets if at this point I were to go into the many matters in the clauses of the Bill with which I would like to deal; I have several pages of questions, prepared on the assumption that there would be adequate time to go through the measure clause by clause. However, to do so would probably occupy four or five hours of the Committee’s time. I fear that the constrictions of time prevents my pursuing those questions. I shall, however, make one or two general observations about the clauses of the Bill and will then put a specific question to the Minister.

One important thing emerges when one reads the Bill, which, of course, was introduced in 1977. There has been a subsequent Bill. Essentially they are the same. Right through the Bill, the Federal Treasurer lays down the laws about what the States will do. We have heard a great deal of rhetoric from the Minister for Education over the last couple of years about the rights of the States and how this legislation is based on cooperative federalism or the new federalism, as he calls it. But, in fact, in every clause of the Bill the

States are told what they will do. For example, it is stated in clause 7:

The State income tax law shall provide -

The Commonwealth lays down the law. This is what .is stated in the legislation introduced by this Government which says that it does not run everything from Canberra and that it is not a centralist government. It says that it does’ everything in co-operation with the States. It is stated further on in the same clause that any tax ‘shall be so imposed ‘. Clause 8 states that the State income tax law shall, subject to certain things, do this and do that. Clauses 9, 10 and 12 are the same. Indeed, in every step of this legislation the Commonwealth has kept complete and absolute control over this whole program. The Minister cannot deny that. If this whole arrangement for stage 2- that is, the introduction of a State income tax- is such an act of co-operation with the States, one would have thought that there would have been sufficient latitude and flexibility to allow the States to do certain things.

For example, the States will be required to introduce legislation in order to implement the State income tax. The State bureaucracies are not now conversant with the extremely complicated provisions of the income tax laws of the Commonwealth. Has there been discussion with the States as to how they will enact that legislation? Have they been advised that the services of the Commonwealth will be made available to them? Are all of the States required to introduce uniform legislation? Is that another provision whereby the Federal Government will say: ‘You will introduce legislation of a nature which only we will approve’? Under clause 4 the Federal Treasurer will determine what is a participating State and what is a supporting State. There is no flexibility. The Treasurer may revoke any decision by simply publishing in the Australian Government Gazette a notice that a State is no longer a participating State under this program.

I am only touching the surface of these issues. Anyone who has studied this legislation will know that it is an administrative nightmare. I predict tonight that the States will find themselves in an absolute jungle trying to interpret what these clauses mean and trying to bring this whole program into effect, assuming, of course, that there is a State Premier who is politically game to go ahead and introduce the State income tax that is required under this Bill. It is interesting to note that clause 15 (2) states:

The law of the State shall contain a provision assigning to the Commonwealth the right to receive payments of, and to recover, any amounts that an employer deducts, or is required to deduct, from salary or wages of an employee in accordance with the provisions of that law referred to in subsection ( 1 ).

Perhaps the Minister can tell us what are the legal implications of that provision. It is stated that the State shall assign to the Commonwealth the right to receive payments. That statement appears on more than one occasion in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister can give us an indication of the legal implications of that statement. Has the Federal Attorney-General (Senator Durack) discussed the legal implications of that clause with the State Attorneys-General. I submit that there are tremendous implications contained in that clause. The Commonwealth Government- this Government that is so kind to the States-collects these taxes. The position of a wage earner is outlined in Division 2. The details of the liability to pay a State income tax are spelt out in the clauses in this Division. Virtually they provide that a person employed by a company or a Commonwealth instrumentality will be subject to this additional income tax. The Commonwealth will collect it for the State. But the Commonwealth will charge each State the administrative cost of collecting it. I cannot imagine a more mean approach than for the Commonwealth to say to the States: ‘We are going to do this great thing for you, but we are going to make you pay the administrative costs involved’. It is a pity. I do not suppose it will concern us all that much because, irrespective of what I or other Opposition speakers may say tonight, this legislation will be passed. Let the Commonwealth Government find out for itself the morass of administrative difficulties that it will get into and embroil those States that are unfortunate enough to allow themselves to become involved.

My final question specifically concerns clause 76(5) which refers to equalisation assistance. We have been told that the smaller States, such as Tasmania, will receive equalisation payments through the Grants Commission if in fact they find that they are not able to maintain the standards applying in other States such as New South Wales and Victoria. I ask the Minister: Is there any limit on equalisation payments made to a State under this legislation? I refrain from using Tasmania as an example because in that State there is complete opposition to this proposal. However, in Western Australia Sir Charles Court has said that he will enact the legislation but he will reserve his judgment whether he implements it. Let us assume that he does implement the legislation. Let us assume that he raises State taxes by S 1 and the State receives an equalisation payment of 10c or 15c to maintain relativity with the standard States.

I ask the Minister: Is there any limit on the amount of tax which the State Government in Western Australia could impose and at the same time reduce the level of indirect taxation? I point out that it has been argued that, under the proposed arrangements, the States could opt out of indirect taxation and they could replace it with a direct tax and for every $ 1 which they raise by direct taxation they will receive what in fact amounts to a subsidy from the Commonwealth. I ask the Minister whether that is the intention of clause 76.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– At the outset, let me respond to the statement by Senator Wriedt that he regrets that he has not the time to deal adequately with this Bill. Much of the blame for the time that may have been lost must lie in the Opposition’s hands. In recent days, the Opposition has sought by a series of motions to take over for many hours the business of the Senate. It had a perfect right to do that.

Senator Wriedt:

– In what way?

Senator CARRICK:

– By moving motions, by proposing for discussion matters of public importance and so forth to occupy the time of the Senate. The Opposition must understand that if it takes those steps it limits the length of time with which to deal with other business. It is a common practice of Oppositions to say in the closing hours of a session that the Government is denying the Opposition time. All honourable senators and the community will know that this Senate has been sitting five days a week recently and certainly four days a week for some time. It has been sitting very long hours so as to allow the business to be dealt with; and nobody has gagged the Opposition. Nobody has denied the Opposition time for debate. The Opposition itself has by the length of speeches from its supporters and by the introduction of motions decided very much how it wanted the time deployed. I think this must be one of the longest sessions ever. I think it is important that this should go on the record. People who hear Senator Wriedt must understand that he speaks from the Labor Party point of view, with an implacable dislike of the independence of State governments. In fact Mr Whitlam in many written and spoken addresses talked of the desire to destroy the States.

Senator Wriedt:

– Talk about the Bill. Do not go back three years. Talk about the Bill in front of us.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Leader of the Opposition does not wish the community of Australia to understand his motivation. The fact is that it is humbug for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the freedom of the States when the Whitlam Labor Government aimed to destroy the States and their total freedom. Senator Wriedt kept talking about the Bill imposing conditions. What it will do is simply this: No State, in any way, will be influenced to allow a rebate to impose a surcharge. If a State wants the Commonwealth to act as its agent to do either- that is, to allow a rebate or to collect a surcharge- this Bill contains the rules at law which are necessary to enable the Commonwealth to have that role. These roles have been talked out by the law officers. The Bills have been sent to the States. Discussions have been held at Federal and State levels. The States will not be told what they will do. The Bill merely sets out conditions which a State income tax law must meet for the tax to be collected by the Commissioner of Taxation. That is quite fundamental. I shall not waste the time of the Senate explaining that matter further.

I think Senator Wriedt asked a specific question at the end of his speech. If I understand his question, I should respond to it by pointing out that the points of understanding between the Commonwealth and the State governments in relation to State income tax surcharges under stage 2 of the income tax sharing arrangements include the following: Equalisation arrangements will be made so that the less populous States will be enabled to obtain the same relative advantage from a surcharge as will the States with a broader tax base. The Grants Commission will be responsible for assessing amounts payable under these arrangements. The basis of assessment of equalisation assistance to the less populous States in regard to the yield of State surcharges levied under stage 2 will be that supplementary assistance will be provided by a less populous State levying a surcharge to bring the per capita yield from the surcharge up to the average per capita amount which would be yielded if New South Wales and Victoria levied a surcharge on the same basis. The assessment will be independent of any examination of the overall financial position of the State concerned with regard to other States. Under these equalisation arrangements a State other than New South Wales or Victoria technically could substitute an income tax surcharge- that is a direct tax- for some part of its present taxes, the bulk of which could be regarded as indirect taxes, and receive an equalisation grant from the Commonwealth in relation to the surcharge. Time does not permit me to elaborate further.

Senator Wriedt:

asked me to clarify an apparent anomaly between two of my responses as to whether this Bill, as stage 2, is essential to the working of federalism as a whole. Quite clearly, because a State need not adopt the facilities of the Bill, the legislation is not essential. But to the extent that it offers to the States a new armoury by way of incentive- that is by way of rebate or surcharge- it is useful. The real basis of federalism is much wider. It will come, as it is coming now, through the sharing and division of powers -as is the case with respect to the seas and submerged lands legislation- in co-operation with the States. Fundamentally, the division between the Fraser Government and the Labor Party is simply this: The Fraser Government believes in State government and local government. It believes that they should be free to make their own decisions. They should be responsible and should have flexible incomes. On the other hand, the Labor Party, as has been enunciated in its policies of the past, wants to have one allpowerful central government with puppets to do what they are told. Therefore, what we are doing now is anathema to the Labor Party. The very centralism which Senator Wriedt now advocates led to the destruction of the Labor Party in 1 975.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I was hoping that we would have had something fresh from the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) instead of the rhetorical claptrap about centralism which we have listened to for the last two years. I do not think the public is interested in what happened three years ago. It is interested in this Bill, and that is what we are talking about tonight. It is up to the Minister to explain the provisions of the Bill. As I said earlier in the debate, the Minister is the architect of the legislation.

Senator Carrick:

– You asked the question and you got the answer in detail.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I did not get the answer. I ask the Minister again: Will the implementation of this legislation mean the full implementation of the new federalism? The Minister has not answered that question. He has gone around it, as he always has done. I put it to him again, in the simplest terms: Will the Minister regard his new federalism policy as being fully implemented if no State implements stage 2- that is, this Bill? I say in passing that I was under the impression, and was hoping, that the Senate would be meeting next week because then we would have had the chance to debate this legislation. I am not suggesting that we have been denied the right to discuss matters of public importance and to debate Bills that have been brought into the chamber; I am simply saying that tonight it is legislation by exhaustion, as the

Minister well knows, and that the Senate will rise tonight until August no matter what we say or do.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Most of your side has got up.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I do not intend to individualise. People have gone from both sides of this chamber. I submit that this is an important piece of legislation. I know that it is difficult and complex legislation. Ii is not the sort of thing that grabs the public. But every Australian will be affected by this legislation in a manner in which they are probably not affected by the majority of other legislation that goes through the Parliament.

I come back to the points of understanding to which the Minister refers and which are set out at the beginning of Budget Paper No. 7. He said in his reply that the States theoretically or technically could in fact reduce their indirect taxation and replace it by means of this State income tax. I think he used the words: ‘They could replace some part of it’. ‘Some part’ is hardly good enough. The Minister, who has been involved in the drawing up of this legislation and everything associated with it now for three years, ought to be able to answer that simple question. Can what is commonly known as a mendicant State under the stage 2 arrangements in fact replace all its indirect taxation by direct income tax and receive the equalisation payments from the Commonwealth?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I make it perfectly clear to the Senate and to the people of Australia that Senator Wriedt at no time in recent days or recent weeks ever indicated to the Government the desire of the Labor Opposition in this chamber to sit next week. The contrary is true. I have been involved in discussions with those who represent him, and all have indicated that the desire of the Party he leads is to finish tonight and to finish early. It is absolute arrant humbug to come here tonight and make that pretence. The hours that he is now saying he is seeking for debate are the hours which he chose to deploy for other purposes throughout this week and the weeks before. I say that emphatically. I make two points.

Senator Georges:

– You have just started a nice little argument which will keep us going for at least another half an hour.

Senator CARRICK:

– It is a simple situation. I am responding to an assertion by the Leader of the Labor Party in the Senate. If anyone is starting it -

Senator Georges:

– In the circumstances I think it is extraordinary.

Senator CARRICK:

-Well, I do too, but Senator Wriedt is your leader. I do not accept the responsibility. I respond to the two questions asked. Firstly I was asked whether, if no State implemented the tax situation by way of rebate or surcharge, the implementation of full federalism would be limited. The answer is no. The armoury is there. It is available for use if the States want to use it. They need not use it if they do not want to. As to the remainder of the answer regarding surcharges or rebates, I repeat the points of understanding. The level of any State surcharges or rebates will be a matter for consideration by each State. Relevant decisions will be taken within an appropriate framework of consultation with the Commonwealth and as considered appropriate by the surcharging or rebating State and the other States, but ultimately the level of surcharge or rebate will be a decision for each individual State. In exercising these powers the States will accept responsibility to work in parallel with and not in negation of the overall economic management of the Commonwealth. It will obviously be a matter for concern by the Commonwealth requiring a reassessment of its position were the States to consider replacement of existing State taxes with income tax surcharges on any extensive scale. Furthermore, in accordance with the points of understanding, the Commonwealth would need to consider what action it should take if the States were to adopt policies that were not in parallel with the overall economic management policies of the Commonwealth. Those points have been stated and printed before. They are well understood.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Mr Chairman, I feel obliged to respond to certain remarks that have been made in the Committee stage of the debate on this Bill and seek your indulgence to do so now, otherwise I will have to do so in the third reading stage. It will take the same amount of time. I need to make it clear in support of my leader that neither my leader nor my party at any time came to any formal agreement that we would finish at any particular time. The Whips in this place have a responsibility to ensure that senators are not driven to a point of exhaustion which will interfere and has interfered with their health. The Whips make a judgment, discuss the matter and make some sort of calculation. It is not a firm commitment; it is an understanding. If a senator on this side or the other side of the chamber happens to have a different view about how we should proceed, he is entitled to do so. If necessary, he is entitled to take the amount of time he requires to debate the legislation fully. Neither Whip has imposed any limitation on any senator during the past week. There have been some situations in which Government supporters have been in conflict with each other.

The CHAIRMAN:

- Senator Georges. I do not want to ask you to resume your seat, but I think you have spent long enough on this point.

Senator GEORGES:

-Mr Chairman, I seek you indulgence to allow me to conclude the point I am making. I think it is necessary that this be said, otherwise tempers will run short. Your indulgence now will save time later. We had a situation this week when Government supporters were in dispute. They took some time over that. On another occasion the Opposition took time which may have been considered by the Government to be unnecessary, but we have tried to work to a program by which we can properly consider and pass legislation. But, as far as these Bills are concerned, I believe that Senator Wriedt was justified in making the comments that he made. He should not be subjected to criticism by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick).

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2739

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 8 June, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bills bc now read a second time.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition has no objection to two of the Bills and I do not propose to make any further comment on them. However, we have the gravest of objections to the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1978 and the National Health Amendment Bill 1978. I shall explain those objections in the course of this debate. At the outset, in respect to the Health Insurance Amendment Bill, I move:

In respect of the National Health Amendment Bill, I move:

The PRESIDENT:

– Are the amendments seconded?

Senator Georges:

– I second the amendments, Mr President.

Senator RYAN:

-The National Health Amendment Bill 1978 proposes four major changes to the Australian health insurance system. At the outset I must make clear that we do not oppose the first of them; that is, the introduction of travel and accommodation allowances to residents of isolated areas requiring a professional service by a specialist more than 200 kilometres from the person’s residence. The travel allowance will be the cost of approved travel less a patient contribution of $20. There is also provision for an overnight accommodation allowance of $15 a night. In respect of that measure we welcome the Government’s decision to provide this sort of assistance to persons living at a great distance from specialist medical services. However, we point out that the limit of 200 kilometres is very restrictive. People can be isolated from medical services even if they are closer than 200 kilometres to them. I give as an example the State of Tasmania where not many persons would have to travel distances of more than 200 kilometres but where they may need travel assistance of a kind outlined in the Bill. I draw the attention of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to that in the hope that if the 200 kilometre limit proves to be too rigid a provision the Government may seek to liberalise it.

The second main provision of the Bill allows health insurance organisations to operate schemes providing approved medical and hospital deductibles. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has not indicated what these deductibles will be, or indeed how the whole scheme will operate, but he did indicate that guidelines will be issued at a later stage by regulation. The Opposition takes the most serious exception both to the measures and the way they are to be introduced in the future. We take most serious objection to the concept of the deductibles because in our view- judging from reports in the media and comments by interest groups and so forth, in the view of many people in the communitythe deductibles system will mean that health insurance funds will be able to compete by putting up different plans for the healthy and wealthy in the community. They will be able to propose to the Minister schemes, schedules that they are prepared to pay out on, things that they are not prepared to pay out on and deductiblesoffering in financial terms that if the patient pays costs of perhaps $150 or $250 he will get in return a lower contribution rate.

In making these sorts of variations and options available to the Health insurance funds the Government is virtually inviting them to tailor their plans to suit themselves. As I said, the consequences will be that the funds will cater for the healthy and the wealthy. They will cater for the healthy, young, fit people who do not fear serious or prolonged illnesses and who may be tempted to opt for front-end deductibles. They will cater for the wealthy for whom paying out a couple of hundred dollars at the outset of medical procedures is not a serious problem. They will also opt for front-end deductibles. This will mean that the low income groups of people, those with sickness in the family or those who know that the family will require a series of medical treatment, will be forced back into Medibank. The Opposition has no objection to that but this means ultimately that the funds will be operating in an anomalous way. They will cream off the easiest sorts of customers and Medibank will be left with the rest. We consider that inquitable and we are totally opposed to those provisions.

The other problem we see with respect to the deductibles is that the funds will have the option to put to the Minister a schedule of services that they will offer. They will opt out of certain kinds of operations on which, for a variety of reasons, they do not want to pay out. Again this is an erosion of the universality of health insurance cover. For this reason the Opposition is entirely opposed to it. We do not believe that the health policy of this nation should be determined by the various competitive activities of the funds or the individualistic or private values under which they may wish to operate. We do not believe that that is the way to a proper national health insurance scheme. We believe that it is the responsibility of government to provide a health insurance system which covers all Australians for all proper medical procedures. That was the situation which prevailed under the Labor Government’s Medibank. That situation has finally been destroyed by the legislation before us tonight.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Do you think that Medibank has been destroyed?

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Baume asks whether Medibank has been destroyed. He will know that the Fraser Government has taken two major steps which have resulted in the destruction of what the Labor Government meant by Medibank; that is, a national health insurance scheme, the costing of which was equitably distributed throughout the community. It was paid for through the taxation system which is progressive. These criteria which I am enumerating for the benefit of Senator Baume no longer exist. There is now a totally different set of criteria. Maintaining the name of Medibank for the particularly limited form of health insurance which is now offered is not to say that the Labor scheme has been maintained.

I must comment critically on the announced intention by the Government in this legislation of introducing by regulation future changes with regard to deductibles and the opportunity to opt out. I notice that Senator Sir Reginald Wright is still with us this evening. I am reminded by his presence of the many times that I have heard him and other very experienced members of Parliament complain bitterly about the diminution of the role of Parliament by allowing the Executiveor the bureaucracy- to bring in exceedingly important legislation by regulation. If the Government wishes to change radically the nature of health insurance in this country, the least it can do is to present these changes in legislation which can be fully debated and discussed in the Parliament and not through regulation to which the Parliament and the general community have not nearly so much access through general and open discussion.

The third provision of the National Health Amendment Bill to which we are opposed concerns the abolition of bulk billing. In this legislation, of course, bulk billing for the private funds is abolished. In a subsequent piece of legislation bulk billing for Medibank is abolished. So, taking the two Bills together we now see the elimination of bulk billing. The Opposition, of course, is strongly opposed to this legislation because we believe that it may mean that health centres will cease to operate as we know them. It has nothing to recommend it by way of cost saving or administrative efficiency. Of course, it will lead to hardship for low income patients because where a doctor does not have the convenience of bulk billing he may be reluctant to treat patients who cannot afford to pay. It also could mean a reduction in the income of doctors who work in health centres in low income areas or who conduct private practices in low income areas where bulk billing is the only form of payment they are able to secure for services rendered.

The Opposition is at a loss to know why the Government has proceeded with the abolition of bulk billing. In 1976 when the Fraser Government introduced its first attack on the health insurance scheme it did not abolish bulk billing. In 1 976 the Minister stated:

Direct billing is by far the least costly way for Medibank to process claims and it is convenient for many patients and doctors.

Of course, that would also apply to bulk billing by the private funds. The only thing that has changed since the Minister said that in 1976 with regard to bulk billing is that bulk billing has proved itself more economic over the last two years. I should like to refer to the last report of the Health Insurance Commission which states:

Each service claimed by bulk billing averaged S8.80 compared with $1 l.SO on separate accounts. Although 55.6 per cent of all medical claims were bulk billed, they amounted to only 34.9 per cent of the value of all claims.

The number of services per bulk billed claim was 1.28 compared with 2.2 services on other claims.

Given those facts, as revealed in the latest Health Insurance Commission report, the Opposition fails to understand the sudden attack by the Government on bulk billing. It appears to us to be something of a panic action from a Government which could’ not decide between raising the Medibank levy, which, of course, would show up in the consumer price index figures, or imposing a tax which would negate the tax indexation proposals and have a substantial effect on the States’ tax sharing. We have had no evidence from the Minister that bulk billing has caused serious fraud or that the system he proposes to replace it with would eliminate fraud or would be more efficient in any way.

It appears that the Government, in response to complaints from the medical profession and other consumer groups about its intention to abolish bulk billing, has proposed the introduction of a ‘pay doctor’ cheque scheme whereby doctors can be paid directly from the funds for services rendered. Apparently it would have to be on an individual basis- patient by patient and cheque by cheque. However, we believe that this system will prove more costly than bulk billing. The situation is that health centres and bulk billing doctors now can receive ‘pay doctor’ cheques at their office, each one individually stamped with the patient’s name. But, of course, this is done at a very high cost to Medibank and to doctors and has nothing to recommend it over the bulk billing system. Because the Government is rushing through this legislation, apparently without consulting doctors who are involved in these sorts of schemes, there is no assurance that doctors in or out of health centres can provide the administrative backup for a ‘pay doctor’ system. The ‘pay doctor’ system is as open to fraud as the bulk billing system because even if the patient sees and authorises the account additional items can be entered later. I ask the Government to consider the following alternatives to the scrapping of bulk billing: The first is that it should be mandatory for each patient to receive a copy of the assignment of benefits slip which is sent on to the Health Insurance Commission. If the patient finds some falsification or anomaly, it can be reported. Secondly, I ask the Government to consider a system of contracting doctors in health centres. I mean by this that direct billing would remain if those doctors and health centres followed certain approved practices allowing for checks against fraud to be carried out. Such a system would not interfere in any way with a doctor in private practice but would enable the Government to ensure that the public purse was safeguarded. Most importantly, it would provide security of access to doctors to the most vulnerable people in the community- poor people, people with literacy problems, people who do not speak English, the Aboriginal community, and so on. Of course, as we know, those people find the bureaucracy and medical authorities intimidating.

I put in a plea here for the preservation of health centres, whether they be fee-for-service centres or salaried health centres. It was the intention of the Labor Government to establish a system of salaried health centres throughout Australia and we made a start on that. But what is more important to us than the method of payment of doctors in health centres is that the centres themselves should continue. We believe very stongly that the health centres have a crucial role to play in maintaining the health of the community. They have a preventive role; they have an educative role. They provide opportunities for doctors to work as a team with each other and with paramedical and social workers. Of course, ultimately they are convenient to members of the public. We believe that those sorts of benefits, which are difficult to cost at the outset, in the long term would be economically advantageous to the Government. If people are properly educated, if they get medical services in the first instance rather than when they become gravely ill, then the need for hospitalisation and extended expensive treatment is reduced.

The health centres as I know them in the the Australian Capital Territory have many other benefits. They offer much improved facilities for patients over the old-fashioned doctor’s surgery. Health centres with which I am familiar offer child care services, community information services and social workers. Those sorts of services are co-ordinated in the one place, which is extremely helpful for patients. In many cases they have become a focus for general health consciousness programs such as exercise programs, clubs, discussion groups and bicycle clubs, and they have the facility for a teaching role if at some stage we move into a more communitybased system of education and training for doctors and paramedicals I believe that the maintenance of health centres where they have been established and the development of new ones in areas where they can serve the needs of particular communities are most important factors to be taken into account. For that reason too 1 hope that the Governent will consider a more efficient and administratively more coherent system of bulk billing than the pay doctor check system about which we have had some information.

The final provision to which the Opposition is opposed is the increase from S2 to S2.50 in the patient contribution for each pharmaceutical benefit item, and our objection is almost selfexplanatory. Clearly the increase will have a bad effect on low income earners, people who are chronically ill, large families with two or three children who are ill at the one time and in need of items from the pharmaceutical benefits list. We believe that this is a harsh measure. We have had no cost justification for it from the Government and we are totally opposed to it. I foreshadow that in the Committee stage we will be opposing clauses 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 11 and 15 which introduce all these changes to which we are opposed.

The Health Insurance Amendment Bill amends the original Act to provide that certain persons- Australian residents overseas and overseas residents in Australia having foreign health cover- will be exempted from the health insurance levy and ineligible for benefits. We have no objection to that. It also provides for the exclusion of certain health screening services from payment of benefits. I hope that some spokesperson for the Government will explain just what screening services the Government has in mind. We in the Opposition are aware that there has been exploitation of certain kinds of screening services by certain people who offer these services. On the other hand, in our view, a number of kinds of screening services are essential as a preventive measure for the health of the community. We are most anxious to know that the sorts of preventive screening tests in which people are now being encouraged by their doctors to engage, will not be excluded under this provision. There is a third provision whereby the Minister will be able to exclude the payment of medical benefits in respect of medical services rendered by a specified person named in the Gazette, such as Milan Brych, to Australians temporarily overseas, where the Minister is satisfied that the person is not a proper person to render such services. We have no opposition to that provision. 1 should like to hear more details of the next provision, which is the bringing of Australian Capital Territory hospitals under similar costsharing agreements as the States. As we are still in limbo with regard to future government proposals, including funding proposals for the Australian Capital Territory, I, and I am sure all members of the community of the Capital Territory, would like to hear more information about that.

The reduction in the levels of benefits payable under the Act from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee and the increase of the maximum gap from $5 to $10 per service are measures to which we are totally opposed. Again we fear that this reduction from 85 per cent to 75 per cent will impose hardship on doctors, health centres, family planning clinics and services of those kinds where the percentage of the fee that they regain from the funds is the only payment they get for their services. We believe that in some cases that may be a deterrent to doctors or health centres to provide certain services. We believe that the requirement to pay more of the cost for the patient will be a deterrent to some low income patients to seek services they may need, and we are totally opposed to that. We are aware of course that the Government has excluded from this provision those people who are pensioners and who are eligible for pensioner medical benefits. Whilst we are relieved that those people at least will be excluded from this provision- doctors and health services will still be able to claim the 85 per cent of the scheduled fee for those people- we point out to the Government that those people are not necessarily the people who are worse off in the community or even necessarily the people who are most in need of health services. There are over 500,000 social security beneficiaries who will not qualify for that 85 per cent of the scheduled fee and who do not qualify for the pensioner medical service. Those people- the people on unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and, in particular, supporting mother’s benefit, because obviously they have dependants- will not be able to regain the 85 per cent that certain age pensioners will be able to regain, and we believe that serious hardship will be the consequence of that.

I have commented on the abolition of bulk billing which, in this legislation, applies to Medibank for all except eligible pensioners. I have commented also on the provision for the optional deductible schemes to which the Opposition is totally opposed. The overall effect of the Bills is that there will be a cheaper form of insurance for those in the community who least need it- the healthy, the fit and the wealthy- and for everybody else, health insurance and health costs will increase. We see no evidence that the Government will achieve any significant savings by these measures. We do see that there will be a great deal of confusion and insecurity in the community as people rush from fund to fund trying to find the best deal or trying to find security of cover in all circumstances. We are very seriously concerned about those low income people, particularly the social security beneficiaries, who will not be able to regain that 85 per cent of the scheduled fee. We are particularly concerned that although more than 60 per cent of health costs are incurred in hospitals the Government has not even begun to remedy the situation. We believe that the sorts of changes before the Parliament are confusing, irrational and quite incoherent, if we are looking for a proper economic objective. We believe that they will lead to a reduction in health services and increasing costs. Although they achieve what is probably the political motive of the Government, namely, that of weakening the original Labor Medibank scheme, they have nothing, apart from the couple of positive measures I have mentioned, to offer the community. As I indicated, we oppose them.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– It would be unreasonable of me not to acknowledge that the wintry weather of

Canberra may have caused the Opposition spokesman on social security to use Medibank over recent weeks. In his absence Senator Ryan has been filling in for him on Bills which are not within the area for which she is normally responsible. These Bills contain many detailed provisions. The problem is perhaps not to range across every provision at this stage of the debate but to try to seek some unifying theme. I listened to what the honourable senator had to say and wondered what the unifying theme was. It seemed to me to be that there should be more of everything at all times, irrespective of the cost and irrespective of the result.

Senator Walters:

– And no responsibility.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-My colleague says: ‘And no responsibility’. I had not gone that far. This country is facing some real problems in the financing of health costs. Perhaps what we need to do is to examine some of these problems to see what we can achieve. The honourable senator raised a few points. I remind her that deductibles, which she dismissed out of hand, can at least give the hope not just of cost transfer but of real cost reduction. That result is something we should be seeking and encouraging. Deductibles will provide some kind of flexibility. We want to encourage flexibility and choice not just cost transfer between sectors.

In the same way I would have hoped that when discussing bulk billing the honourable senator would have acknowledged both its good and bad features. It does have good features, such as convenience. As the honourable senator said it has some efficiency associated with it. However, it increases the possibility of fraud in the hands of the unscrupulous. It is interesting to note that some organisations, which appear to have medical officers working in certain clinics funded by the Commonwealth, are also bulk billing their patients. The money from the bulk billing goes to these organisations. We receive complaints that if bulk billing is removed they will lose this extra money to which they were never entitled in the first place. There is no doubt that some doctors who have been picked up and charged with fraud have been using assignment of benefits or bulk billing as one of the ways in which they have sought to defraud the Treasury, Senator Ryan as a taxpayer and every other Australian taxpayer. I am simply saying that there are two sides to this and to every other story.

The honourable senator somehow brought the subject of health centres into her speech. I am delighted that she did that. Health centres were a good initiative of the McMahon Government.

The first one started in 1972 while we were in office, and I am glad that the Labor Government during its brief period in office had the sense to continue that program. Let us examine whether a real cost problem exists. If one does exist then it is up to this Government, or any alternative government, to tell the Australian people what it will do to control and to contain those costs. I remind the Senate that total health costs or government outlays for health- one can look at either one- have gone up. Commonwealth Government outlays on health have gone up from a little more than $2 ,000m in 1972 to more than $6,250m in 1978. That is an enormous increase. It is a major increase in real terms, not just in dollar terms. The cost per person during this period has risen from $104, 1 1 years ago, to $447 in the financial year 1 976-77. These kinds of increases far outstrip the movement of other economic indicators. If we examine the share of our gross domestic product and if we examine the percentage of Commonwealth Government expenditure in each of these areas, we find that health has continued to take more and more of our resources as each year goes by. There is no doubt that any prudent government will examine whether these health costs are all of them justified or all of them efficient and, if there is a problem, it will at least face the problem.

It is not only the Government that has become aware that there is a problem in the area of health costs. Honourable senators will have noticed, for example, in some of the national newspapers that health costs are now acknowledged to be a problem for us all. In March of this year the Adelaide Advertiser devoted an editorial to health service costs, set out some of the problems, and said among other things:

The individual, the health funds and the Treasury can stand just so much and the consensus is that a quadrupling of expenditure in 7 years or so is enough.

I think that that is a fair statement of the kinds of problems that we face. I am not suggesting that that leads us to any particular solution, but there are real problems in the area of health costs and in the extent of those health costs. If we are looking for other sources which would tell us what has happened in the amount of our resource going into health- perhaps the second question to ask is what we receive for it- we could look to Professor Kenneth Cox from the Centre of Medical Education at the University of New South Wales, a very eminent medical educator, who said in a very fair article entitled ‘Who owns the problem of health cost care ‘:

No government can ignore a health care bill exceeding S5.4 billion. Nor can it be unaware that the medical profession is not constrained in providing services to a public with a virtually unlimited capacity to utilise medical services.

I think my colleague in the Senate, Senator Georges, would acknowledge that that is a fair statement. It gives us one view of the problem. Professor Cox went on to refer to other countries, and said:

Last year the Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in the USA collectively lost over $600m, and their combined reserves fell by a third. In Australia the attempt to provide all services for all the population concentrates spending and control, progressively with central Government.

That is true. He went on in his article in another place to say:

The Director-General of the World Health Organisation has stated that half the health care expenditure in the Western world is directed to people who will die within the next 1 2 months.

I do not suggest from that quotation that one stops directing care and resource to people, but we have to be aware that there is a real problem in the health cost area and a need for governments to respond appropriately. This problem requires control, and that control must be a reduction of expenditure of some kind- a reduction of total expenditure, not just intersec.toral transfer. This Government is addressing itself to the question how we can move to reduce total expenditure in the health care area. The Government has a responsibility to place a ceiling on the amount of public expenditure devoted to health care. Already the Government has moved to contain some health costs. For example, the Government has’ moved effectively in respect of the pathology problem we had a year ago. However, concern still exists over certain uncontrolled elements of cost increases. I believe that the public is probably ready to accept a greater limitation on the availability of health services imposed by financial constraints. I am saying that to reduce costs we will probably have to reduce our personal utilisation of health services.

Let us go a bit further. There is evidence of declining marginal return as medical technology develops. For each extra dollar spent, we are getting less in the way of extra benefit for ourselves, our families and our friends. The more extensive and sophisticated health services and techniques have become, the less we have got back in terms of living longer, feeling better or being more healthy. So in the end the Government will have to impose more effective controls over total public health expenditure and particularly over some of the high cost areas that seem to be yielding little in the way of health returns. Today I asked a question in the Senate about one particular form of high cost technology which, apparently, a Government department intends to introduce into its services, even while a Government committee is working on a report in this area.

Some gallup polls have been conducted into what the public thinks about health costs. It is interesting to note that 75 per cent of Australians support the idea of keeping the national health bill down by offering incentives to doctors and hospitals to keep their costs down. Sixty five per cent of the people surveyed favoured the introduction of no claim bonuses. That is interesting because it is one of the flexible possibilities which we might look at in the future.

Let us ask what these Bills attempt to do. They attempt to cover a whole range of areas. They attempt to tidy up certain practices. Senator Ryan has referred to the option of preventing a crook, such as Mr Milan Brych, from receiving rebates to which he is not entitled. Anyone who saw tonight’s This Day Tonight program will have been sickened by the evidence of yet another tragic case where someone who apparently went to Rarotonga was given inadequate treatment. In that case blank referral forms allegedly had been signed by an Australian doctor and left with Mr Brych in Rarotonga where the name of the patient was filled in. There are tidying up provisions in these Bills.

Senator Ryan:

– We are not opposed to that.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The Opposition is not opposed to that. The Bills have a number of other purposes. Senator Ryan has referred to some of them. I shall dwell for a moment on one matter to which the honourable senator did not direct attention and that is the Hospitals and Health Services Commission.

Senator Ryan:

– We are not opposed to that.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– It is worth spending a couple of moments on this subject. I believe I have the support of the Opposition in paying a brief tribute to the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, its officers and the work that it has done over the last few years. Perhaps more than any other body of its kind, it has set out to identify for us the shape of our problems in the health provision, health manpower and health cost areas. Its officers have contributed in a very major way, I think, to the understanding in this country of what our problems are and where some of the solutions might lie. I think it would be unfair not to pay tribute to Dr Sidney Sax for the work that he has done as chairman of the Commission, to Mr Paul Gross, the deputy commissioner, and to the other commissioners for the way in which they have made this Commission almost a model when compared with the work of other commissions of this kind. The Commission has been taken over by the newly formed policy secretariat. I am delighted to see that Dr Sax will be involved in that secretariat.

In other provisions in these Bills, the Government has set out to try to make a start- nothing more than that- in providing some rational control over health care costs. It was notable from the speech of the honourable senator who spoke for the Opposition that not one suggestion was offered as to how we could control, limit or contain our total health care outlays. Until members of the Opposition join us in that debate, their speeches are not relevant to the problems of health care costs in Australia today. These Bills, with their various divisions which have been set out by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in another place and discussed by Senator Ryan, will help us to achieve some of these improvements.

It is worth mentioning just one of the provisions. A provision in the Health Insurance Amendment Bill will allow for the option of deductibles from health insurance, if it is so desired. I say to the Opposition that comparisons between Medibank and the private health funds are largely invalid. It appears that the populations using the two kinds of health insurance are not comparable in terms of their sickness experience. I am not saying why that should be so. But it appears we already have two dissimilar groups. It appears that the sickness experience of those using Medibank is less than the sickness experience of those using some of the private funds.

Senator Sir Reginald Wright:

– How would you define the two groups?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I am talking about the people who have elected to go to Medibank. For the information of the honourable senator, a significant number of young people have joined Medibank by default. These people have an excellent health experience because of the fact that they are young and this fact tends to keep down the total cost of Medibank. This is neither good nor bad. It simply means that some of the comparisons that have been made are not entirely valid. Under a system of deductibles a fund will have the option if it so wishes of rewarding good health behaviour. It is entirely possible that a fund could offer better insurance rates under a deductible system. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) would qualify for such a scheme if he did not smoke, followed other prescribed habits, maintained his weight at a certain level and took exercise. In this country it appears that most of our remaining major health problems are related to lifestyle diseases. They are related to the way people live, to the drugs they take and to the exercise that they do not take. If, in fact, we can get people, by joining one of these funds, either to bear the first part of their expenses or to modify their lifestyles in some appropriate way, I see this as entirely desirable.

A deductibles scheme would provide us with the opportunity to move away from community rating for the first time. It would be the first time that we have got away from making everyone carry the same insurance risk. If we are ever to get some incentive into the health insurance system it is essential that community rating be done away with and that experience rating or individual rating be adopted. I welcome the opportunity to do so. We have not yet seen any deductible scheme offered by health funds. When we see the schemes that might be the time to criticise them.

There are some problems remaining which the Government is continuing to approach. The first is that we do not have the kind of data base that we require or want to enable us to make definitive plans.

Senator Ryan:

– That is right, you do not.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-That is right, senator. So the Government has been very careful not to make any major structural alterations to Medibank. We have introduced provisions in this legislation for the collection of further data; both in the hospital area and the medical services area. The honourable senator who preceded me in the debate drew attention to the fact that we will now even be able to find out what it costs to run the Canberra hospitals. That information was carefully kept from us a couple of years ago when we are told during the proceedings of an Estimates committee that we could not get information on daily bed costs. Dr Sax provided daily bed costs for every hospital in Australia in his discussion paper but we were not allowed to have the figures for Canberra. Maybe that information will be provided in the future.

The Government needs more information and has set out to obtain it. We want to know how governments can best ensure value for money in health dollars spent and that is what we are talking about. I hope that the provisions of this Bill, the extra data that the Government has been seeking to generate and the extra information that is being sought from health funds can be used to give the Government all the information it wants to know about the health experience of our community and the experience of our various health funds.

These Bills provide some new administrative arrangements. They confer new benefits, up to S7m in one area; they provide new options to end obligatory community rating; they provide some redistribution of costs between sectors; and, we hope, they place some limitation on total costs. But they take account of some economic facts which the Opposition never mentions: Firstly, that resources are finite and we cannot spend more than we have available; secondly, that resources have alternative uses which need not necessarily be spent in the health area; and, thirdly, that people have different value systems and different ideas as to how the resources can best be used. We do not think that one can suggest, provide or support a market model in health. We do not believe that a simple market model will work because consumers do not make enough of the decisions. I simply place on record my agreement with the principle that doctors, whether in the personal medical service area or in hospitals, make a major contribution to the cost of health in this country and that providers have to be involved if we are ever to get complete control of health costs. Senator Georges made this point to me earlier and I acknowledge it. But we are trying, through the provision of new pathology arrangements, new billing arrangements and new cost sharing arrangements, to get an involvement by the medical profession and the hospital administration. I believe that these Bills provide a rational start on what we hope will be a continuing process of cost containment while maintaining social equity in the area of health care.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I would like to summarise the debate that we have been conducting on the package of four Bills to amend the health scheme. I repeat that under the National Health Amendment Bill the Government is seeking principally to do four things. Firstly, the Government is seeking to insert a new Part in the Act to establish a scheme to alleviate the burden on people living in remote areas of travel in order to obtain medical attention. We believe that the introduction of the travel allowance will give access to medical assistance to many people who may otherwise have been debarred from it. We note that the provisions of this amendment are not opposed by the Opposition. We believe that the introduction of this assistance to a patient and /or someone who may be required to accompany him will be of real benefit to those who are not in the normal course of events close to the medical service that they require. I believe that the provision of this assistance is something which ought to be commended by everyone and which is commended by everyone.

The second aim of the Bill in general terms is to provide that health insurance organisations can operate approved medical and hospital benefit plans with deductible schemes. Something has been said on both sides of the Senate tonight about the possibility of the introduction of such schemes. I believe that where we are able to introduce optional deductible schemes, whether they be in the form of a no claim bonus at the end of the year or an optional deduction of a particular item–

Senator Georges:

– I do not think you believe in what you are talking about at the moment. I say that in fairness to you.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am handling the passage of the Bills through the Senate and I am, naturally, in full agreement with what has been proposed. If an optional deductible scheme which does not damage the universality of cover because it is an option that a person may exercise were devised by a health fund and approved by the Minister, I believe that this would be a way in which we could meet the cost burden that was spoken of by Senator Baume. I think that one thing that needs to be stressed is the cost of health care. Whilst recognising that there is a burden of cost that cannot be ignored, we need to devise a scheme that provides the health care which we believe ought to be available to every Australian.

Thirdly, the National Health Amendment Bill imposes a further condition of registration on medical benefit organisations to the effect that they will not enter into direct billing arrangements other than for services rendered to eligible pensioners and their dependants. I have, on behalf of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) recognised in answer to questions, that the Minister is considering what may need to be done with regard to community health organisations. Aboriginal groups and other groups that may be in need of special consideration; but in general terms this amendment does introduce the change that bulk billing will no longer be undertaken, except in the case of eligible pensioners and their dependants- and pursuant to whatever other arrangements may be considered by the Minister to be appropriate. Finally, the Bill increases from $2 to S2.50 the general patient contribution for pharmaceutical benefits. Those are the four principal matters that are dealt with in the National Health Amendment Bill.

We are also dealing with the Health Insurance Amendment Bill, which embraces some of the things that have been mentioned by honourable senators tonight, such as the fact that it will empower the Minister for Health to direct that medical benefits shall not be payable in respect of medical services rendered by a specified person, such as Mr Brych of the Cook Islands, to Australian residents. It also prohibits, unless the Minister otherwise directs, the payment of medical benefits for health screening services that are not reasonably required for the management of the medical condition of a patient. This matter was raised by Senator Ryan, who inquired as to the nature of the health screening services that would cease to attract medical benefits. The Government does not intend to withhold payment of benefits for tests that are carried out as part of the diagnosis or management of the medical condition of a patient. However, there has been considerable abuse, such as the indiscriminate screening of apparently-well people, who have had no sign of disease. It is hoped that this amendment will stop that sort of activity.

Senator Georges:

– That is straight fraud.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It was mentioned by the Minister for Health as an example. He said also that it was intended that the services provided by several non-profit organisations, such as’ Medicheck in Sydney and the Shepherd Foundation in Melbourne, should continue to attract medical benefits, provided they met certain conditions. Broadly, those are that both Medicheck and the Shepherd Foundation will use their records for specific research studies designed to establish the value of the screening services provided by them, and will bear the costs involved in undertaking the studies. If apparently-well people with no sign of disease wish to undertake screening tests, they may do so. However, it is only reasonable that they should meet the cost themselves rather than that it should be a charge, either through Medibank or through the private health funds, against the community. The cost must still be borne. Guidelines concerning screening tests are to be formulated by the Medical Benefits Advisory Committee established under the Act. Health screening services that are rendered outside of these guidelines will not attract benefits.

Senator Ryan also raised the matter of the hospitals in the Australian Capital Territory which is dealt with under the Health Insurance Amendment Bill. The proposed amendment will make the conditions and procedures for authorising Commonwealth payments in respect of the net operating costs of recognised hospitals in the

Territory more comparable with those made under the hospital cost-sharing agreements between the Commonwealth and the States. The purpose is to change the basis upon which payments are made for recognised public hospitals in the Territory. At present it is required that payments be equivalent to 50 per cent of the net operating costs, the open-ended basis applying under the invalid agreements with the States. The Bill will bring the financing arrangements for recognised hospitals in the Territory into line with those in the current agreement with the States. They are related to budgeted hospital operating costs. In general terms, payments will be equivalent to 50 per cent of budgeted operating costs. The budgets will be prepared by the Capital Territory Health Commission and, after examination, will be approved by the Minister for Health. This is the procedure which has been adopted in the States. It is one that seeks authorised expenditure on a shared basis and agreed expenditure shared on an equal basis by the Commonwealth and the States. I do not think that anyone would argue that that is not a proper way in which any major hospital ought to be proceeding with regard to its costs. Nor should it be argued that the States or the Territory organisations which are responsible for the hospitals should neglect to have some agreement on costs which can be shared in this way.

Another Bill with which we are dealing is the Hospitals and Health Services Commission (Repeal) Bill. Senator Baume made the sort of reference to the work of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission that I would have thought appropriate to make also. I share with him the sentiments that he expressed with regard to the very fine work that has been performed during the past years by the Commission. Of course, I am delighted that we will have the services and the expertise of Dr Sidney Sax heading the social policy unit which will be located in my department and working with my department and the Department of Health. I hope that it will be looking to policy development of health, social services, social welfare and community welfare in the future to the advantage of all Australians.

The other Bill which is before the Senate is the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Amendment Bill which makes amendments in respect of the income tax levies. They will be adjusted because of arrangements that have been made. I commend the four Bills to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall first put the question in respect of the amendment moved by

Senator Ryan to the National Health Amendment Bill 1978.

Amendment negatived.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall now put the question in respect of the amendment moved by Senator Ryan to the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1978.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

National Health Amendment Bill 1978

Clauses 1 to 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition opposes clause 3 which deals with the definition of deductibles and the introduction with deductibles of what are called approved medical benefit plans within the meaning of section 72E of the National Health Act. I think I indicated in my speech during the second reading debate that we are opposed to deductibles of any kind because they will place a greater contribution burden on those who are more frequently ill and a lesser contribution burden on those who are less frequently ill. I was very interested to hear a Government senatorSenator Baume- elaborate on what was meant by ‘deductibles’. I must say that my worst fears were confirmed, that the Government has in mind a system whereby there will be two classes of people- those who, according to Senator Baume, experience good health, and are to be rewarded, and those who do not experience good health. This clarification is very helpful for us in the Opposition because that is exactly what we are opposed to. We are opposed to rewarding those who have very few health problems and punishing those, by way of a higher contribution and so forth, who are frequently ill.

We do not believe in general that people choose to be ill or choose to be well, although we thoroughly support community education programs which will lead people to adopt healthier life styles. But it is quite clear from the remarks of Senator Baume that people who are rarely ill will be rewarded. I think that the Minister for Social Security used the expression ‘no claim bonus’. I must state again most clearly our objection to this system, and it is that we believe it to be inequitable. We believe that the burden of paying for health costs should be spread equitably through the community, and we are totally opposed to the idea of rewarding those who are fortunate enough not to need frequent medical services. We also are very concerned that we still do not know where we are going with regard to deductibles. The Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, in a paper dealing with this subject earlier said:

Unfortunately, no information is available to determine exactly what size of deductible within tolerable limits would begin to have an important effect on the demand for medical care.

Senator Baume also said that the Government did not have an adequate data base for many of the changes that it proposes. In our view these changes should not be implemented until information is available. The other comment I must make in regard to deductibles concerns the confusion about the purpose of deductibles and the way the system will be administered. I again quote from the comments which the Minister for Health made on 8 June in the other place. He said something similar to what Senator Baume said tonight. He said:

Those people who choose not to smoke, those people who choose not to drink alcohol and those people who choose to adopt a fairly sensible life style could use a deductible scheme. How on earth a health insurance fund could administer such a proposal I do not know, . . .

The Government is moving into an area which is supposed to be cost-saving, although we have no evidence of that, and the Minister himself is admitting that he has no idea as to how a deductible scheme should be administered. I repeat that we are totally opposed to this confused, inequitable and unresearched proposal.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I would go further and say that such a scheme is dangerous in that it encourages people to refrain from seeking medical advice when they should seek it. I cannot understand how anyone could accept the proposition that people should be encouraged not to seek early treatment. If I am wrong, Senator Baume can correct me, but that is what the Bill seems to provide. This seems to be a strange way in which to administer health care. The Bill has nothing to do with insuring motor vehicles. The Ministry used the phrase ‘no claim bonus’. If a person driving around in his car runs into a post and damages a fender he says to himself: ‘Blow that; I am not going to have it repaired until I do some further damage, otherwise I will lose my no claim bonus’. That sort of principle is now being applied to a health scheme. That seems to me to be dangerous.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You could turn a hernia into a double hernia before going to a doctor.

Senator GEORGES:

– Exactly, and people certainly will not go to have a particular examination which might reveal the early stages of a malignant disease. Even a 6-month postponement of such an investigation could lead to tremendous hurt to the person concerned. What is more, we are talking about cost- that seems to be the element we are most concerned aboutand this system will lead to added cost.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is not right.

Senator GEORGES:

– If Senator Baume wishes we can devote some time to this issue because it is important for us clearly to understand what we are about. Of course, the whole problem is that neither the previous Government nor this Government has been prepared to do what is required; namely, to bring the doctors under some form of discipline. It appears that we have a system which has been ripped off in a number of directions. I was completely horrified to find out that so-called respectable voluntary organisations were using the system- ripping off the systemin order to establish themselves and to improve their organisations. I do not doubt that many hospitals have been doing the same. It seems extraordinary that we should deny the ordinary person a service or should increase the cost of a service to an ordinary person in order to prevent these rip-offs.

These rip-offs appear to me to be straight-out fraud and should be treated as such. We should penetrate into those areas where this fraudulent behaviour takes place. We should not in any way diminish a scheme designed to assist people who are in need. At whatever level, if there is a misuse of the system it ought to be countered. It seems to me that the doctors and the medical profession generally have never really applied themselves. They are in the best position to reduce these costs and these abuses. It seems to me that on an ideological basis- they claim to work upon an ideological basis- they are prepared to ignore these abuses.

Senator Walters:

– How do the doctors handle the abuses? Just answer me that.

Senator GEORGES:

– By not treating a person who does not need to be treated, for a start. It would help if a doctor were prepared to be honest about such a person and were to say to him: ‘You don’t need treatment; don’t come back’. But doctors do not do that. Doctors have fallen into a pattern of behaviour. They say: ‘It is your responsibility. If you want me to treat you, or if you feel that you, your husband or your children are sick, I will go along with that and charge you accordingly. It is not costing you anything: it is just costing the system’. It would help if the doctors were prepared to take a firm stand on who they treat. Some do, but I might say from what I have heard tonight and over the past few weeks, most do not.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is not right, Senator. What you say is not good enough.

Senator GEORGES:

– All right, I shall reverse it: Most do not, but some do. Is that okay?

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is fair.

Senator GEORGES:

– The number is sufficient to cause a grave escalation in costs, which has led to the introduction of this sort of legislation which places the burden back on the ordinary person. What else does front-end deductible mean? It seems to me that we have reached a situation where a further cost has to be imposed on the ordinary person and a reasonable health scheme is being destroyed because of a rapacity which could be brought under control by the medical profession. But it does not wish to do that.

Senator Walters:

– How can the medical profession do it?

Senator GEORGES:

– It could do it quite simply by taking a look at the health needs of this country and accepting a proposition which has been put to it, namely, that its members should be paid on the basis of an annual return and they should move away from the principle of fee-for-service. The services they provide to people are gravely disproportionate to the need. They approach their profession in a purely commercial and mechanical way. 1 know that is a dreadful commentary to make about a profession, but that is not the only profession to which that commentary applies. There is the engineering profession–

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Do not refer to other professions while we are debating these Bills. Let us stick to the medical Bills.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am pleased to come back to relevancy, at the Minister’s request. One does become inflamed by the revelation of the extraordinary costs which have developed and which Senator Baume has exposed. Our endeavour to correct the situation by placing costs upon those who should be the last to bear them is ridiculous. I do not know that my remarks are relevant at this stage- if I say now what I want to say I will not have to say it later- but the means of collecting fees is not improving the situation one scrap. In fact, it will increase the abuse. I am returning to the point. Wc should bc looking at a complete restructuring- that is the in word -of the medical profession and of the health system in this country. These Bills in no way improve the situation; in fact they are making the situation worse in an abhorrent and inhumane way.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I respond to the Opposition by saying that we do not support its opposition to this clause. I wish to state something that has been said by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) when dealing with the matter of deductibles. That issue was raised under this clause, and part of the Minister’s statement was quoted. His statement was left in the air. It was said that the Minister stated: ‘I do not know’. The Minister said that he wondered how a health insurance fund could administer such a proposal. He said that he understood that some health insurance funds were investigating the desirability of offering such tables. This is the point. He believes that some health insurance funds wish to offer, and some Australian people wish to avail themselves of, an optional deductible table.

As I said earlier tonight, whether we are talking about an optional deductible at the time of looking at the service that would be covered or whether we are talking about some sort of benefit that could be given at the end of a period which took into account the use of the health insurance scheme during that period is a matter that is now within the hands of the health insurance funds to determine. They have come forward with some proposals. We may be talking about the front-end deductible, the back-end deductible or- this may be offensive to Senator Georges- we may be talking about no claim, a number of claims or some other adjustments which can be made. This is something that is under consideration by the health insurance funds and something which may be proposed to the Government.

The Minister, when dealing with the matter in the other place, was responding to a similar debate. He acknowledged that if there were to be such a variation from a universal health scheme- if it damaged universality of it- such a variation would not be attractive to the Government; nor would it probably have the concurrence of the Government. The health insurance funds may wish to consider these matters. The Australian people may wish to avail themselves of a coverage that takes into account the use of the service or is selective in the areas for which people do not wish to be covered. I believe these matters could be determined by agreement after consultation and consideration of the issues that are involved. Clause 3 is an integral and important part of the amending Bill before the Committee. We are not in agreement with the Opposition ‘s proposal that it should be removed.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Matters to be taken into account by Committee and by Minister).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I wish to voice the Australian Labor Party’s opposition to this clause. Again, it is concerned with allowing funds to operate optional deductibles. I think I have explained the reasons for our opposition. I would just say again that, contrary to what the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has just said, it seems that by allowing optional deductibles, universality will be eroded. For example, if a person opts to pay the first $200 and a lower contribution rate under this scheme and, when the time comes, does not have that $200, although he has entered into this scheme of his own choice, he is uninsured. That seems to us to be an erosion. The other problem is that funds may opt out of paying for certain procedures. A person who is insured by a fund may need to have a procedure undertaken and will either have to have it done uninsured or, as has been stated in the other place, declare himself or herself no longer to be a member of that fund and fall back on to Medibank. That, of course, does not affect universality but I think it is an anomalous way to conduct a dual system of private and public health insurance funds.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Clause 5 inserts a new sub-section 72A (2), the effect of which is to require the registration committee, when considering an application for registration under the principal Act by an organisation which proposes to operate an optional deductible plan, to state in its recommendations whether the plan complies with the guidelines prescribed under new section 73E, which is inserted by clause 9. Clause 5 is important to the Government and we are unable to agree to the Opposition ‘s proposal to remove it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Registration).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise simply to indicate our opposition to clause 6. 1 will not speak on this clause as it introduces the question of optional deductibles, which I have canvassed previously.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Conditions of registration).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition opposes this clause, which abolishes bulk billing by private funds. I would seek explanation at this stage of the debate of the objectives of the Government in abolishing bulk billing for the private funds. The Government is making the case that by abolishing bulk billing it will be saving expenditure. Senator Baume emphasised the need at all costs to reduce expenditure on health services. As the private funds do not incur any public expenditure in operating the bulk billing system, we are interested to know in what way the Government expects to save money from this provision. We are interested to know also why the Government, which is apparently so dedicated to freedom of choice for health funds, will not allow a fund which desires to retain a bulk billing system to do so.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-The Government is not able to accept the Opposition’s proposal to remove this clause.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I would like an explanation on this point. I must admit that the Bills are confusing to a person who has not -

Senator Walters:

– Who has not shown any interest in them at all.

Senator GEORGES:

-In this place people become specialists in certain areas either because of professional qualification or as a result of sheer experience. Others, of course, have a natural curiosity which we exercise from time to time to learn a little more. I am prepared to get to my feet and show my ignorance. By so doing I might gain a little information which would make me less ignorant.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

- Senator Georges, may I suggest that you direct your comments to clause 6.

Senator GEORGES:

-I am directing my comments to clause 6. It was as a result of an interjection which you allowed that I followed up with my subsequent remarks. That is not casting a reflection on you, Mr Temporary Chairman. That is the last thing I would want to do at this hour or, for that matter, at any hour. It seems to me that the Government has decided for some reason or other which I cannot understand to abolish bulk billing. I want the Minister to explain whether that is the case.

Having decided to take this course, the Government has introduced another means of billing which seeks not to disadvantage organisations such as the Aboriginal health services, a few other organisations and certain classes of people such as pensioners. It seems to me that what the Government intends to do now is to abolish bulk billing as we have known it and institute some method by which a patient, by filling out the normal claim form, say, at the next door chemist shop, can assign to a doctor the right to claim. Most doctors surgeries and clinics have chemist shops next door which have medical benefits claim forms. Apparently what the patient can now do is sign an agreement to make a claim directing the cheque to be forwarded to the doctor. The Government brought bulk billing under some control and supervision by making the patient responsible for filling out all the details on the claim form and making the claim. The Government has now instituted a system where it has denied itself that supervision.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Robertson:

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

That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator GEORGES:

-Surely the Government should provide some explanation on this change. It seems to me that the proposed scheme is more open to abuse by a minority of doctors- I was requested to use the word minority- than was the old system of the patient making the request. That minority of doctors is now in a situation to be able to abuse the system more easily than previously.

I should have liked to have raised one other point but perhaps I could leave it to a later stage. The point I have raised seems to be an important consideration. Is the abolition of bulk billing to be delayed? Is some limitation or delay provided in the Bill? Is it to be delayed because the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is not certain that he is doing the right thing in abolishing bulk billing? Perhaps he would like some delay before it is abolished in order to assess the likely damage caused by the new method. Does this factor mean that there is some division in the Cabinet because the Minister for Health has taken a particular point of view in support of bulk billing and somebody else- I would hesitate to say that it might have been the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser)- on an ideological basis has decided that the Government is against bulk billing; the doctors are against it; and it will be cancelled? Are we now being faced with a situation that we have faced from time to time in which the Prime Minister imposes his will upon the Minister for Health? Is this the reason for this delay in the implementation of the abolition of bulk billing?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-The last comments of Senator Georges reached into real fantasy.

Senator Georges:

– Oh yes, of course, You have to be fantastic to search out what happens in the Cabinet room.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I do not think the honourable senator understands much about Cabinet government. Cabinet decides on the Bills that come before the Senate. In answer to the honourable senator’s last question I point out that this proposal will be introduced when administrative arrangements can be satisfactorily adjusted. It is a complex administrative matter to change a procedure in a health system of this kind. The honourable senator said that he did not understand the abolition of bulk billing. The Government considers that the abolition of bulk billing is part of the overall strategy to control health costs. It is considered that this ought to apply in the public sector and in the private sector. What we are doing in this Bill is consistent with the private sector. We propose to remove bulk billing for people insured with Medibank Standard other than eligible pensioners and their dependants.

Senator Georges:

– And anyone else who wants to assign.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– What has been done in this clause is quite consistent with what we believe is an important part of health cost control. The proposal that this clause be excluded from the Bill is not accepted by the Government.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I do not think that Senator Georges’ question was answered. I wish to pose a similar question. It seems that bulk billing is being discontinued so that we will be able to control costs more effectively. For a start it has been shown, as far as I am aware, that the claims made by bulk billing were, in general, of a lesser amount than the amount of the claims made in a different way. That aside, there seems to me to be a very fertile area for fraudulent claims. This is the point that Senator Georges raised. At the moment, as far as I am aware, if a medical practitioner wants to bulk bill he fills in the items on the form and the patient signs the form after the service has been completed. Under the new system a person will be able to obtain a ‘pay doctor’ cheque by completing the normal form for Medibank- if he is insured with Medibank- or I imagine his health insurance fund. It seems to me that if a person wants to obtain a ‘pay doctor’ cheque all he has to do is sign that form.

Senator Walters:

– He has to get a bill and check the bill.

Senator COLSTON:

– I cannot see that there are any provisions that he must actually see the bill. If a person signs a form and gives it to his medical practitioner or the medical practitioner’s receptionist the rest of the form could be completed by someone other than the patient. The services itemised on the form could be different to those given to the patient.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Are you saying that calculated fraud could occur?

Senator COLSTON:

-I am talking about calculated fraud. I am sorry, I did not know that there was a different sort of fraud. I think the Minister can see the point I am driving at. There is a ferule area for fraudulent practice if a person sets out to defraud a health fund or the Government through Medibank Standard. This was the point that Senator Georges raised. I do not think that it has been adequately answered.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– ‘Pay doctor’ cheques will continue to be payable. These will not lead to as much abuse as bulk billing did. In a general way cheques are forwarded to the patient who has to check on the amounts involved. An individual patient deals with individual cheques. It is believed that that will lead to less abuse than the bulk billing procedure which has been the practice in the past. It is accepted that there has been abuse under the bulk billing system. It is believed that the abolition of bulk billing will lead to less abuse.

Senator Georges:

– But not to set up a new system which is more open to abuse.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– It is not more open to abuse; it is less open.

Senator Georges:

– But the cheque goes straight to the doctor. The patient does not see the cheque and may not see the bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The ‘pay doctor’ cheque can be forwarded to the patient.

Senator Georges:

– Can be?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Yes.

Senator Colston:

– But it can be forwarded -

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Robertson:

– Order! The Minister is trying to explain the situation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– In general, the cheques are forwarded to the patient.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I do not want to belabour this point but I think it is important. I have been informed that if the medical claim has on it ‘Mr John Smith, care of Dr John Brown’, and Dr John Brown’s address, the pay doctor’ cheque then goes to Dr John Brown without having to go to the patient initially. If this is the case I think that the system is open to fraud. If the case is as the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) explained, that the cheque must first go to the patient who pays it to the doctor, then I think the whole system is less likely to be subjected to fraud.

Senator Ryan:

– But it is much more cumbersome.

Senator COLSTON:

-Certainly it is much more cumbersome.

Senator McLaren:

– And much more costly.

Senator COLSTON:

-And it is much more costly than the present method. I think that this is an area that is well worth looking at, especially if we find that fraudulent practices develop along the lines I outlined.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I think we are spending a lot of time on this matter but I can see that it is important to honourable senators. On several occasions during Question Time I have said that the Government is considering ways in which it can deal with community health centres, or Aborigines or low income groups. On behalf of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) I believe I have said that it would be hoped that in the case of low income people the doctor would accept the ‘pay doctor’ cheque as full settlement for the account, not just as a 75 per cent contribution to it.

When I said that the cheque generally would be sent to the patient, the Government has under consideration whether it would need to adopt some procedure to assist low income families or special groups of people who may need to have the cheque sent to the doctor in full settlement of the account so they would not be harrassed When I said that in general the cheque would be forwarded to the patient, that is what I had in mind. The Government has not yet agreed to an alternative proposal but it has that under consideration. Taking into account the fact that in general terms the patient will receive the ‘pay doctor’ cheque, will handle it and will see whether it is in accordance with the service he has received it is believed that this is less open to abuse than the bulk billing procedure.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In view of the answers given by the Minister to the questions raised by both Senator Georges and Senator Colston, why is it that the Government did not explore all these avenues before it introduced this legislation? The Minister has just said that the Government will examine all these matters after the legislation is passed. That seems to be a trend that is running through all the legislation that has gone through this Parliament. We had legislation go through yesterday in regard to self-government for the Northern Territory and we were told, in answer to questions by honourable senators on this side of the chamber, that the Government will have a look at the matters raised. Can the Minister tell the Senate why the Government did not look at all these matters before it brought in this legislation and asked for it to be passed? Why examine them after the legislation has been passed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator McLaren overlooks the fact that this is a Bill which will take effect when it is proclaimed. The Bill was brought in so that it will be possible for the Government to do these things after the administrative processes have been fully developed. The Bill will take effect on proclamation, not before the processes, procedures and administrative practices have been developed.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I now ask the Minister what will be the Government’s attitude if, after consultation with the doctors about how this scheme will operate under the pay doctor arrangement, a big percentage of the doctors find that it is too cumbersome? Will the Government still proceed to proclaim the Bill or will it leave it unproclaimed until we come back for the Budget session and then introduce the necessary amendments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government has taken a decision to abolish bulk billing. That is understood by the medical profession. It has been discussed with the medical profession. That needs to be understood before we start canvassing hypothetical questions such as the one raised by Senator McLaren.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Provision of services by organisations).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I wish to register again our opposition to clause 8, which deals with deductibles. I will restate briefly our reasons for opposing the deductibles. Firstly, they erode the universality of health cover and, secondly, they are an inequitable redistribution of health costs away from those who are less often sick to those who are most often sick.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– The Government does not accept the Opposition’s view.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Guidelines for medical and hospital benefits plans).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– Again I rise to oppose clause 9, which deals with the guidelines for medical and hospital benefits plans. We oppose the concept with which the guidelines will be dealing. As I said in my speech during the second reading debate, we also oppose the practice of bringing in guidelines and changes by regulation rather than by legislation.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– The Government does not accept that view.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clause 1 1 (Interpretation).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– Clause 11 increases the prescribed amount payable by patients for pharmaceutical items on the schedule from $2 to $2.50. We are opposed to this clause because of the hardship it will impose on low income families and individuals. We are opposed to it also because we do not have from the Government any indication of the economic arguments in favour of the increase. We feel that it may lead to situations where people who need certain pharmaceutical products will not get them because they cannot afford them. This harsh and unjustified increase we believe undermines the original aim of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, which was to provide basic pharmaceuticals for all people who need them.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– As far as the Government is concerned, it was important to seek relativity in the costs. The increase from $2 to $2.50 takes into account general increases in costs. This is another part of the Government’s strategy in these amending Bills to take account of the costs of health care and to ensure that proportions of those costs are borne by individuals. This is a part of the Bill and a part of the proposal from the Government to which we would not accept an amendment nor would we seek any withdrawal of this clause. It is an important pan of the whole package the Government has presented.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I wish to ask one or two questions. The first deals with the matter raised by the Minister when she was replying to Senator McLaren in relation to the Bill having effect from the date on which it is proclaimed. I ask whether a date is envisaged for the introduction of the increased fee of $2.50 for prescriptions? Secondly, I ask whether the Government has given any consideration to the fact that fewer prescriptions may be filled under this scheme now that the cost will be $2.50. I noticed in the Minister’s second reading speech a reference to the fact that the increase will effect a saving of $20m. Does that $20m saving take into account the fact that fewer prescriptions may be filled under the scheme because of the extra cost?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– In answer to the first question, the Bill provides that clause 11 will take effect on1 July of this year. A date is specified for the application of the increased pharmaceutical benefits fee. All factors were taken into account when the Government was assessing what movement there ought to be in the pharmaceutical benefits fee to be charged. It took into account all factors that were known to it.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I ask the Minister how clause 11 can come into effect on 1 July when she has just told us that the Bill will not be proclaimed. Perhaps she could explain how the Government can enforce the provisions of clause 1 1 without proclaiming the whole of the legislation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– There are clauses which have a date on which they will be put into effect. There are other clauses which will come into operation on a date fixed by proclamation. If Senator McLaren were to refer to clause 2 of the Bill he would see that, subject to this section, this Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the royal assent. Sections 3, 5 and 6, paragraphs 7 (1 ) (a) and (b) and section 15 shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. Sections 4 and 12 shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation. Paragraph 7(l)(c) and sub-section 7 (2) shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by proclamation and section 1 1 shall come into operation on 1 July 1978. It would be obvious from that clause that it would be assumed that the whole Bill will be brought into effect so that clause 1 1 can come into operation on 1 July 1978. These are the provisions contained in clause 2 and deal with the Bill in a way that allows it to take effect at the date the Government has stated.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

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

Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1978

Clauses I to 4- by leave- taken together and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Entitlement to medical benefits).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I wish to voice the opposition of the Labor Party to this clause which reduces the benefit from 85 per cent to 75 per cent and increases the maximum gap for those doctors charging the scheduled fee from $5 to $10 per item. From what has been said by Opposition senators in the debate to date, it is obvious that we are particularly concerned with the effect of these increases on low income patients. I should like to point out at this stage also that these increases in the cost the patient will have to pay are payable on every separate item. So if a person has an operation and a number of items are involved, this increased charge will be charged for each item. Therefore the overall cost could be very high.

It is worth pointing out too that although the Government has claimed in a sense that is technically true that it has not increased the Medibank levy, it is by these means increasing the cost of health services to levy patients as well as to everybody else. We are concerned also that only those people who are eligible for pensioner medical services will be excluded from the reduction to 75 per cent of the scheduled fee. Again I point out that there are many hundreds of thousands of social security beneficiaries in Australia who are not eligible for pensioner medical services but who may in fact be in a worse position economically than such pensioners. I include of course, those many low income families who are not beneficiaries but are in employment, or have one member of the household in employment but who are suffering severe economic hardship and will be very detrimentally affected. I wish to register the strongest of opposition to these two parts of clause 5, that which reduces the benefit from 85 per cent to 75 per cent of the schedule fee and that which increases the maximum patient contribution from $5 to $ 10.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The proposed changes to this clause are important to the Government’s attack on health costs. When the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) outlined these changes when introducing the amending Bills he said that the rate of growth of health costs in Australia was well above the general rate of inflation and that, although significant modifications had been made to health insurance which had resulted in a decline in the rate of acceleration of costs, it was still far from acceptable. The Government considered a large number of options available to it to generate the necessary sense of community responsibility in both the provision and usage of health services. The Minister for Health has said that there are no easy solutions to what is a very complex set of problems. Restraint for its own sake does not dominate our thinking but it is our responsibility to exercise restraint in spreading the costs of health services and in looking at other essential areas of government spending.

The Minister also reminded us, as has been said earlier tonight, that people pay for health care by whatever, means is available to them. To suggest that governments have some source of funds which do not come from the people and that they can bear a burden of cost which ultimately is not paid by the people is to overlook the real nature of government revenue. We believe that the introduction of a change so that 75 per cent of the health costs is recovered and 25 per cent is borne by the patient is a responsible change at this stage. I believe that changing the $5 gap that existed for many years to $10 takes account of the change in the relative value of money. These changes are important. The Government believes they are financially responsible changes and that also they take into account the need of people to have access to a health system. The Government notes the attitude of the Opposition to these changes but believes that the Oppostion has given it no reason to support that attitude.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 (Persons Entitled to Medical Benefits).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

-Clause 7 abolishes bulk billing for Medibank patients. I explained in the second reading debate on the earlier Bill which abolished bulk billing for private funds why the

Opposition favours bulk billing and strongly opposes the abolition of bulk billing for Medibank. During the course of this debate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and Senator Baume have emphasised that the abolition of bulk billing will hold health costs down. I submit that at this stage we still have no evidence that that is the case. Certainly we have evidence that there has been fraud, but it seems to the Opposition that a more reasonable way in which to proceed would be to develop ways of cutting out fraud rather than abolishing the whole system which has so many merits in terms of administrative efficiency and so forth. We are not convinced that the substitute system which will be made available, the ‘pay doctor’ cheque system, will be free of fraud.

It appears to us that the Government is proceeding with this abolition of bulk billing out of ideological prejudice rather than out of sound economic argument. We still wait for evidence which shows that the abolition of bulk billing and the partial replacement of bulk billing by the pay doctor’ cheque system will reduce costs or the incidence of fraud. We are very strongly opposed to the abolition of bulk billing for Medibank.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government commends clause 7 to the Senate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– As I see it, this Bill represents the final nail in the coffin of Medibank. It is a complete repudiation of a promise given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) during the 1 975 election campaign that the Liberal-National Country parties, if elected, would not interfere with Medibank. Here we have in black and white the Minister saying:

The amendment effected by clause 7 abolishes bulk billing for medical services other than those provided to eligible pensioners and their dependants.

So there we have in black and white something that we said all along would happen. The Government is abolishing bulk billing so that it can completely wreck Medibank, so that in the future it will be able to say that the people do not want Medibank. It is a deliberate attempt to drive people who are sorely in need of medical services back into the private health funds, those massive profit-making organisations. The Opposition has said that all along. One of the reasons why we introduced Medibank was to help the sick and the needy in the community. This Government is now shown up in its proper colours. It could not care less about the sick, the ill and the needy in the community. It is spelt out in detail in this Bill that the Government is abolishing bulk billing.

In the country town in which I live- Murray Bridge in South Australia- bulk billing has been working magnificently. When the people are in need of medical services they can go along to the doctor’s clinic and receive a service. But what will they do when the Government abolishes bulk billing? What will people do in places such as Murray Bridge, Port Lincoln and many others, where bulk billing has worked satisfactorily? There have been no incidences of fraud in those towns. A few doctors in the community have set out to defraud the Government and the taxpayers, but this Government does not see fit to look for a remedy, to apprehend those people and to close the loopholes; it has to penalise everybody in the community. As I have said, we are now seeing the final nail driven into the coffin of Medibank by a Government which made a solemn promise to the electors that it would not interfere with Medibank. This is only one of the promises the Government has broken, and, in doing so, it is picking on the sick and the needy. What it has set out to do is a damned disgrace to the community and to the Government.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 (Guidelines for medical and hospital benefits plans).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– This clause deals with the abolition of bulk billing for optometrists. The Australian Labor Party indicates its opposition to the abolition of bulk billing in the case of optometrists, using the same argument which it used to oppose the abolition of bulk billing generally.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government commends the clause.

Clause agreed to.

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

Health Insurance Levy Assessment Amendment Bill 1978

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

Hospitals and Health Services Commission (Repeal) Bill 1978

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

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2758

TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Opposition vigorously opposes the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill 1978. In the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), the term a bipartisan attitude’ appears in relation to this innovation. After all, this Authority was the brainchild of a very illustrious Minister for Labor and Immigration, the Honourable Clyde Cameron. Many thousands of students have gone through the College at the shop steward level, in addition to another 1,500 students who have completed correspondence courses. The more I ponder on the terminology used in the Minister’s second reading speech, the more difficult I find it to understand why there has to be a virtual emasculation of the key provisions of the original legislation. It is remarkable that the Government created a committee of inquiry into this matter, but the Minister’s second reading speech states in muted tones that the Government has felt that it should go beyond the actual findings of the committee. I would call that legislative Luddism’ because I cannot see the motivation for it.

I was particularly struck by Senator Chaney ‘s comments last night when he was talking about trade unionism in the Pilbara. I think the very idea of establishing this college was to enable, as it were, a non-commissioned officer stratum to be developed in the trade union movement. In the 1950s people who had trade union aspirations found it very costly to privately subscribe to a variety of publications, which might have included such business-oriented journals as Rydge’s and other publications of that nature. The real nub of the matter seems to be the term executive board’. The Government has now decided on a member ratio of 4:4- 4 members from the trade unions and 4 members from other sources in the community.

I have heard some senators opposite talking about the cost factor. Candidly, it might be cheaper for the trade union movement if it were not in the arbitration system. Because it is in the arbitration system, it has to train some members to gather facts from the workshop floor and develop them to the union executive level. In some instances skilled advocates would then take over where a broad log of claims is involved. But in the vast majority of cases that involve industrial hazards, it is the fluency of the shop steward that can make the industrial climate calm. Returning to Senator Chaney ‘s remarks, I was amazed at the attitude he took last night. He seemed to begrudge people in remote areas getting a particular allowance, which I think they deserved because of geographical considerations. As I have stated, this is the sort of legislation about which one could speak for an hour and still not complete the exercise. I have noticed that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, has made frequent utterances about the attitude of the Government. On 23 April he said:

Industrial relations should not be a party political plaything . . .

This is the whole situation. Mr Justice Moore or somebody of that standing has not said that there is anything wrong with the trade union college concept. The only people who seem to have let the ‘cat out of the bag’ were several back bench Government supporters in the debate in the other place. People have been talking about the polarisation of the college structure in some States and elements of the trade union movement voicing opinions in different areas. This Bill provides for an executive board and an executive director.

I have been to a few of these colleges to see how they operate. In some areas one might feel that the shop steward will have his industrial virginity affected by reading the wrong publications. Most trade union members in big industry have the choice of reading Tribune, Vanguard, Direct Action and publications of that nature on payday, and if they want to get a bit of leavening they can even have access to Newsweek. I do not think any of those publications provide the solutions to industrial relations but I think if people read those publications- Rydge’s also- they would probably become fairly mature in their thinking.

The changes proposed in this legislation are complete anathema to us. We do not know why the changes have been introduced. Anybody who has met the directors of the College or people from the training centres in the States knows their responsibility. If one or two graduates of the College were involved in a marathon dispute that went on for weeks and weeks I can imagine the Minister saying: ‘These are the sons of industrial saboteurs that are the product of this College’. It is for this reason that we think it is gross impertinence to interfere with the operations of the College.

I read the report of the tripartite Committee of Inquiry into Trade Union Training which had a pretty wide charter. I could not see in the report the need for the massive surgery that is embodied in this Bill. It is for that reason that the Opposition vigorously opposes the legislation. We believe that the country is crying out for a bipartisan approach to industrial problems. We realise the complexity of them. I do not know whether the new national director of the College is to assume the role of a wartime censor. However, I believe that this is the sort of role he will play. It looks very much like it to me. I will be very interested to hear from the Minister any amplification of the points I have raised.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– This Bill concerns the restructuring of the Trade Union Training Authority. Senator Mulvihill asked why it has to be restructured and why the radical surgery. I think that the community as a whole is looking to the Authority as a method of creating peace in our industrial relations. This has not occurred. There has been considerable fighting among the left and right wings of the trade union movement about trade union training. I will come to that matter a little later. I believe, as Mr Clyde Cameron said, that the community has regarded the Authority as a vital step towards industrial peace. Consequently, the taxpayer is prepared now to spend $3m in the hope that this will be one method of bringing peace in our industrial relations.

The Trade Union Training Authority has not been operating for long. Management training has been in existence for many years. In the past the emphasis has been mainly on company viability and profits, but I believe that that attitude is changing quite considerably. The emphasis is now being placed on what it should have been in the past- man-management, human relations and personal relationships. I believe that management is waking up at last and is now seeing the necessity for management training. I believe- I have said that in this place many times before- that unless management takes a new look at things and unless it trains its supervisors and foremen to take a more man-management approach, a more humane approach, we will not get very far. I do not believe that we can expect anyone to do a job eight hours a day, five days a week. We cannot expect him to go to his place of employment and to do a job if he does not know why he is doing it and what pan he is playing in his company. He has no job satisfaction because he has no loyalty to his industry. He does not understand it. Nobody has ever explained to him how important his job is to that industry. Nobody has explained the problems of his industry. Nobody has explained to him the competition his industry faces. Nobody has ever bothered to tell him that he is any more than just a cog in the wheel of the industry. I think that this has altered. I believe that management is seeing the light and that the emphasis is turning in this direction.

I believe that the Trade Union Training Authority has a tremendous part to play. Mr Clyde Cameron, when he set up the College, had in his sights a dream that this College would result in industrial peace in this country. It was only last month when the Bill was being debated in the other House that in the form of an interjection Mr Clyde Cameron said that he had always said it would take some time before enough recruits could be harvested from the college to have an impact on the peace of the industry. I believe that the whole of the Government was behind the Clyde Cameron College when it was brought into being. The Government was hopeful that it would work and would work well. However, there have been problems. As I said to Senator Mulvihill a few moments ago and as he well knows, those problems included the in-fighting between the unions over the trade union training. Some of the unions will not have anything to do with that training; they keep out of it altogether.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The Builders Labourers Federation will not have anything to do with it. Are you lining up with the far Left?

Senator WALTERS:

– The Builders Labourers Federation will not have anything to do with it. Many unions have been fighting over the Trade Union Training Authority and I believe that the restructuring of this Authority will have the desired effect. Let us turn to the structuring of this Authority. When the Government realised the pitfalls of the trade union training as it existed it set up a tripartite committee to inquire into the matter. An in-depth inquiry took place. The committee consulted all sections of the community. It took 400 submissions and interviewed over 100 people. The Government has accepted the gist of all the recommendations that have come from this inquiry. It has decided to restructure the Authority in the following way: There will be a National Director and an Executive Board. The Australian Council will be retained as an advisory board and a link with the board and councils. The 6 State Councils will be retained and the Director of the Clyde Cameron College will also be retained. His responsibilities will be expanded and he will be re-named the Director of Studies.

Perhaps if we look at the composition of these various levels we will have a better insight into how they will actually work. Let us start from the bottom and work up. I think we will then be able to see how the Executive Board will be composed. The function of the State Councils will be to advise and to make recommendations to the Authority in relation to trade union training in their particular State. The State Councils will comprise part-time members. The chairman will be appointed by the Minister. An officer from the government department will also be appointed by the Minister. Three people will represent the relevant trade union organisations. One person will represent the division of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Association for the State; one person will represent the division of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations for the State; one person will represent the branch of the Confederation of Australian Industry for the State; and one person will be appointed by the Minister to promote the interests of technical and further education. This is a new implementation and- 1 believe it will create a broader view on the State Councils. The members to whom I have referred are to be appointed after full consultation with the relevant body by the Minister.

Then we go further up the ladder to the Australian Council, whose function it is to advise, and make recommendations to, the Authority in relation to the planning and development of programs for trade union training in Australia and the evaluation thereof. It too comprises parttime members. One, who is to be the Chairman, will be appointed by the Minister, as will the National Director. The remaining membership will be made up of the following: The Secretary or, in his stead, another officer of the Department appointed by the Minister, five representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, a representative of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, a representative of the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations, a representative of the Confederation of Australian Industry, a representative of the Commissioner of the Tertiary Education Commission- such representation being an innovation- and, as a further innovation, a representative who will be a member of the Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister, and one who will be a member of the Parliament appointed by the Leader of the Opposition. The representatives of the various bodies I have mentioned will be appointed by the Minister in consultation with those bodies. All of the members of the Executive Board will be derived directly from the Australian Council. There will thus be a flow-on of information, a direct link between Council and board. The Board will be a small body of eight members, each of whom, with the exception of the National Director, will be parttime. The chairman will be the chairman of the Australian Council. The employers’ representative will be their representative on that Council. The Government Department representative also will be a member of the Council. The four union members likewise will belong to it. As Senator Mulvihill has said, this will result in there being four members from the unions and four from other areas of the community. There will be at all levels employer representationanother innovation. This will be of great advantage because, as long as there is consultation in these councils and on the Executive Board something can be achieved. While employers are completely kept out there can be no consultation. That could have only a most detrimental effect. I sincerely hope that there will indeed be further consultation, and that in the State councils we will have programs where management and union training can be taken as part of the same course. This is essential if we are ever to reach the decisions that I hope will ensure industrial peace.

Senator Mulvihill emphasised that he saw no reason why the proposed restructuring should take place. Perhaps I could express the position as I see it. Every State runs its branch of the Trade Union Training Authority in a different way. As Senator Mulvihill will know, some of the branches are run by more right wing unions and in other States they are run by more left wing unions.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Variety is the spice of life.

Senator WALTERS:

-That is right, but unfortunately this leads to a lot of fighting and bickering. This is certainly what happens under the present scheme. When we met an officer from one of the States who was involved in trade union training, he said that he would not have a bar of the Tasmanian method.

Sentor Mulvihill- I have lived with that all my life in my State.

Senator WALTERS:

– I am well aware that the honourable senator would have.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is a part of the way of life.

Senator WALTERS:

-Therefore, it really disturbs me that the Opposition does not believe that this restructuring will perhaps bring all sections together in consultation. This representative from another State told me that he would not send one of his members down to Tasmania for training, that it would be the last thing that he would do. That is because in Tasmania trade union training is run in a very responsible way. It has been proved that the organisation is responsible.

Senator Mulvihill:

– But that is being done under the present format. Why change it?

Senator WALTERS:

-Because we hope that the position will be the same throughout the whole of Australia. If we change the scheme to bring more sections of the community into the Trade Union Training Authority, then consultation will be right at the centre or right at the core of events. This cannot help but do some good. I believe that the new structure will be the first step in assisting Clyde Cameron’s dream. Mr Clyde Cameron did have a dream of harmony both in respect of trade union training and management training in industry. I believe that his concept of a college was to bring industrial harmony. This restructuring will be the first step towards this. We all hope that it will fulfil this dream. It gives me much pleasure to support the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I am sorry that the Opposition has decided to oppose the Trade Union Training Authority Amendment Bill. I think that it contains positive proposals. Senator Walters has outlined them in very clear detail. The Bill is designed to improve the administration of a very worthwhile project. I hope that the Bill will have the support of the Senate, despite the opposition to it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 7- by leave- taken together.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Opposition regards the appointment or the imposition of a National Director to the Trade Union Training Authority as being more or less a litmus test of the sincerity of the Government in respect of centralism versus regionalism. Perhaps I could put my argument in a broader way by referring to trade union autonomy. The fact of the matter is that the role of the National Director, as I read these clauses which are on page 3 of the Bill, is to report directly to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The nearest analogy I can draw to this is the position that applied in the Red Army when a commissar worked alongside the army general staff. I know that the Russians have changed the system from time to time. But I would regard the National Director as a sort of commissar. I have no doubt that he will report direct to the Minister frequently. He has a certain amount of influence. Senator Walters mentioned the four non-trade union appointees. I believe that these appointments represent an insult to the top officers of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Council has more than a passing interest in who is appointed to this top body. I repeat that if, under the present structure, motions were adopted that contained a Party political stance, it might be said that this was the prostitution of trade unionism. But the position is nothing like that.

Being mindful of the limitation of time, I simply say on behalf of the Opposition that we oppose clauses 1 to 7 because we believe that the setting up of the National Director as the link to the Minister is undue interference in an organisation that in the past has worked very well. There has been no misappropriation of money or anything of that nature. I do not know of anybody who having undergone training has indulged in public demonstrations against the Minister or the Government. The finished product has gone back into industry. I might say to Senator Walters that as late as last night I was talking to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron). He made this point about many of the people who assume the role of a shop steward or a sub-branch official in distant areas: The community will not get the full benefit of their experience probably until five years from now when they take up paid positions as regional organisers and State secretaries. I repeat that the Opposition is opposed to tampering with the present authority. I think that what I said in relation to the National Director symbolises the criticisms of the Opposition in respect of tampering with what is a very effective organisation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government cannot accept any amendment to the Bill in the terms put by Senator Mulvihill. The Government sees the creation of the position of National Director as one of the major features of restructuring the Trade Union Training Authority. It is vital to its reorganisation so as to improve the administrative efficiency of the Authority.

Clauses agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2762

PUBLIC SERVICE ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– The Senate is now debating the Public Service Arbitration Amendment Bill 1978. In the eyes of the Opposition this is very poor legislation. We are totally opposed to this Bill. We will not be moving amendments because we have total opposition to it. This legislation originated from the Government’s defeat in the recent dispute within the Commonwealth Employment Service. The Government, having been a party to the dispute, now intends to change the rules so that the Government or the Public Service Board is always the winner. As an exercise in industrial relations the Bill is an abject failure. As an exercise in industrial anarchy the Bill is a total success. Ultimately this legislation will do great harm to industrial relations within the Public Service.

I do not intend tonight to outline the background to the dispute that sparked off the introduction of this Bill because that was well canvassed in the second reading speech in this place, in the second reading speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) and also in the speeches of Opposition members in the House of Representatives. I will, however, say something of a personal nature. I feel duty bound to do so. It is a pity that we had this dispute within the Commonwealth Employment Service. While the dispute was in progress it was fairly obvious that there was a lowering of morale within the Service. But, more importantly, within the public there was a feeling that all was not well within the Commonwealth Employment Service.

I have always been a person who has stood up for the Commonwealth Employment Service and outlined how important the Service is and how important it is that the public should support it. I have said on a couple of occasions in this place that I have always gone to the CES when I have been looking for staff and I have always been happy with what has happened. In fact, once I was overwhelmed by the service given to me. I outlined that case here once before. I make a point of visiting the offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service in my travels throughout Queensland and I have found that the officers are not happy with the role they have to fulfil at present. At the moment, given the number of people unemployed and the staff numbers of the Service, the officers see their role as being simply to provide a place where people can register for employment. If employment is available those people obtain a job, but if employment is not available the officers of the CES see themselves virtually as providing an agency for the Department of Social Security.

Those officers want to do much more that that. They want to be able to provide matching programs. They want to be able to do all the things which were mentioned in the Norgard report. They want to do that but they cannot at the present time. Hopefully with an increase in staff and a lowering of the number of people unemployed they will be able to get on with these tasks which they want to fulfil. That is why I was disappointed that this should happen with regard to the Commonwealth Employment Service. The Commonwealth Employment Service is a body which needs support from the public and a body which should expect support from the public. But during the course of this dispute the public probably looked at the situation and thought that all was not right with the Service. I mention that because whenever I am speaking on an issue which is associated in any way with the Commonwealth Employment Service I feel inclined to make my feelings known. I think that the Service still does not receive the support from the public that it really deserves.

I return now to the Bill which we are discussing. The Bill will put the exclusive prerogative of the Public Service Board beyond doubt in matters of recruitment and promotion. It will subdue the voice of public servants in such matters by closing off the role of the Public Service Arbitrator, to whom Public Service employee organisations have previously had some recourse. That raises the question of this Government’s belief in the due processes of law in arbitration. Because the traditional arbitration procedures did not bring about the decisions which suited the Government, the Government has decided to change the law.

That rather reminds me of some of the events that occur quite often in Queensland. In

Queensland when the law does not suit a particular case- even though the law might be morally correct- one does not have to accept the law; one just changes it. This happened recently when two members of the Queensland Parliament found that they were really not entitled to take their seats in the Parliament because of technicalities within the law. There was not much worry when the first member found that this was so because his was a seat which would be very difficult for the Australian Labor Party to win. But when the second case arose and it concerned a somewhat marginal seat there was quite a bit of disquiet. The Queensland Government talked about holding a by-election in respect of the first case, but it suddenly changed its mind when it found that there was a second case. So it just changed the legislation to make sure that these people could take their places in the Parliament.

This reminds me of the situation that has just occurred in Queensland. The union, in this case, went to arbitration. A decision was made by the arbitrator. After taking legal advice the union was of the opinion that the decision was incorrect. No strike was called, but the union took the matter to the High Court which subsequently upheld the union’s point of view that the right of appeal was a fundamental condition of employment. The court gave sound judicial reasons for upholding the appeal. The High Court said that the right of appeal was a fundamental condition of employment, particularly in the Public Service where a wide range of job opportunities existed and a wide range of qualifications are desired for those various positions.

It must be remembered, although I mentioned earlier that a dispute within the Commonwealth Employment Service sparked off this Bill- I spoke for a short time about the CES- that this Bill is not confined to that organisation. It embraces the Public Service as a whole. I was somewhat amazed when I read the stand down provisions of the Bill. The stand down provisions seem to me to be typical of this Government’s attitude towards workers within the Public Service. I do not think stand down provisions will ever be accepted by the industrial movement. The industrial movement will probably endure these provisions because they are there. The stand down provisions are quite broad. They are so broad that, from reading the Bill, there does not have to be any outward sign that people cannot be employed properly before being stood down. If there is some thought that that will happen people can be stood down.

It seems strange to me that associated with the stand down provisions is a means by which those people who are stood down can be penalised with regard to their sick leave, annual leave and long service leave. If that sort of thing is to happen a vast administrative problem will occur in making sure that the provisions of the Bill are carried out correctly. In determining leave credits, a divisor of 26 1 will be used for a person who works a five-day week and in any other case a divisor of 3 13 will be used. It seems to me that if this provision is ever used- I hope it is not- it will create a lot of administrative problems. One wonders if it will be worth while. Those who are stood down will be penalised by way of sick leave, annual leave and long service leave to the extent of the number of days that they are stood down. Thankfully, the period that they are stood down will not be lost to them in calculating the provision for long service leave. Perhaps we can have a look at this provision when we are debating the Bill in detail. I conclude by again mentioning that the Opposition totally opposes this Bill. We do not believe that the Bill can be righted by amendments. We are not suggesting any amendments. We totally oppose the Bill.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– Like Senator Colston I do not think it is necessary at this stage to canvass the background to this legislation. It has been the subject of debate in another place and in the community. I want to make just a few points about the legislation, particularly relating to the High Court decision to which Senator Colston referred. I think it is necessary to make the point that the decision of the High Court appeared to the Government to mean that the whole area of recruitment into and promotion within the Public Service could be removed from the control of the Public Service Board and departmental management by the Public Service Arbitrator. As the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) pointed out in his second reading speech, it has been traditionally accepted that this is an area in which the Arbitrator’s determinations were not intended to operate and should not operate. One of the major purposes of this legislation has been to put into legislative form what has been traditionally accepted as the existing situation.

As I understand it some consideration was given to this matter in 1922. The outcome of that consideration was in many ways indeterminate and the matter has since been left in that state. Again, referring to what the Minister said in this second reading speech, in the public sector it has traditionally been accepted that these areasrecruitment and promotion within the Public Service- have been matters to which the Arbitrator’s determinations have not applied and have not been intended to apply. The Minister made a statement in his second reading speech to which I would like to refer. He said:

The Parliament has clearly intended that the area of vital importance to the standing of the Service -

That is, the Public Service- . . recruitment, selection and promotion procedures, should be a matter for management decision. There is nothing unusual about this- it is the same principle which applies in the private sector where employers have the right to recruit the employees whom they choose. But in the Public Service there is a special need that it be the Parliament and the Board exercising the powers vested in it by the Parliament which determines principles and procedures governing recruitment, selection and promotion.

I reiterate that this has been the traditionally accepted view since 1922. For 56 years this has been the way it has operated and this legislation to amend the Public Service Arbitration Act, following a decision by the High Court which gave clear interpretation to the law which differed from traditional practices, will put into effect what has traditionally been the accepted situation. I would like also to quote a further statement from the second reading speech which I think is important to this legislation. The Minister said:

The Government believes it has the responsibility to the public to state clearly and unambiguously that the responsibility for determining the procedures relating to recruitment, selection and promotion in the Public Service shall remain with the Public Service Board and the management of Commonwealth departments and authorities.

That, of course, is the purpose of the legislation. The Minister stated in his second reading speech that this is not a remarkable or unusual decision, that it is similar to the practice followed in the private sector for employers to have these rights with respect to recruitment and promotion and that in fact this legislation makes clear what has been the traditionally accepted practice since 1922. As I understand it there are also similar provisions for the various public services in the States of the Commonwealth. I seek leave to incorporate a document which summarises these matters relating to the States.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

PROVISIONS IN STATE LEGISLATION RELATING TO STATE PUBLIC SERVANTS-DETERMINATION OF CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

There is nothing unusual about restricting the powers of the Arbitrator on matters which the Government feels that it, as an employer, should exercise power through a Public Service Board. Such restrictions reflect the approaches of State Governments which, to a greater or lesser extent, have restricted the areas in which industrial tribunals can exercise jurisdiction in relation to public servants. Although the position in some of the States is not clear cut, the position appears to be as follows:

Victoria- The recruitment^ appointment and promotion of officers in the public service are within the prerogative of the Public Service Board. The Board is also empowered to determine pay and other terms and conditions of employment of officers in the public service other than teachers and police which have separate wage fixing tribunals. The decisions of the Board and the teachers and police tribunals are final, subject only to possible disallowance by Parliament. The Labour and Industry Act makes no provision in relation to public servants.

Tasmania- The Public Service Act provides that the powers in relation to appointments, promotions and transfers, et cetera, of public servants are exercised by the Public Service Board. The Board may also make awards determining such matters as salaries, hours of work, allowances and other traditional industrial issues. However, there is no provision for such awards to deal with matters such as appointment of officers, et cetera. The jurisdiction of the Public Service Arbitrator under the Act is confined to arbitrating on awards made by the Board or refusals by the Board to make awards, and reviewing salary determinations made by a controlling authority.

Western Australia- Under the Western Australian Public Service Act the Board is empowered to determine salaries and conditions governing payment of salaries and, upon the recommendation of the Board, the Governor may make regulations covering conditions of employment. Under the Public Service Arbitration Act, in relation to Government officers, the Arbitrator may determine claims submitted to him relating to salaries, increments and allowances applicable to Government officers. Apart from those matters, the Board would seem to have exclusive power to set the terms and conditions of employment for public servants.

South Australia- The South Australian Public Service Act provides for the appointment (including promotion) to an office in the public service by the Public Service Board except in relation to positions above a certain salary level, which are made by the Governor on the recommendation of the Board. The Act also empowers the Board to determine salaries and conditions of service. Decisions of the Board relating to salaries and conditions of employment are subject to awards of the SA Industrial Commission. However, there is nothing to suggest that such awards in relation to conditions of employment could include matters such as appointment and promotion of officers in the public service. On the contrary, section 45 of the Public Service Act provides that ‘Notwithstanding anything in any other Act, appointment to an office shall be made as provided for in this Act and not by any other person or authority’.

Queensland- Under the Public Service Act appointments to the public service are made by the Governor on the recommendation of the Public Service Board. The Board, with the approval of the Governor in Council may make regulations governing conditions of employment. There is also provision for the Governor, upon the recommendation of the Board, to determine salaries, subject to the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

New South Wales- Whilst decisions of the Public Service Board on pay determinations and employment conditions are appealable to the NSW Industrial Commission, the NSW Arbitration Act provides that nothing in the Act authorises the making of an award which is inconsistent with Part II A of the Public Service Act. Part II A of that Act deals with appeals against promotion of officers. The Commission does not appear to have made a decision on the question of whether appoinment of officers in the public service is an ‘industrial matter’ for the purposes of the Industrial Arbitration Act.

Senator KNIGHT:

– Many issues have been raised by those who are quite properly interested in this legislation. The point has been made, for example, that government employees have had the general opportunity to present a case in arbitration on any matter related to employment conditions. This point was made by Senator Colston. As I have suggested, since the decision of 1 922, to which I referred earlier, these matters have not been referred in this way. The situation has been clarified by the High Court in relation to the existing law. This legislation now puts into effect what has been the practice over that period of 56 years.

Some attention has been given to the question of appeals against outside appointments to the Public Service above the base grade. This refers particularly in this case to recruitment and also to promotion. This provision would not apply in the private sector if people were being employed from outside a particular profession or industry. It also would not apply if people being employed in the private sector came from the public sector. I think it is worth bearing that in mind when suggesting that these provisions ought to apply to the Public Service. I also understand that this does not occur in the States where outside recruitment to the public services occurs. However, agreement was reached between the Public Service Board and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations with respect to possible review of appeals against recruitment from outside and promotion opportunities. Because the hour is late I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard the text of part of the agreement that relates to the establishment of a review panel similar to a promotion appeals committee.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Establish a review panel similar to a Promotions Appeal Committee comprising an officer of the Board, an officer of the Department of E & IR and a staff association nominee to review cases where APS applicants have not been selected for interview or have been interviewed and assessed as not suitable. The role of the review panel would be:

for a person not interviewed who sought a review; to assess on the papers whether he or she warranted an interview; and if so to refer the person to one of the selection committees for interview.

for a person interviewed and assessed as not suitable who sought a review: to assess on the papers and if after interview where requested, whether he or she warranted a second interview de novo by a selection committee which had not previously interviewed that person.

Any application for a review by a person to whom this paragraph applies shall be made in writing and shall be lodged with the relevant Public Service Inspector not later than seven working days after the date of the notification that he or she is not to be interviewed or that he or she has been assessed as not suitable for promotion, as the case may be.

Any such application shall set out ground(s) in support including a statement by the applicant on the reasons given by the selection committee for non-interview or for assessment as not suitable for promotion, as the case may be.

Any person who has sought a review of his or her case will be identified to the central (or national) committee, which will give close attention to the claims of such persons in its overall review of the order of merit.

Senator KNIGHT:

– This agreement which was reached is not considered by the authorities to extend beyond the Commonwealth Employment Service dispute which gave rise to this legislation. The agreement illustrates that the Government and the relevant authorities have been prepared to be flexible and to consider- in fact in this case to agree to- review provisions relating to appointees from outside the Public Service above the base grade level. I think it is worth emphasising that this is a special provision for the Public Service.

There has been considerable reference to the stand down provisions of this Public Service Arbitration Amendment Bill before the Senate. There has been a tendency to give this point less attention than was given to the earlier elements to which I have referred but I think it is of considerable significance. The provisions of the Bill state that a stand down order- which under this legislation is now clearly the prerogative of the Public Service Arbitrator- can be made so that the period of stand down will not count for the purposes of wages or remuneration and certain allowances; nor will it count for the purposes of accruing recreation leave, sick leave and long service leave- although in the case of the latter the period of stand down will not be considered to be a break in the continuity of service of the public servants stood down. That matter was of considerable concern to me and also to the honourable member for Canberra, John Haslem. We sought detailed advice on these provisions from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), particularly as to whether there were similar provisions in other areas of employment. Subsequently we were provided with a detailed statement from the Minister on these matters. Once again I seek leave of the Senate to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The Public Service Arbitration Amendment Bill 1978 provides that the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator may make orders authorising the standing down of officers and employees who are concerned in, or affected by, or are likely to be concerned in, or affected by, an industrial situation. The Bill further provides that an officer or employee who is stood down will not be entitled to salary, wages or other remuneration and allowances in the nature of salary or wages in respect of a period for which he is stood down. Nor will the period of stand down count as service for the purposes of recreation leave, long service leave and sick leave. A period of stand down will not break an officer’s or employee ‘s continuity of employment for long service leave purposes. In addition the Public Service Arbitrator or a Deputy Arbitrator will be able to give directions concerning other conditions of employment of stood down officers and employees.

In his Second Reading Speech introducing the Bill into the House, the Minister said: ‘The general effect of these provisions is to equate stand down as closely as possible to that which obtains under awards of the Commission ‘.

A survey which was conducted by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in August of last year revealed that at that time there were in excess of 300 awards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with provisions enabling stand down or deduction of pay for any day when employees cannot be usefully employed because of any strike or cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible. A list containing a cross section of those awards is attached (Attachment ‘A’).

The provisions of the Metal Industry Award serve as an example of the stand down provision typical in most awards. Sub-clause (e) (standing down of employees) of clause 6 (contract of employment) of that award provides:

The employer shall have the right to deduct payment for any day the employee cannot be usefully employed because of any strike or through any breakdown in machinery or any stoppage of work by any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible. ‘

Under most of the awards loss of working time by an employee due to his being stood down without pay in terms of the relevant award provision is not counted as part of the qualifying period for annual leave entitlement, although it will not break the continuity of service for such leave. Attachment ‘B’, the relevant provisions of the Metal Industry Award, is a typical example.

Similarly, awards of the Commission relating to long service leave provide that interruption or termination of employment arising directly or indirectly from an industrial dispute is deemed as not breaking continuity of employment provided the employee returns to work in accordance with the settlement terms of the dispute but the period of absence from duty does not count for long service leave purposes. Attachment ‘C contains the relevant provision in the Metal Trades (Long Service Leave) Award which is virtually a standard prescription in federal long service leave awards.

From the examples given it is clear that the provisions in awards of the Commission concerning stand downs and their effect on annual leave and long service leave entitlements are very similar to those proposed in the Bill in relation to Commonwealth employees, and are based on the principle that a person who is stood down generally should not be entitled to the benefits of the award in respect of the period during which he is stood down.

With regard to the effect of stand downs on sick leave entitlements, it is not usual for federal awards which contain stand down provisions to provide that sick leave entitlements are affected by such stand downs. However, in general, sick leave entitlements under federal awards are much less generous than those applicable to employees in the Commonwealth Public Service.

Permanent employees of the Public Service are entitled to sick leave to the extent of two weeks on full pay and two weeks on half pay per year, which is effectively three weeks on full pay per year. Of that entitlement, five days per year may be taken without the production of a medical certificate. Moreover, sick leave entitlements accrue from year to year for an indefinite period. Consequently, it would be possible for a Commonwealth employee with 25 years service to accrue sick leave credits to the extent of 50 weeks on full pay and 50 weeks on half pay, effectively almost a year and a half on full pay.

However, under most federal awards sick leave is allowed only in respect of personal illness or of incapacity through accident arising out of and in the course of the employment for which the employee is not entitled to workers’ compensation. In the majority of cases the period of leave allowed is 64 hours per year (i.e. eight days), with provision for such leave to accumulate over stipulated periods. The Metal Industry Award provides for the accumulation of sick leave entitlements for a maximum period of 12 years (see Attachment ‘D’), although many awards enable accumulation only for periods of up to 10 years, and in some cases only for six years. It is likely that because of the limitations on the taking of sick leave and the cumulative period for such entitlements that the Commission has not considered it appropriate that such entitlements should be affected by stand downs. In the Commonwealth area where accumulation is unlimited and is directly related to period of service there is no reason in principle why sick leave should not be treated in exactly the same way as other work related entitlements.

Attachment ‘A’

EXAMPLES OF FEDERAL AWARDS CONTAINING STAND DOWN PROVISIONS

AWU- BHP Aust. Ltd, Westernport Refinery, Agreement 1972.

AWU- Oil Refinery Employees (Amoco Aust.) Agreement 1972.

Commonwealth Hostels Award 1973.

Confectioners Award 1977.

Country Printing Award 1 977.

Licensed Aircraft Engineers (Domestic Airlines) Award 1975.

Licensed Aircraft Engineers (Qantas Airways) Award 1975.

Liquor Industries (Wine and Spirit Stores) Award 1974. Liquor Industries (Breweries) Award 1974. Mannequins and Models Tasmania and NT Award 1 974. Manufacturing Grocers Consolidated Award 1 975. Metal Industry Award 1971.

Miscellaneous Workers Plaster of Paris and Gypsum Products Industry (CSR- Wetherill Park) Award 1 975.

Miscellanous Workers Photographic Industry Award 1975.

Pilkington ACI Production and Warehousing Geelong No. 2 Award.

Port of Sydney Ship Repairing and Ship Building Industry Industrial Agreement 1976.

Queensland Alumina Ltd Agreement 1975.

Saddlery Leather and Canvass Workers Award 1975.

Salaried Officers (TAA) Award 1971.

Salaried Staff (Ansett Airlines) Award 1 972.

Scientific and Technical Officers (Chemical Industry) Award 1972.

Storemen and Packers (Wool Selling Brokers and Repackers) Award 1973.

Surface Prospecting Geological Surveying, Exploration and Mineral Drilling Award 1973.

Television Industry Award 1975.

Textile Industry Award 1 976.

Theatre Managers Award 1974.

Theatrical and Amusement Employees Award 1 947.

Underground Mining Award 1972.

Vehicle Industry Award 1 972.

Attachment ‘B’

PROVISIONS OF METAL INDUSTRY AWARD RE ANNUAL LEAVE

Clause 25 of the award provides that a period of 28 consecutive days’ leave shall be allowed annually to an employee after 12 months continuous service (less the period of annual leave) as an employee on weekly hiring in any one or more of the occupations to which the award applies.

In relation to calculation of continuous service the clause provides as follows:

For the purpose of this clause service shall be deemed to be continuous notwithstanding:

Any interruption or determination of the employment by the employer if such interruption or determination has been made merely with the intention of avoiding obligations hereunder in respect of leave of absence;

any absence from work on account of personal sickness or accident or on account of leave lawfully granted by the employer; or

any absence with reasonable cause proof whereof shall be upon the employee.

Any absence from work by reason of any cause not being a cause specified in this sub-clause shall not be deemed to break the continuity of service for the purposes of this clause unless the employer during the absence or within 14 days of the termination of the absence notifies the employee in writing that such absence will be regarded as having broken the continuity of service.

In calculating the period of 12 months continuous service the following absences shall be taken into account and counted as dme worked:

Up to 160 ordinary working hours in a 12 monthly period in the case of sickness or accident; long service leave taken by an employee in accordance with the Metal Industry (Long Service Leave) Award 1 976 or the Queensland Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1961-1964,as the case may be.

Other absences from work shall not be taken into account and shall not count as time worked in calculating the period of 1 2 months continuous service. ‘

Attachment ‘C

SUB-CLAUSE ( 1 ) OF CLAUSE 5 OF THE METAL TRADES (LONG SERVICE LEAVE) AWARD

For the purposes of the award the service of an employee with an employer means the period during which the employee has served his employer under an unbroken contract of employment: provided that a contract of employment shall not be deemed to have been broken by reason only of any interruption or determination thereof, if the interruption or determination:

has been made by the employer with the intention of avoiding any obligation imposed on him by this award or by State law dealing with long service leave; or

has arisen directly or indirectly from a dispute concerning industrial matters, if the employee returns to duty with the same employer in accordance with the terms of settlement of the said dispute; or

has been made by the employer by reason of slackness of trade, if the employee is re-employed by the same employer within six months of such interruption or determination; or

has been made by the employer for any reason other than those referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) hereof, if the employee is re-employed by the same employer within two months of such interruption or determination.

Provided further that the period during which the employment has been so interrupted or determined shall not, except when due to the reasons referred to in paragraph (a) hereof, be taken into account in calculating the period of service. ‘

Note: The following are further examples of federal awards containing identical provisions:

The Federal Meat Industry (Long Service Leave) Award 1966.

The Food Preservers (Long Service Leave) Award 1964.

The Footwear- Manufacturing and ComponentIndustry (Long Service Leave) Award 1 977.

The Glass Workers (Long Service Leave) Award 1 965.

SICK LEAVE PROVISIONS OF THE METAL INDUSTRY AWARD

Entitlement to sick leave

An employee on weekly hiring who is absent from his work on account of personal illness, or on account of inquiry by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, shall be entitled to leave of absence, without deduction of pay, subject to the following conditions and limitations.

He shall not be entitled to paid leave of absence for any period in respect of which he is entitled to workers’ compensation.

He shall, as soon as reasonably practicable and within eight hours of the commencement of such absence inform the employer of his inability to attend for duty, and as far as practicable state the nature of the inquiry or illness and the estimated duration of the absence.

If it is not reasonably practicable to inform the employer within eight hours of such absence the employee shall inform the employer within 24 hours of such absence.

He shall prove to the satisfaction of his employer (or in the event of dispute, of a Board of Reference) that he was unable on account of such illness or injury to attend for duty on the day or days for which sick leave is claimed.

He shall not be entitled during his first year of any period of service with an employer to leave in excess of forty hours of working time. Provided that during the first six months of the first year of any period of service with an employer, he shall be entitled to sick leave which shall accrue on a pro rata basis of 6% hours of working time for each month of service completed with that employer.

Provided further that on application by the employee during the seventh month of employment and subject to the availability of an unclaimed balance of sick leave the employee shall be paid for any sick leave taken during the first six months and in respect of which payment was not made.

He shall not be entitled during the second or subsequent years of any period of service with an employer to leave in excess of 64 hours of working time.

Single day absences

In the case of an employee who claims to be allowed paid sick leave in accordance with this clause for an absence of one day only such employee if in the year he has already been allowed paid sick leave on more than one occasion for one day only, shall not be entitled to payment for the day claimed unless he produces to the employer a certificate of a duly qualified medical practitioner that in his, the medical practitioner’s opinion, the employee was unable to attend for duty on account of personal illness or on account of injury by accident. However, an employer may agree to accept from the employee a Statutory Declaration, stating that the employee was unable to attend for duty on account of personal illness or an account of injury by accident in lieu of a certificate of a duly qualified medical practitioner as prescribed by this sub-clause.

Nothing in this sub-clause shall limit the employer’s rights under paragraph (iii) of sub-clause (a) hereof.

Cumulative sick leave

Sick leave shall accumulate from year to year so that any balance of the period specified in paragraphs (iv) and (v) of sub-clause (a) hereof which has in any year not been allowed to an employee by an employer as paid sick leave may be claimed by the employee and subject to the conditions hereinbefore prescribed shall be allowed by that employer in a subsequent year without diminution of the sick leave prescribed in respect of that year. Provided that sick leave which accumulates pursuant to this sub-clause shall be available to the employee for a period of twelve years but for no longer from the end of the year in which it accrues.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I conclude by raising the issue of the mandatory nature of the stand down clauses which will apply under this legislation. In such a situation the innocent parties to a dispute who are stood down will clearly suffer. It seems to me that that raises an issue to which the Minister and the Government must direct their attention. The Arbitrator may, in fact, prefer not to use the stand down provisions, compelling the loss of certain important elements of recreation leave, sick leave and long service leave. Therefore, the legislation may prove to be ineffective. That would seem to me to be something to which the Government ought to give continuing attention once the legislation is in operation. The Bill confirms longstanding practice. It clarifies areas of uncertainty. It is of great importance to the Public Service, and, I believe, to Australia.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am sorry that the Opposition is opposing this measure. The reasons for the legislation have been amply explained in the second reading speech and have been supported strongly by Senator Knight. I do not think I can add usefully to them. I hope that the Bill will receive the support of the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I ask a question in relation to clause 4 (c) of the Bill. Proposed new section (2B) states:

  1. . the continuity of that employment of the officer or employee shall be deemed not to be, or to have been, broken . . .

This relates to long service leave. Is there a provision, or is there need for a provision, in relation to annual leave? I am thinking of a person who has just commenced employment. He may not have been employed long enough to qualify for any annual leave. He may have a break in service and have to start his period of employment again for the purposes of annual leave. In other words, is there a possibility that a person can lose some annual leave entitlement, however slight, because of the effect of this Bill?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The question of recreation leave is dealt with in proposed new section (2C). If a person is stood down his annual sick leave and recreation leave credits will be reduced in proportion to the period of standdown.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– That was not the point I was raising. In relation to long service leave there is deemed not to have been any break in service. If a person has 8 years service he will continue to have 8 years service even though he may be stood down for, say, 2 days. But I am thinking of the case where a person has just started his or her employment and perhaps worked for a short time but not long enough to qualify for any annual leave. If such a person has a break- it may be for only a week or so- would he have to start qualifying again for recreation leave? It was this question I was asking: I was not talking about the recreation leave provisions in proposed new section (2C).

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am advised that a break in employment would not affect the situation because continuity is not required in the case of recreation leave entitlement.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2769

DAIRY INDUSTRY STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Readings

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

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I shall not speak at great length during the second reading debate on this Bill, but I do intend to ask at the Committee stage a number of questions concerning clauses 5 and 6. There are three or four matters I want to pursue in some depth. The dairy industry has long been plagued, firstly with overproduction in the absolute sense and, secondly, within that general overproduction problem a tendency for the industry to be oriented towards producing the wrong types of end products from the same raw material, that is, milk. The industry has been too heavily oriented to the production of butter and skim milk powder. Marginal prices are extremely low and have been too little oriented in the past to the production of more-marketable final dairy industry products such as cheese.

The objective of the Dairy Industry Stabilisation Amendment Bill and the associated Bills is to cope with both of those problems. Firstly it will apply some absolute disincentive to production by equating marginal prices received by the market to marginal prices received by the producers. Secondly, it will provide incentives for dairy factories to move into the production of more-saleable dairy products and away from producing less-saleable dairy products. So while we support the objective of the Bill and will not be opposing it, we have very serious doubts about whether this Bill will achieve that objective. The doubts arise principally from the fact that it is intended to apply production quotas at factory levels, not in the absolute sense that the factories will not be allowed to produce above the quota, but for any production above the quota marginal market prices only will be received. They will be considerably lower than general prices.

The fact that at least one State government has quite vociferously and publicly stated that it will not co-operate with this legislation and the intention behind it appears to us to put the legislation immediately into grave doubt because section 5 1 placitum (iii) of the Constitution states that the

Commonwealth may pay bounties on the production or export of goods but that such bounties shall be uniform throughout the Commonwealth. Sub-clause (7) of clause 5 of the Bill states that the powers conferred on the Minister by that section shall not be exercised in such a manner that stabilisation payments under this Act will not be uniform throughout the Commonwealth within the meaning of placitum (iii) of section 5 1 of the Constitution.

The attempts of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) to reply to the questions of my colleague, Mr Keating, in the House of Representatives in fact were self-contradictory. I will take that up at the Committee stage. We have not been dissuaded from our belief that the noncooperation of any one State government could effectively torpedo this legislation. Consequently, we will be moving the same amendment that was moved in the House of Representatives by Mr Keating. I want to make a couple of other comments at this stage. Firstly, the Minister’s second reading speech contains one significant paragraph when viewed in context. The Minister said:

The marketing arrangements which have operated for many years for manufactured dairy products have tended to operate against product innovation and the development of effective marketing techniques.

I think that is entirely true, but its significance is that it establishes that the conservative political parties have finally severed their affiliation with the old dairy industry bounty, which established the very conditions that the Minister now deplores- that is, that a flat rate bounty was paid on all dairy products regardless of whether or not they were wanted by the final consumer. That is a very substantial improvement on the position they adopted in 1973 when the then and present Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) asserted that the announced intention of the Labor Government to phase out the bounty would be catastrophic, that the dairy industry bounty was the linchpin of orderly marketing, and so on. I note with some satisfaction that that obsolete and highly inaccurate view of what would be appropriate marketing arrangements for the dairy industry has now been abandoned implicitly by the conservative political parties.

There has been a good deal of squabbling between the Liberal and National Country Parties on this issue, squabbling that is relevant to the impending State election in Victoria. The Minister for Primary Industry, in reply to a question in the House of Representatives on 2 June, was highly critical of the Victorian Government.

Another Victorian National Country Party Minister, Mr Nixon, in a Press statement issued on 3 1 May, after the Victorian Government had announced publicly its non-co-operation in this matter, said that any Victorian State Government financial assistance for the dairy industry should not be provided by imposing a milk price increase. Victoria is one of those States where returns to the producers from liquid milk sales and manufactured milk sales are equalised and therefore Mr Nixon was forecasting that the Victorian Government might attempt to maintain higher returns on manufactured dairy products by jacking up the price of liquid milk in that State.

I think that is probably not a very well founded fear, incidentally, but the interesting thing about it is that it totally contradicts the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 6 July 1976 to the Victorian Farmers Union. He advocated, firstly, an increase in Victorian liquid milk prices, and he specifically advocated a movement in the post- 1960 period equal in percentage terms to the upward movement that had taken place in Sydney, which he said would have provided at least an additional $40m a year to distribute to dairy farmers in Victoria. He also quite explicitly advocated that liquid milk market returns and manufactured dairy product returns should be spread equally among all producers in proportion to the milk they produced, regardless of the end use to which it was ultimately put. So we have Mr Nixon contradicting quite clearly the view put forward a couple of years ago by the Prime Minister to the Victorian Farmers Unionand they are both Victorians. They are in different parties, but of course the real cause of this unseemly squabbling between the conservative parties is that they are jockeying for position for the impending Victorian State election. It is unfortunate that this petty parochial political squabble should be intruding at this stage into very important agricultural marketing legislation. Mr Nixon was also taken to task for his statement by the Chairman of the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority, Mr Des Cooper, as reported in the Melbourne Sun on 2 June.

It has been stated that the Western Australian Government is wholly in support of this proposal and that it is the only government which is wholly in support of it. I understand it is true that the Western Australian Government has expressed a view supporting the proposal. However, according to information supplied to me by letter from the Farmers Union of Western Australia, as at the middle of May, it did not have the support of that Farmers Union. So, while it is true that the Government is supporting it, the present situation is that the Farmers Union of Western Australia which represents the State ‘s dairy farmers is not supporting it. Also, on that point, I note that a proposal very similar to that which the Commonwealth has now adopted was originally proposed by the Western Australian Department of Agriculture. It was criticised by the Commonwealth on three grounds: First, that a producer would not receive individual market entitlements as had been envisaged under stage 2 of the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations and, therefore, would not have an entitlement which would have a sale value in its own right.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is the original one.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, the original stage 2. The second ground was that selective underwriting would fall harder on single product factories and their suppliers unless some measures were adopted to rationalise milk usage within the States. The third ground was that Victoria and Tasmania, as the largest butter producing States, would be more adversely affected, more severely penalised, by this legislation which seeks to limit the quantity of butter which qualifies for underwriting and stabilisation payments. I think all those criticisms made by the Commonwealth at that time were sound, but apparently the Commonwealth has changed its mind on the issue.

While the attempt to provide disincentives for butter and incentives for more saleable dairy products is sound, there is also a longer term danger that a substantial swing from butter production to cheese production could lead to severe marketing problems with cheese. The obstruction by the States- I think more than one State was involved- has prevented the Commonwealth Government from introducing the marketing arrangements envisaged by stage 2 of the IAC report. So, the Government is trying to introduce the objective of those marketing arrangements through the side door by using the mechanism of selective price underwriting. We are still not convinced that it is constitutionally legal to do so without co-operation from the State governments. Although the Minister quibbled about this when the debate was being pursued in the House of Representatives on the grounds that no official notification had been received from the Victorian Government, the Victorian Government has publicly and very vehemently announced its rejection of this proposal. I shall be taking up a number of specific points relevant to clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill in the Committee stage.

Senator TEHAN:
Victoria

– Although the hour is late and everyone wants to get home, I must rise to speak briefly on this Bill which deals with one of the very important primary industries in Australia. We all realised, even before we heard from Senator Walsh, that the dairy industry has had a very troubled and chequered existence over recent times. Of course, its circumstances were not improved during the three years of the Labor Government.

I wish to pay tribute to the work of the Minster for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). He shows great patience and sympathetic understanding in his approach to the very complex problems which arise in this industry. I think it is conceded by Senator Walsh that there are grave problems in the industry because of the various competing State interests. One of the great problems with marketing schemes such as are necessary in this particular industry is that they require give and take between the various States and the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth provides the funds and there must be some sort of agreement between the States if we are to have a bit of order instead of chaos in the industry. The Commonwealth Government is virtually an arbitrator or a controller.

The task of the Minister for Primary Industry has been to reconcile the conflicting interests between the various States in this complex area. The States naturally find it difficult to see beyond their boundaries in this situation. I remind Senator Walsh that this industry would have completely collapsed had it not been for the intervention of the Federal Government in the form of underwriting some 3 years ago. I think that is conceded by everyone in the industry. Let us be fair and concede that the support the Commonwealth has given has been vital to the survival of the industry. Not only has support been vital but also it has been very necessary to enable the industry to keep afloat. The Government has tried to say that if the dairy industry is to prosper it must function on a national basis. The problems created by section 92 of the Constitution, which have been referred to, raise very great difficulties in the implementation of the proposal. The imposition of the levy is an attempt to give the Commonwealth some control in stabilising the industry. This has been happening for the last Vh years and will continue for the next 12 months under this legislation.

I remind Senator Walsh that his fears in respect of clause 5 of the Bill are somewhat unfounded because I think a similar scheme has been approved by the High Court and it has been operating in another primary industry. I have forgotten which industry that is. But there is a precedent for this legislation.

Senator Walsh:

– Which one is it?

Senator TEHAN:

- Senator Walsh raised the point; I am just answering it. At this hour of the night I am not sure which industry it is. I do not intend to waste the time of the Senate by looking it up. However, the precedent is there. The Minister may know and tell us when he replies. I do not want to go back to the origins of the problems of the industry which were compounded by the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community. Most of our export trade went to Britain. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) are overseas at the moment making representations in relation to not only this primary industry but also various other industries which are in trouble because of Britain’s entry into the Community.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Garland did not get a very good reception yesterday.

Senator TEHAN:

– He is trying to do something. Senator McLaren should realise that the problems being faced by primary industry and caused by Britain’s entry into the EEC are still with us. Unless we grapple with these problems and solve them not only will the dairy industry be greatly depressed but also so will other primary industries. With the assurance of a guaranteed minimum price of 50c per lb when we came into office, the industry was able to continue with some confidence. In the 1976-77 production season this price was increased from 50c to 60c per lb and finally to 65c per lb. With improved marketing conditions the cost to the Government of underwriting was not very great.

Stage 1 of the Crawford report, which was the report commissioned by the Government after the Industries Assistance Commission report was found to be unacceptable, came into operation by legislation in the 1977-78 season. It introduced the system of compulsory equalisation and increased the level of underwriting from 65c per lb to the current level of 75c per lb. Stage 2 of the Crawford proposals required the introduction of a national aggregate entitlement and a market share entitlement for each dairy farmer. The second stage envisaged by the Crawford report foundered because the States failed to agree to any reasonable suggestion which would cover the situation. This legislation has been brought forward as an alternative to what was originally intended. The failure of the States to agree to stage 2 occurred as far back as January at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. Despite the efforts of the Minister for Primary Industry to obtain some solution and agreement between the States it was obvious after that meeting that the stage 2 proposal of the Crawford report would not get off the ground.

Under this particular scheme, in the legislation there is a Commonwealth guarantee of approximately 75c per lb at the farm gate for all the cheese that can be produced and for wholemilk powder. In the case of butter there is a 96,000-tonne restriction on the level of underwriting. This does not mean that production is restricted to that figure; it simply means that any production over and above that figure will be at risk in that what will be received by the manufacturer will be the assessed average export price, and that will be considerably lower than the price at which the 96,000 tonnes of butter will sell. This figure of 96,000 tonnes for butter was recommended by the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation. There will be an incentive to factories to diversify. Indeed, most of the big dairy companies in Australia, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania where the main manufacturing sections of the industry are located, have diversified. What is true in secondary industry today is true in primary industry. Any farmer who puts all his eggs in one basket today is not facing the facts of life, because invariably if one industry is going bad the others are not too bad. If a farmer has two or three different types of primary production on his property he has a better chance of survival. This is also the case in the manufacturing industry.

The Minister has offered an underwriting of 80c per lb butterfat provided that the States agree to a Commonwealth and States basis of $2 for $1 on the complete level of underwriting. Although the Minister has had no written advice, my understanding is that more than one State, as Senator Walsh has said, has indicated that it will not come into the scheme with the Commonwealth.

It is important to remember that, at the 75c level, the Commonwealth’s scheme can stand entirely on its own feet without complementary State legislation, and the levy legislation will operate to enforce the underwriting limit at a figure of 96,000 tonnes for butter. So there is a mechanism in the legislation. Sub-clause (7) of clause 5, referred to by Senator Walsh, is designed to make the legislation constitutional. It is unlikely,

I suggest, that it would be challenged, but, if it is, the High Court will then have to determine it. For governments to stand out of the scheme would be regrettable. It is essential, if we are to have a comprehensive marketing scheme, that all States come in and co-operate. If my own State of Victoria goes it alone, as has been suggested, it may well cost the Victorian taxpayers more and customers may well pay a higher price for retail milk. I am not positively stating that that will follow. It is at least a possibility.

The Victorian Dairy Industry Authority, which is a State authority which markets liquid milk in Victoria, may well conflict to some degree with the Australian Dairy Corporation which has Commonwealth statutory powers, both for the export of manufactured dairy products and for the promotion and marketing of manufactured dairy products in Australia. These are dangers which are at least potential if not actual if the States stand out of the Federal scheme. Liquid milk is outside the Federal proposal and to that extent the legislation favours the States whose major production is the liquid milk field because they can carry on and produce as much liquid milk as they can, and there is always a ready market in those States for it.

The scheme is to operate for one year only and it may well be that after its year of operation the industry, both on the primary side and on the manufacturing side, will realise the advantages of a comprehensive Commonwealth scheme covering all milk produced, including liquid milk. It is quite certain, in my view, that the future of the industry in the long term rests fairly and squarely on agreement between the States on a completely comprehensive and long-term marketing scheme covering all sections of the industry. It is to be hoped that, at the end of 12 months’ operation of the legislation, this ideal will be realised. In conclusion, I pay a further tribute to the Minister for his patience and for producing what is, in the opinion of the industry itself, the best possible alternative, having regard to the failure of the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation to agree to the comprehensive national entitlement scheme which was envisaged by the Crawford report in January last.

Senator WALSH (Western Australia)-by leave- I move:

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

– I thank Senator Walsh and Senator Tehan for their remarks relating to the Dairy Industry Stabilisation Amendment Bill 1978. I note that the Opposition supports the objectives of the Bill but it has some doubts about the way in which the Bill might be applied. That is a fair comment until this scheme gets under way. We are dealing with a very wonderful and important industry in Australia. Certainly the Government has made all possible endeavours to provide a stable base for this industry so that there may be better returns to farmers for a guaranteed future period.

Perhaps I will shorten this debate by commenting on several points. Firstly, in relation to the determination of quotas, Senator Walsh mentioned clauses 5 and 6. 1 make the following comments in that regard: Where a quantity ceiling has been fixed for underwriting purposes for a specific dairy product or products, the quantity so fixed will be allocated to factories by the Minister in accordance with principles formulated and announced by him after consultation with the Australian Dairy Corporation. Clause 5 provides for the tabling of the principles formulated by the Minister in the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the principles have been formulated and empowers either House of Parliament to disallow principles so tabled. This precedure is similar to the procedure applied to regulations. It also requires the Minister to administer the product quotas to factories on a uniform basis in accordance with the meaning of section 51 (3) of the Constitution.

Senator Walsh also mentioned his party’s query relating to clause 6, which refers to stabilisation payments. That clause provides that where an underwriting quantity ceiling has been imposed on the production of a dairy product or dairy products and the factory quotas have been allocated by the Minister, stabilisation payments are not payable in respect of production with regard to factory quotas. I think that position generally covers those two points. Perhaps it will save the need to mention them later in this debate. A question raised by the Opposition concerned the scheme being premised on quantitative limitations and the matter of how it will work without State government participation. The example of Victoria was given.

The legislation is not dependent on State production quotas or State powers. It is based on the Commonwealth Government’s taxing and financial powers. No State complementary legislation is required. The basic element is that, if underwriting ceilings are fixed for a prescribed product, the stabilisation payments, that is, the levy proceeds plus the government underwriting, will be limited to the product underwriting quotas that are established in proportion to each factory’s production in the base period adopted. Any production in excess of a factory’s quota wil receive only the average export pool return. The Victorian Government has not rejected the Commonwealth ‘s proposal for selective underwriting. The Victorian Minister for Agriculture has indicated, however, that his Government will not contribute directly to the Commonwealth Government’s cost sharing proposals but would be developing a scheme to give Victorian dairy farmers a guaranteed return of 80c per lb butterfat. That Minister indicated that the additional 5c would be contributed through the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority but he has not provided details on how this would be done. If a State does not take up the Government’s offer of sharing underwriting with the States on a $2 Commonwealth to $ 1 State basis the Commonwealth will meet the full cost of underwriting the production of all prescribed products in that State at the equivalent of 75c per lb butterfat at the farm gate for the 1 978-79 season.

It has been suggested that some States such as Victoria would adopt measures in an attempt to defeat the purpose of the scheme. One measure could be to heavily subsidise over-quota production. From my point of view I find it rather difficult to think that any State would act so irresponsibly because of the States’ substantial interest in the well-being of the dairy industry. If, however, in the most unlikely event that a State did act in a manner which is contrary to the objectives of stage 2 marketing arrangements, obviously the Government would need to review the selective underwriting arrangements. In effect, the Federal Government could not stand by and allow any independent action by a State on underwriting of dairy farmers’ returns which would be incompatible with the interests of the dairy industry as a whole over the Commonwealth. Of course, that has been the Commonwealth’s interest in this matter.

I appreciated the comments that were made by Senator Tehan. As we know, this is the honourable senator’s last day in the Senate. The honourable senator again demonstrated his excellent knowledge of this industry. We know that he comes from a great dairy farming area. I refer honourable senators and other people who are interested in this subject to page 3187 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 7 June for a more detailed explanation of this matter by the

Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

Saturday, 10 June 1978

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– It seems to me that it would be better if I asked my questions one by one instead of confusing the Committee by asking them together. First, is the Victorian contribution envisaged under this scheme on the 2 to 1 formula likely to be greater than the difference between the 75c and 80c per lb of Victorian butter production? In other words, would it be cheaper for Victoria to provide 5c per lb as an additional subsidy on its expected butter production than it would for it to meet the 2 to 1 financial arrangement?

Secondly, I assume that the principles which this legislation provides for the Minister ultimately to lay before the Parliament- and there is a great mystery about the principles- will not be concerned with the method used by individual factories to allocate entitlements for each individual dairy farmer who is entitled to receive the underwritten price. Is the assumption correct that the principle is not concerned with the distribution from factories to individual dairy farmers?

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

– Answering Senator Walsh’s second question, knowing that he intended to raise the matters of clause 5 and clause 6 in his speech at the second reading stage of the debate, I attempted to read into Hansard an authoritative response in relation to the determination of quotas. I think it would be unnecessary for me to repeat that other than to say that where a quantity ceiling has been fixed for underwriting purposes for a specific dairy product the quantities so fixed shall be allocated to factories by the Minister in accordance with principles formulated and announced by him after consultation with the Australian Dairy Corporation. The honourable senator may question me further if that does not answer his query. In relation to the first point that he raised with me, I am advised that we have not as yet full knowledge of what the Victorian Government proposes. I am advised that as yet we have received nothing in writing from Victoria. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister has not indicated how the additional 5c would be contributed. The honourable senator’s question was in relation to whether I could determine whether Victoria would under a specific method of contribution be contributing more or less. I am unable to determine that. We do not know exactly what Victoria intends to do. If the honourable senator framed his question in another way it would be a hypothetical question which we would not be in a position to answer.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to pursue further both those question. Perhaps I can re-phrase the question about the financial aspect. If I remember correctly the estimated total cost to the States if the proposal is accepted as the Commonwealth intends is $ 10m and the cost to the Victorian Government would be, let us say, $6. 5m. Would that amount of money be sufficient to pay a bounty of 5c per lb butter fat content on the likely total production of manufactured dairy products in Victoria?

Senator Webster:

– I am advised that it would work out approximately the same.

Senator WALSH:

– I thank the Minister. It seems to me to be clear enough, apart from this mystery about what the principals may be, that the Minister will allocate a quota to the factories. But the factories will then have in some way to allocate entitlements to the farmer suppliers. My question was: Are the principals likely to be concerned with the methods that the factory uses to allocate those individual farmer entitlements? To demonstrate the relevance of the question- I would think this unlikely- a factory may say: We have an entitlement for 5,000 tonnes of butter fat. The first 5,000 tonnes that is supplied in a year will qualify for the stabilisation payment and the underwritten price and everything over that in the last month will not qualify’. Is it envisaged that the principals will lay down the methods which the factories must use to allocate entitlements to individual suppliers?

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

– The answer is that the factory would be free to make its allocations as necessary. Senator Walsh will be aware of the number of things to be considered by a factory when allocating those quotas. Factories may be anxious to receive over a period of time a supply of milk and the decision to proceed on what may be considered some type of contract basis would obviously be for the individual factory. If the proposal which is being put by Senator Walsh were accepted, that is, that it should proceed on a first-in first-served basis, it would be the responsibility of the factory to implement that proposal.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– My second question referred to the Minister’s second reading speech. The relevant passage reads as follows:

If a State does not take up this offer the Commonwealth will meet the full cost of underwriting the production of all prescribed products in that State -

Prescribed products’ may be a key phrase: -under stage 2 arrangements at the equivalent of 75c per lb butterfat . . .

My question arising from that it this: Suppose that a State declines to participate in the arrangements. Would all manufactured dairy products produced in that State then qualify for the 75c a lb butterfat content underwriting?

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

– I am advised that the relevant passage in the second reading speech reads as follows:

If a State does not take up this offer the Commonwealth will meet the full cost of underwriting the production of all prescribed products in that State under Stage 2 arrangements at the equivalent of 75c per lb butterfat … at the farm gate for the 1978-79 season.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– This could be quite important. In view of published statements by the Victorian Government, if the Commonwealth’s 75c guaranteed, underwritten price applied without quantitative limit, it is quite conceivable that that Government would take the Commonwealth’s 75c and then build it up in some way from its own resources. From the information that I have been given, it would be no more costly than to pay an additional subsidy of 5c a lb on butterfat. If that is the case, it seems to me that the whole intention in restricting the production of butterfat will have been emasculated.

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

– I attempted earlier to answer the honourable senator’s question. I can only reiterate what I have said in the hope that it will provide an answer. This material was prepared in anticipation of such a question. I am advised that if a State does not take up the Commonwealth’s offer to share the underwriting with the States, on a $2 Commonwealth to $1 State basis, the Commonwealth will meet the full cost of underwriting the production of all prescribed products in the State at the equivalent of 75c per lb butterfat at the farm gate for the 1978-79 season. It has been suggested that some States, such as Victoria, could adopt certain measures such as heavily subsidising over-quota production in an attempt to defeat the purpose of the scheme. That is exactly the point that the honourable senator is making.

I find it difficult to believe that any State, having in mind its substatial interest in the wellbeing of its dairy industry, could act so irresponsibly. However, in the most unlikely event that a State did act in a manner contrary to the objectives of the stage 2 marketing arrangements, the Government would have to review those selective underwriting arrangements. In effect, it would not stand by and allow any independent action by a State on the underwriting of dairy farm returns which would be incompatible with the interests of the dairy industry as a whole. I think that basically answers the honourable senator’s question.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I am afraid that it does not answer the question. My question did not relate to a State ‘s heavily subsidising over-quota production, although that also is conceivable. I am not trying to trick anyone here. I just want to know the answer to this question: If a State does not cooperate in the two for one arrangement, does the 75c a lb butterfat underwritten price cover all of the butterfat that would be produced in that State, or does it cover only that production which is within the quota determined under clause 5 of the amending Bill by the Minister.

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

– Where there are no underwritten ceilings, the scheme will cover the total production. Where there is an underwritten ceiling, the scheme will cover production only to that ceiling.

Senator Walsh:

– In other words, for butter and associated products.

Senator WEBSTER:
Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I have dealt with the possibility of a State heavily subsidising over-quota production in another question I asked. I wish to raise a final point in relation to which Senator Webster has repeated a good deal of the explanation that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) gave in the House of Representatives. But there is one passage which the Minister uttered which has not been stated in this chamber and which I found particularly confusing. I will quote what is stated in the House of Representatives Hansard but the same thing has been said in this chamber:

The legislation is not dependent upon State production quotas or upon State legislative powers. The legislation is based on the Commonwealth ‘s taxing and financial powers. No complementary State legislation is required.

On the next page, the Minister is reported to have stated in the House of Representatives:

There are other ways by which this scheme could be made to operate. The Commonwealth could always have recourse to section 96 grants if any State really wanted to play it tough.

If the Government is confident that it has the constitutional power, through its taxing powers and so on, to make this legislation operative or to achieve the purposes sought by this legislation, why did the Minister go on to talk about the Commonwealth having recourse to section 96 grants if any State really wanted to play it tough? It seems to me that the Minister, in making that statement, is envisaging a situation in which one or more State governments have torpedoed the purposes of the proposal. I would like an explanation. If the Commonwealth is so confident that the objective sought is within its legal power or can be achieved legally under this legislation, why does the Minister speculate about completely different legislation being introduced using section 96 of the Constitution?

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

– I think it is competent for the Federal Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) basically to put down the points that he has. In approaching stage 2 of the dairy industry stabilisation scheme, various States have made their views known. I am certainly well aware of the statements that have been made by Mr Smith, the Victorian Minister for Agriculture. I have talked to him on one or two occasions and he has been very concerned about the interests of Victorian dairy farmers. I think that perhaps his considerations do not go beyond Victorian borders. The scheme is not seen in the same light in Queensland or New South Wales as it is seen in Victoria. Mr Smith has some justification for his arguments. Victoria considers that, along with Tasmania, it has the most efficient dairy production, in the whole of the Commonwealth. He has been excited about that point.

Senator Wriedt:

– Whose side are you on? Mr Smith’s or Mr Sinclair’s?

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr Smith has made certain threats and statements. Mr Sinclair provided the statement that I read to the chamber. They were the words provided for me to state the position, namely, that the Commonwealth would have to review the arrangements if a State went into limited production and thereby harmed the total system. I did not provide the remarks in respect of this matter. They were given to me to present. The position is that the Commonwealth would have recourse -

Senator Wriedt:

– You are the Minister, not your adviser.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Commonwealth could have recourse to section -

Senator Wriedt:

– You are the Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Thank you, Senator Wriedt. I say to Senator Walsh that Senator Wriedt has the answers. He can discuss the matter with the honourable senator later.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I am still confused. The Minister repeated that the situation was something like this: The Commonwealth would be forced to review the arrangements if any State indulged in unlimited production. He used words to that effect. If I correctly understood the answer I was given a while ago, the 75c lb. butterfat equivalent underwritten price will apply only to butter and associated products up to the 96,000 tonne limit. If that were correct the only way in which a State could subsidise unlimited production would be if it also rejected the 75c per lb subsidy on production up to the 96,000 tonnes butterfat national limit and subsidised the whole of the difference between the true market price, whatever that is, 60c per lb or 65c per lb, and the underwritten price. Is that correct? The Minister made a statement that the Commonwealth would have to review the arrangements if a State fostered unlimited productionheavily subsidised production. I ask the Minister whether he is referring only to a situation in which there is no Commonwealth financial assistance at all.

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

– I am advised that support will be given for production up to 96,000 tonnes. I recognise the point that Senator Walsh is suggesting, and that is that if a State were to pull out of this scheme altogether and totally subsidise its production what is the Commonwealth’s position in this matter? That is what I understand Sentor Walsh is saying. Is that the question?

Senator Walsh:

– That is a possibility, but I would think it an unlikely one.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think it would be an unlikely one too. I think that is the question you are putting. Are you asking what will happen should a State decide not to accept any Commonwealth support?

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– No, it is not really. If I understood the

Minister’s remarks correctly, the 75c per lb subsidy would be available only on production up to 96,000 tonnes as the national limit.

Senator Webster:

– That is correct, plus the other products.

Sentor WALSH-Yes, the 96,000 tonnes includes butterfat and associated products such as skim milk powder. It would seem to me that if that is correct- whether it can be legally applied I still think is in some doubt- the intention is that if a State does not limit production to its portion of that 96,000 tonnes total that State will not get the 75c per lb subsidy either. Therefore the reference to the review of marketing arrangements if a State subsidised unlimited production would have relevance only- I would think that this is a highly unlikely situation- if a State completely forgoes all Commonwealth financial assistance and subsidises production at whatever the true market return is up to whatever underwritten price on which the State decided.

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

– I am advised that up to the quota the States would get the full amount. If there is overproduction the States would get only the export price, whatever that price happened to be.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I think I understand that. The only thing on which I am still stuck- there has not been an explanation for this- is the comment by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in the House of Representatives that there are other ways by which the scheme could be made to operate and the Commonwealth could always have recourse to section 96 grants. That seems to me to make it very clear that the Minister is acknowledging that the Commonwealth does not believe that this selective payment of a bounty, which is what selective underwriting is really all about, would withstand a legal challenge.

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

– The Government is confident that the scheme will work. I think the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) went to some lengths to set down that there are various means by which the Commonwealth can act in support of its own proposals.The Commonwealth has some power along those lines, as the Minister indicated. I think Senator Walsh may be putting forward some words that really do not apply in this instance.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment or request; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2777

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT (FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May 1978, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The amendments contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment (Federal Court of Australia) Bill will mean that matters under the principal Act will be dealt with by a single judge with a right of appeal to a Full Court comprising three or more judges. That is the extent of the legislation. Therefore the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2777

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Senator Sir REGINALD WRIGHT (Tasmania) (12.28 a.m.)- I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

  1. . It is probably the position that constitutional power does not exist in this Parliament for the provisions of this scheme. But let us assume for the purpose of controlling the scheme by this Bill that such a power does exist.
  2. It is significant to note that the original scheme was based upon the view that upon payment by members of a contribution premium of 1 1 Vi per cent of salary the scheme would remain solvent with a contribution from the Commonwealth of 70 per cent of payments.
  3. It was provided by the principal Act that the Commonwealth Actuary should make an investigation of the scheme every five years and report to Parliament and thence to the public upon the financial soundness of the scheme.
  4. The last report made by the Commonwealth Actuary was in November 1971 for the period ending 30 June 1 970. In paragraph 32 of that report the Actuary said: .

In my opinion it is essential that prompt action be taken to obtain an improved long term rate of interest earnings. If such a course is not possible it appears that there is no alternative to recommending the payment of special contributions by existing members to eliminate the deficiency of SI 14,600.

  1. The Whitlam Government passed a Bill on 8 June 1973:

    1. Repealing the provisions requiring the Actuary’s report,
    2. continuing the members’ premiums at the rate of 1 1 lA per cent of salary,
    3. making all pensions payable by the Commonwealth out of Consolidated Revenue, and
    4. abolishing the Ministerial retiring allowances scheme.

That was the response of the Parliament to the suggestion from the Actuary when he had his last word of advice to this Parliament that a mere deficiency of $114,000 would be appropriately met by increased contributions by members.

  1. The Whitlam Government’s amendment set up a tribunal for fixing parliamentary salaries.
  2. Paragraph 34 of the Remuneration Tribunal’s report for 1977 stated:

In his letter dated 4 March 1 976 requesting the Tribunal to inquire into and determine a number of entitlements of Members of Parliament the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator the Hon. R. G. Withers, also requested advice on certain aspects of the retiring allowances/superannuation for Members of Parliament (including Ministers). The Tribunal wrote to the Minister on 14 October 1976 seeking a detailed reference from the Government, which to date nas not been received.

  1. The financial operations of the scheme for the years 1 966 to 1 977 are shown in the schedule which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. The schedule has been circulated.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. The table shows:

    1. that during the 10 year period of 1966 to 1977 the members’ contributions during the years, as a proportion of payments out have fallen from 58 per cent to 1 8 per cent.
    2. that in the period 1974 to 1977, the operative years after the amendment of 1973, the deficiency- that is the difference between members contributions and payments out- is:

That was the alternative means adopted by the Parliament of the day to meet a deficiency. The Parliament was hoping that it would sink indefinitely unnoticed into the well of Consolidated Revenue as distinct from being met by increased contributions from members which was the suggestion of the Actuary for a mere deficit of$ 114,000 in 1971.

  1. The Bill which the Parliament passed last week for the first time provided for pensions to be commuted into lump sums. State experience has been cited as a precedent. In the New South Wales and Victorian Parliamentary superannuation schemes actuarially determined employer contributions are paid into the Fund and invested by the Fund ‘s trustees each year in anticipation that those amounts together with the accumulated interest will be sufficient to meet the employers ‘ share of future liabilities.

In New South Wales, following an actuarial review into the state of the fund as at 30 June 1972, employer contributions were increased from $81,867 in 1971-72 to $150,000 in 1972-73 and then to $717,256 for each of the three following years- 1974, 1975 and 1976. The 1 975-76 report of the New South Wales AuditorGeneral stated that after a further actuarial review as at 30 June 1975, an annual contribution at $1,214,966 was indicated for 1976-77 and future years. There do not appear to have been any changes in the major provisions of the New South Wales scheme, including employee contributions, in recent years. The large fluctuations in expenditure of the Fund in 1973-74 and 1975-76 appear to be explained by an increase in the amount of benefits paid in a lump sum form. For example, in 1975-76 twelve members who resigned from Parliament during the year and received pensions elected partially to commute for lump sums aggregating at an amount of $481,022.

Figures for the Victorian Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Fund- honourable senators will notice that the name is apparently the precedent from which we have adopted our new name- show a large increase in employer contributions and Fund expenditure in 1975-76. As with New South Wales, the increase in the Government’s contribution from $636,992 in 1974-75 to $2,441,992 in 1975-76 was the result of a review by the Actuary as to the amount required to be paid. The increase in expenditure for the same year may be explained by large lump sum payments in 1975-76. Lump sum payments of $694,189 were paid in 1975-76 compared with none for the previous year.

  1. An interesting and alarming analysis of this and other Public Service and parliamentary schemes is shown in the statement which I now seek to incorporate in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

    1. Therefore it is proposed in this Bill that:
    1. There be an actuarial report every year by the Commonwealth Actuary;
    2. that specified particulars appear in that report for public information. If it is a member’s duty to disclose his financial interest it is much more imperative that there be published all payments which are made to him by the Treasury. Members frame the legislation by which those payments are authorised;
    3. that the Auditor-General should have a separate and an independent duty yearly to report on the annual financial transactions of the Fund in sufficient detail to be meaningful; and
    4. that pensions should be limited to amounts of benefits which can be paid on a sound financial basis for the premium payable by members according to the Actuary’s judgment.

All these matters would require to take into account:

  1. the period of service to qualify for allowances-

    1. 8 years in the case of involuntary retirement
    2. 12 years in the case of voluntary retirement.
    3. the rate of premium, 1 1½ per cent of salary;
  2. the amount of pension- after 8 years service, 50 per cent of salary, fully indexed; after 12 years service, 60 per cent of salary, fully indexed; after 18 years or more, 75 per cent of salary, fully indexed.
  3. the fact that the pension is payable for life; and
  4. the absence of any provision to suspend the allowance during the receipt of salary from another Commonwealth job.

In my usual, characteristic way, seeking the highest common denominator of reconciliation and acceptance, thinking that the proposals in this Bill would be unanswerable by people who put forward the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill considered last week, I abstain from including the other two matters which require a little more elaboration but which are essential for any fair fund, namely, the suspension of pension if the pensioner takes up a Commonwealth job or a State job. The principles of that are set forth in section 2 1 of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act which has been from time to time repealed. The Bill also does not deal with the question of stacking pensions. I referred the other day to the various pensions that ex-parliamentarians may be in receipt of. A Premier of a State may retire on a pension of $30,000 a year and then be appointed a trade commissioner for a State- say the Agent General for Tasmania- with emoluments of about $50,000 a year. These are matters for consideration. Take the case of State members who receive lump sums. In the case of one such person in this Parliament the amount is $215,000. It is essential that we know on what terms, if any, a member of parliament in that position is admitted under the terms of this scheme. On those bases I ask the Senate to give earnest consideration to the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 2780

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Report

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- On behalf of the chairman of Senate Estimates committees and further to the resolution of the Senate of 28 February 1978 I lay on the table a report relating to the operation of Senate Estimates committees.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator RAE:

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2780

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the House · LP

– I move:

Mr President, I have a number of remarks to make. Firstly, I make the normal traditional remark of this period of thanking you, on behalf of all my colleagues, for your tolerance of the Senate during the autumn session. I also thank my ministerial colleagues, the Whips and all the Government senators for the help and support they have given us. I also thank the Leader Opposition (Senator Wriedt) and the Opposition Whips for their courtesy, co-operation and help throughout this period. I also wish to place on record my appreciation for the works of the Clerks, the Hansard staff and the other parliamentary departments.

Senator Colston:

– What about the back benchers?

Senator WITHERS:

-I wish to give no thanks to people who speak on the adjournment late at night. The only thing that terrifies me at the moment is that Senator Sir Reginald Wright might call a quorum and we would all be counted out. I really think that ought to be his final act.

Senator Georges:

– He would not do it. You have a good attendance tonight.

Senator WITHERS:

– Where? As we adjourn for the winter recess, it is appropriate to mention those honourable senators who will not be with us when we resume later this year. In all, there are 1 1 honourable senators from both sides of this chamber whose terms expire on 30 June and who will not return for a further term, or who will be retiring before the Budget sittings. To them we offer our own best wishes and those of the people of Australia and our thanks for their services to the Senate and the Commonwealth. The senators who are leaving are: Senator Ian Wood, Senator the Honourable Sir Reginald Wright, Senator the Hon. Thomas DrakeBrockman, Senator the Honourable Sir Magnus Cormack, Senator Donald Devitt, Senator the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton, Senator Don Cameron, Senator Bill Brown, Senator Thomas Tehan, Senator Kerry Sibraa and Senator Janine Haines.

At the end of this sitting, the Senate will lose two of its elder statesmen. Senator Ian Wood and Senator Sir Reginald Wright, who joined this house in February 1950, have between them served the Senate for over half a century. Senator Wood has represented the people of Queensland in this Senate for 28 years. As well as serving Parliament and his party, Senator Wood has always taken great interest in local government matters, as President of the Queensland Local Government Association and of the Australian Council of Local Government. He was for many years alderman and three times mayor of the Mackay City Council.

Senator Wood, a man known and distinguished for his political nous, further distinguished himself as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, a committee which has done immense service to the Parliament, the Public Service, and the people. This Committee became a guardian of true civil rights before civil liberties became a fashionable part of the political vocabulary. I served under Senator Wood on that Committee in 1971 when the Committee made its first overseas trip which was to Norfolk Island. Because Senator Wood took that Committee to Norfolk Island I shall be forever indebted to him and the Committee for taking me to that delightful Territory of Australia.

A founding member of the Liberal Party, Senator Wright entered the Senate in 1950, after three years as Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Tasmanian House of Assembly. While in the Senate he has served on an impressive list of committees, conferences and delegations where his legal background has been of enormous value. I am sure we were all delighted to see that service to Australia recognised in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List. I have always admired Senator Wright as a robust man, forthright in his views and determined in his convictions. There are few, if any, who can equal his capacity to fight strongly for those things in which he believes. I have also respected him for his fairness and honesty.

I pay tribute to him for this. No matter how vigorously he might put forward his case in the Senate he has always been a dignified and enjoyable companion outside the chamber.

He has never been a man to bear rancour; he has never been a man to bear a grudge. As we all know, at the sing songs for which Senator Wright is famous- perhaps the word should be notorious, he might like to correct me on that- he has shown some sort of a yen to display his Celtic background. I was searching for something which I thought might be useful to him, knowing of course, that he will live at Alvertston in his retirement. I found that a Shakespearean society was established there so he will be able to pursue his literary pursuits. I asked my wife whether she could find an adequate comment from Shakespeare that I could give him as he leaves the Senate. I think Senator Wright will recognise a famour Celt in Glendower when he was disputing with Hotspur. I think what Glendower said about himself can be said about Senator Wright:

  1. . give me leave to tell you once again that at my birth the front of heaven was full of fiery shapes, the goats ran from the mountains, and the herds, were strangely clamorous to the frightened fields. These signs have mark’d me extraordinary, and all the courses of my life do show I am not in the roll of common men.

Senator Tom Drake-Brockman has been Temporary Chairman and Chairman of Committees for more than nine years, and Deputy President of the Senate since early 1976. He is also a fellow

Western Australian and a close personal friend of many years. He is a man with a distinguished record in the Royal Australian Air Force. It was appropriate that he should serve as Minister for Air in the Gorton and McMahon ministries. For many years he was Leader of the Country Party in this chamber and for some time he was the Acting Leader of the Government in this place. Although our parties have undergone considerable rivalry in our home State over many years it has never, I am glad to say, affected our personal relationship since I entered the Senate.

I should like to say something else about Tom Drake-Brockman. I am personally greatly indebted to him for the period in which, as Leader of the Country Party in the Senate between 1972 and 1975, he helped and supported me as Leader of the Opposition. No matter how one regards that period, the Opposition of the day could never have been what it was- I am not going to say what it was because I should not be controversial- without the advice and cooperation of Tom Drake-Brockman. It is a matter of history that in those days initially there was no coalition Opposition but, regardless of the situation in the House of Representatives, Tom and I decided that there was neither the time nor the desire for us to quarrel in the Senate. Long before the establishment of a joint Opposition Executive, we were working as one Opposition in the Senate and for that I will be forever in his debt and so will all my Liberal Party colleagues.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack ‘s political career, both inside and outside the Parliament, has been particularly distinguished. It has ranged from membership and chairmanship of a variety of parliamentary committees, culminating in his occupancy of this chamber’s highest office, the Presidency, in which he served from 1971 to 1974. As well as service to the Parliament, Sir Magnus served the nation for many years as a member of Her Majesty’s armed forcesa record which dates back to 1924- the year I was born- when he joined the 18th Light Horse. Sir Magnus and my family are very close. He was gracious enough- we all know that Magnus is a gracious person- to be the godfather of our daughter. We have enjoyed his company enormously over the years. I do not think he will mind me saying that his Toorak flat was always a place of welcome for colleagues let loose in Melbourne on a Sunday night. I have always enjoyed his friendship in a way which can hardly be expressed in words. Again I asked my wife to see whether there was not an appropriate Shakespearian quotation. After some days of searching she advised me that not even the immortal bard could cope with Magnus Cormack. I thought that that really was a challenge, so she went back and had a look at Julius Caesar. I think Magnus Cormack will appreciate this:

His life was gentle, and the elements so mix’d in him, that nature might stand up, and say to all the world; this was a man . . . most like a soldier ordered honourably.

Senator Don Devitt, who is overseas at the moment, is the longest serving of the retiring Opposition senators, having represented Tasmania in the Senate since 1964. Through his membership of committees and parliamentary delegations Senator Devitt has played an important role in the development of the Senate. I served with him on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, where I got to know him well, particularly during the trip we did to Norfolk Island with Senator Wood. It was during that period on Norfold Island that Don Devitt and I got to know so many of the people of Norfolk Island, for whom we both have a great deal of affection. Each time I went there when I was Minister in charge of that Territory people would say to me: ‘How is Don Devitt? Please give him my regards’. Don had that capacity. Wherever he went people remembered him and had an enormous affection for him. He has always had a close interest in the Antarctic and he became the first senator to visit that part of Australia in January and February of this year.

I now turn to my old friend Bob Cotton, who will leave the Senate after 13 years’ service, including terms as Minister for Civil Aviation and Minister for Industry and Commerce. I first met Bob Cotton almost 20 years ago. I was then a young brash member of the Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia, being egged on by Senator Wright to attack Prime Ministers and Ministers. I normally resisted, but I fell under his influence at times. Bob Cotton and I were State Presidents together. He became a Federal VicePresident and I followed him in that office. Then he came into the Parliament to replace the then Leader of the Government and it did not seem very long afterwards that I came in to replace the next succeeding Leader of the Government. We worked here as colleagues. He became Whip and when he went on to become a Minister 1 took over as Whip in his place. We have had a long and close association in both opposition and government and Bob has always been of tremendous assistance to me. He will not mind me saying this because I think it is true. He is a modest man. He has given much more of himself than he will admit to the service of his party and the Parliament. His service to Australia was appropriately recognised in the New Year’s Honours List. Although he is leaving the Parliament he will continue to serve Australia as Consul-General in New York, and in his new career I am certain all honourable senators will wish him well. He made but one request to me: When you are approving those overseas trips, sort out the fellows you are going to allow to come to New York. ‘

Senator Don Cameron will be leaving us after nine years. Senator Cameron was a distinguished former President of the South Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party and we have all known of his interest in this place. I have not had a very great association with him in a personal sense but I know that my colleagues who have worked with him on committees have an enormously high regard and respect for him.

Senator Bill Brown from Victoria came here in 1969. He will be long remembered by me as one of the key people in bringing about the many developments of the Senate in recent years through his contributions to the Standing Orders Committee. He is a man of enormous capacity and courtesy and he has my personal gratitude for his help and assistance on the Standing Orders Committee. His knowledge of procedures and his concern for fair play was recognised by his own party, which in 1972 elected him as its Chairman, a post he occupied until only a few weeks ago. Bill, we will miss you enormously on the Standing Orders Committee. Mr Odgers really ought to give you at least a chapter in his book for what you have done to reform the procedures of this Senate.

Senator Tom Tehan joined us in 1975 after a long career of community service to the Victorian town of Kyabram. Tom has endeared himself to all of us on this side of the chamber. Tom, Austin Lewis and I comprise the three simple country lawyers who sit in this place. Senator Rae would not admit that he is one becaue he comes from the city of Launceston. But Tom has endeared himself to all of us around the Parliament. He has a fundamental common sense that he brought to so many issues. He had the capacity to fit in with us and to work with us all. Tom, we are very sorry that you are leaving us in these circumstances.

Like Senator Tehan, Senator Sibraa has spent only a few short years in the Senate. As one of the younger members of this chamber, he has worked energetically in the service of several committees, particularly the Joint Committee on

Foreign Affairs and Defence. But I am certain that we are not saying good-bye to Kerry. He is still a young man and we have always recognised his obvious capacity. I think we would all believe that it will not be long before he comes back to this place. If this is not the case, his party has less sense than I give it credit for.

Senator Janine Haines is the shortest serving member of the Senate among those who are leaving. She has, however, in that period achieved a significant first: She was the first senator to come into this place to fill a casual vacancy under the new constitutional provisions approved at the 1977 referendum. She also has the distinction of being one of only 13 women to have entered this place. Even though her time in this chamber has been brief, she has made a valuable contribution to the deliberations of the chamber.

Finally, I mention another senator whose term would normally have expired on 30 June but who left the Senate prematurely to contest a seat for the House of Representatives in the last electionRaymond Steele Hall. Ex-senator Hall, a former Premier of South Australia, joined the Senate in 1974 and came into the Liberal Party in 1 976, I do not know whether Steele ever indulges in reading Hansard in his retirement, but I think it fair that I say to him that we had a rather varied and hectic relationship in his first period in this place. We always admired and respected his capacity for work and in particular his capacity to read and understand the legislation which was before the Parliament. After he came back into the Liberal Party we could not have wished for a more delightful companion to work with, to play with and generally to associate with. I am sorry that before the Senate rose for the last general election I did not have the opportunity to say those words.

I suppose that for all our colleagues who are leaving and even those of us who are remaining, tonight is a bitter sweet sort of occasion. I do not know what happens to retired members of parliament, but within five minutes they seem to look five years younger. Maybe there is some joy outside the Parliament after all. On my own behalf, and speaking in a very personal sense, I say how much I have enjoyed the company and companionship and what Magnus would call the collegian feeling’ of all those honourable senators who are leaving us. I say to them: We will not forget you. Please find an occasion on which to come back and see us. You will always be welcome amongst our ranks. I am quite certain that we will never forget you. Good luck and God bless the lot of you.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader ofthe Opposition · Tasmania

– I do no not know what to say after all that. I can only say that I endorse the remarks of Senator Withers. I do not wish to particularise about individual senators because Senator Withers has obviously taken the trouble tonight to make comments on them individually. No matter what the differences are in this placeand there are times when we have to play it hard; it is the nature of the game we are in- I am sure that we would all share the sentiments he has expressed. We all come to this place in the hope that we can do something of value not only for the Parliament but also for the Australian people. Even though we do what we believe is of value, we necessarily differ and find ourselves at odds on many occasions. I simply say briefly to all those honourable senators who are retiring that I wish them the very best in their retirement and I especially wish them good health during the time that they are out of this place. There is no doubt but that we are foolish to ourselves inasmuch as we do not give ourselves an opportunity to enjoy those things which perhaps we should. I endorse the remarks of Senator Withers. I hope that all those honourable senators who are leaving us enjoy the retirement they have ahead of them.

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

– It is now some time after 1 o’clock on a Saturday morning, which is usually a happy time, but for the Senate it is an unhappy time because we are saying farewell to people who have become such close friends to all of us. As far as I can recall, no previous year- certainly not in my time in this place- has been noted with the retirement of such a group of outstanding senators. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) said, Senator Janine Haines is the only woman senator retiring. She is the only senator to be in the unique position in this Parliament of being the first member of a new political group to retire after so very few months in this place. We all know how much she wishes to return. We hope that the reputation which she brought with her when she entered this place from South Australia will continue and that we will have the opportunity of seeing her again take a place in the Senate in the future. On behalf of my National Country Party Senate colleagues, I wish her well.

Senator Brown from Victoria is retiring also. I wish him well. He has been a fine man in this place. I endorse the comments made about him by the Leader of the Government. He is well known for the typical way in which he has protected the Senate’s interests. I wish him well in his retirement in Victoria. Senator Donald Cameron is a very quiet senator but a very ardent worker in this place. We wish him well. Senator Don Devitt leaves this place with a reputation in relation to interests which are so dear to my heart. He has the distinction of being the first senator in the whole history of the Commonwealth to have spent time at an Antarctic Australian base. He is the only senator ever to have visited Mawson ‘s Hut during a term as a senator. Indeed, achievement must afford him great pleasure in the future.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is also retiring. I have looked upon Sir Magnus as a father in this place. He has been a great father in the way that he has guided me and many other honourable senators in the performance of our duties in the Senate. I believe that Senator Kerry Sibraa will return to the Senate in the future. As he returns to New South Wales I know that he will wish to be back in the Senate. Senator Sir Robert Cotton has been a close friend of mine. He came into the Parliament at almost the same time as I did. Honourable senators may know that Senator Cotton and I have communicated in this place by using secret signs. We both have a background in the timber industry. The main sign we used was that associated with a saw hand who, from scraping the dust out from beneath a circular saw, has lost a couple of fingers on his hand. That has been the sign which Senator Cotton and I have used now for 13 years. I hope that he demonstrates that sign when he serves in the United Nations.

I turn now to my great friend, Senator Sir Reginald Wright. I have only one regret in relation to Senator Reginald Wright. I do not know whether it would be typical of the attitude he has adopted throughout the time he has been in the Senate, but I only wish that this evening he would make an appeal to the Leader in this place and rejoin the parliamentary Liberal Party. If there is one thing that Senator Sir Reginald Wright did during his political life which disappointed me, it was his tendering his resignation to the Liberal Party. But that was typical of the way in which he has performed during the years that I have known him. I fully recall that, when I had been a member of this chamber for about a week, he put forward a brilliant argument about why I should vote against the Government at the time, and he and I were the only two voting on that side, much to the wrath of Shane Paltridge, who took me into his office and dressed me down. I have been delighted by my association with Senator Sir Reginald Wright in all circumstances. As other honourable senators may not have the opportunity to speak, on behalf of my National Country Party colleagues I say to Senator Sir Reginald Wright that no man who leaves this place will be remembered as well as he when he goes to his farm in that glorious valley in Tasmania. If I cannot persuade him to join one particular group, he may give some consideration to supporting the interests of farming.

No man has been more independent in his views than Senator Ian Wood. All his actions have been very well balanced. In the Senate, perhaps more so on this side than on the other, he has guided a number of very independently minded senators. I imagine that they take pride in having followed him, and they see, from his 28 years in this chamber, that there is wisdom in having an independent mind, which is something that many of us do not have.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Why don’t you suggest throwing out the metric system?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I cannot cope with that particular comment. I come now to my two great parliamentary colleagues, Senator Tehan and Senator Drake-Brockman. I know that my National Country Party colleagues will weep tears tonight as both of them leave here for the last time. Tom Tehan made his last speech here tonight on the dairy industry. I can imagine him taking just as great an interest in the industry when he returns to Kyabram. I hope that, as he is a young man, he will have the opportunity to return to this place. He has been invaluable to the National Country Party and has brought the benefit of his great legal wisdom not only to our party but also to every party here and to the Senate as a whole. He will never be forgotten for what he has done. He has been ever willing to assist honourable senators in all instances, and his friendship will not be forgotten in the years to come.

Tom Drake-Brockman is our senior man, and we regret that he is leaving us. He will be our greatest loss. He was the leader of our party for many years. One cannot pay a higher tribute to a politician than to say that all members of the Senate, from both sides, are proud to count him as a friend. Tom is one of the select few who can be complimented in that way. In his 20 years in the Senate he has earned the acknowledgement of being a very astute politician. He has been a guide to many of us. He has seldom erred in his judgment, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate indicated, and he has never wavered in fairness in his position of Chairman of Committees. He has earned the respect of people who are his political friends or foes.

He has the friendliness and the dry. infectious sense of humour that can be attributed only to a Drake-Brockman from Western Australia. He has been praised as being the ideal Chairman of Committees. He held that position for two terms and for nearly eight years in this place. From that role, with his ability to command respect and to facilitate the work of the Senate with an easy, no nonsense approach, he leaves the Senate today as a man who has gained in stature every year that we have known him. All senators would wish to speak on this occasion. My remarks are directed particularly on behalf of the National Country Party senators in this place. As I speak at 1.15 a.m., perhaps the most appropriate words, which I mentioned the other night, are those taken from one great poet. They are:

The heights by great men reached and kept Were not attained by sudden flight, But they, while their companions slept, Were toiling upward in the night.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I join with those honourable senators who have already spoken about the retiring senators. In particular I mention my colleagues. It is unfortunate that we should be making these comments at this hour of the morning. I wish to make one or two references to the people on this side who have made a great contribution to my party and to the Parliament. In the first instance, I speak of Senator Bill Brown. In case senators do not know, Bill Brown has been the chairman of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party for some years. He has been a distinguished chairman, controlling our party which, like other parties, often requires temperate decisions. Bill Brown, although a former trade union official, has made his mark in my party as Chairman of our party. He has distinguished himself in the Senate, Mr President, as you will recall, by making a number of contributions through the Standing Orders Committee. In that regard I think he has already established a name in the Parliament. I certainly note Bill’s contribution to the Parliament and my party.

I Senator Don Cameron has been a person who, like former Senator Clem Ridley- some older members might remember him- has often added wisdom in contributions to debates, which has distinguished his speeches from the ordinary party arguments in the Parliament. He has been able to contribute some gem of wisdom to debates on any causes which have had to be propounded. He has been a most distinguished member of the Parliament. He, too, is a former trade union official.

I agree with the comments made about Senator Sibraa by the Leader of the Government (Senator Withers). I hope that Senator Sibraa will be elected again because he has already made his mark in the Parliament. He specialises in foreign affairs and defence. We trust that on his re-election to the Parliament he will continue his standard of contribution as an alert member, supporting the concept of the Parliament. I suppose the most important part of our duties is to make sure that the Senate is not just a place where the parties- the Government and the Opposition- argue; it should be seen to play its role as a chamber of the Parliament of Australia. Contributions from both sides ought to be directed at ensuring that the Parliament itself is the voice representing the people of Australia.

That brings me to the roles that Senator Drake-Brockman and Senator Sir Magnus Cormack have played in the Parliament. We have earlier had occasion to talk about these two people. Perhaps I should mention again in passing the contribution which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has made to the committee system. He has always been a strong supporter of his party; as Labor senators have supported their party. In the contests in the Parliament, there have often been very strong exchanges. But, in committees, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has been one of the greatest supporters of the parliamentary system. In the parliamentary system committees provide us with a vehicle whereby the two opposing forces can often find and share common ground. On the committees on which I have served under Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, we have often met on common ground because of his special qualities.

I have shared common interests in defence and foreign affairs with Senator DrakeBrockman. I think both of us have put up arguments from different points of view, which have brought into the arena of discussion what might be required of Australia in those matters. I have been a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances with Senator Sir Reginald Wright and Senator Wood. We have shared the sort of experience which helps members of the Parliament to understand what should be the power of the Parliament and the Executive in relation to regulations. I welcome and support what has been said about Senator Wood and Senator Sir Reginald Wright. In relation to the other two honourable senators, I say that I hope that their term in the Parliament has been a rewarding experience for them. Members of parliament have a role to play and we understand that. We all have a case to argue.

I hope that all of us in the Parliament share a common objective in making sure that the Parliament of Australia becomes a real Parliament. Parliament does not actually represent the Government of Australia but the people of Australia. I hope that all the retiring senators will enjoy their retirement in the same way we will when we retire.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I would like to say a few words about the retiring senators. When I came to this place in 1971I was a green boy from the bush. Of course, I have not known some of them for very long. First and foremost I shall say a few words about Senator Bill Brown. The honourable senator and I served on a committee together when I first became a member of this place. I wish him all the best in his retirement. He has been a very good friend. Althought we have been on different sides of the House. I believe that our relationship has been very good. I believe that he has made a very worthwhile contribution to the Parliament during the time that he has been here. I say to Bill that I have appreciated his friendship. Although we did not always agree on many issues, I believe we have been pretty good friends.

Senator Donald Cameron was one of the chaps who befriended me when I first came into this place. He helped me in many ways during my first few years in this place until I found my feet. We had many good games of pool down in the corner when things were not very busy. Senator Don Devitt was one chap who took me under his wing when I first came to this place. I wish him all the best in his retirement. I believe that he has made a very worthwhile contribution to the Parliament.

I do not know Senator Kerry Sibraa very well but I wish him well in his retirement. I express the wish of other speakers that his retirement will not be for very long. Perhaps we will see him back in this place. I do not know Senator Janine Haines very well but in the short time that she has been here she has certainly made a very worthwhile conribution in this chamber. I say to Senator Tom Drake-Brockman that I have enjoyed his friendship. I acknowledge the contribution he has made to this chamber. I remember very vividly the first time I made my contribution in the chamber and I voted against my Government. Tom Drake-Brockman took me aside and gave me a fatherly talking to. He said: ‘Look Neville, you know there are times when many of us will disagree with our own political parties. Do not let anyone give you a bad time’. But I suppose we are all guilty of doing that from time to time in this chamber.

I have known Senator Tom Tehan since he has been here. I think that Tom has made a very worthwhile contribution and 1 wish him well. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is also retiring from this place. When I first came into this chamber I used to sit in the seat where Senator Harold Young is sitting now. I was a new boy in this place. I remember that Sir Magnus was the President sitting in the chair. He would look at me and if I were slouching in my seat I would sit up. I was like a little boy caught out at school. I would sit up straight. Sir Magnus made a tremendous contribution to this chamber and to Australia generally. I wish him well in his retirement. Senator Sir Robert Cotton was a Minister when I first entered the chamber. Bob Cotton was one of the people who was very kind to me. I want to wish him well in his retirement.

I first met my colleague from Queensland, Ian Wood, in 1970 when I made my run to come into this place. It was Ian Wood who took me around the sticks in Queensland and showed me the ropes. Ian Wood probably has more political nous than most people in this chamber. Any honourable senator who has been out in the sticks with Ian Wood and campaigned with him would know that he has the capacity to talk with the people at the grass roots level. When Ian Wood stands on the stumps people stop and listen to what he has to say. I have a lot for which to thank Ian Wood. During my run to get into this chamber Ian Wood gave me a lot of strength, a lot of courage and a lot of encouragement to continue and carry the Liberal Party flag. I believe that during his 29 years in this Parliament he has made a very worthwhile contribution not only to the Parliament but to Australia generally. I want to say to Ian that I have enjoyed his friendship and his companionship. I believe that on his retirement from the Senate many people, particularly in Queensland, will remember the contribution that he has made to this Parliament and the independence that he has shown. I believe that one of the wonderful things about the Liberal Party is that one can show one’s independence. That he has done over the 29 years that he has been in this Parliament. I congratulate him and wish him well in his retirement.

I would like to tell the Senate a funny story about my old friend over there, Reg Wright, who has sat with me for the last two years. During the period that the Honourable Sir Reginald Wright was sitting with me on this side of the chamber, one day he had papers all over the seat, all over the desks and down on the floor. I said to him:

Hey, what do you think this is- a b….. black’s camp?’. He sat back and looked at me in the way that only Sir Reginald Wright can and said: Well, isn’t it?’. Mr President, that typifies the kind of bloke that Reg Wright is. He can give as well as take and most times he gives before he takes. I wish Sir Reginald Wright all the best in his retirement. I know that this chamber will be the poorer for his leaving it. I believe sincerely that he will be sorely missed not only in this chamber but by the people of Australia for the contribution that he has made to the Senate.

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I first entered this Senate about seven years ago. When I was new to the Senate I often felt that I was a learner, a very green person- I have not changed to the same colour as Senator Bonner but maybe I am not ripe yet. I owe the enjoyment that I have had in this chamber to the assistance that I received from several of the senators who tonight grace this place for the last time. When Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was in the Chair I seemed always to be able to choose the time when I could ask a question and he would see me.

Senator McLaren:

– Oh!

Senator TOWNLEY:

– It is a wonder you did not see that, Feathers. It would have tickled you pink.

Ian Wood I have always listened to with a lot of respect. He is a gentleman whom we are going to miss a lot around this place. We may not always have agreed with the things he has said, but he has been somebody who has always given a down-to-earth view and, in my opinion, nearly always that has been the view that the public has been expressing. Ian, I thank you for what you did for me and wish you well.

Tom Drake-Brockman was, I think, Minister for Air when I came to the Parliament. He was a tremendous help to me and many times set me on the right track.

Reg Wright, when I was an Independent, did not have a lot to do with me, but when I became a member of the party I was on a committee with him once in Queenstown. That is something that those honourable senators who have not been on a committee with Senator Sir Reginald Wright would not know about: lt is a pretty frightening experience.

Now that these gentlemen are retiring, I hope that they will always be able to look back and see this Senate doing the kinds of things that they would want it to do. Gentlemen, you have all made my political life a lot fuller and I thank you for your friendship and advice. To Bill Brown, with whom also I was on a committee I say thank you for the example you gave me early in my political life. You were always a gentleman to both the members of the committee and the witnessesI do not know who were treated the best, but you were someone that I could look up to and respect, and I thank you for it.

Don Devitt, who is not here tonight, I came to know fairly well when we went on the Thala Dan to Macquarie Island last year. I wish him well in his retirement, as I do all the others who are retiring, whether they have been here for a short or long time. I hope that we will see some of them back again.

Before I conclude, I would like to say that early yesterday a copy of a certain document came into my possession. It was not leaked to me: It was distributed to some of those who had assembled, as is their wont on the night before Parliament goes into recess, in the bowels of Parliament House. The background of this document is that some 9 or 10 years ago the members of a Senate committee- I believe the off-shore oil committee- which included such members as the late Senator Cant, the late Senator Greenwood and Senators Gair, O ‘Byrne, Young, Keeffe, Laucke and Webster, who were ably assisted on the committee by Keith Bradshaw, Guy Smith and occasionally Bert Nicholls, started a choir. This choir has become quite famous around Parliament House. It nearly always seems to sing at these end-of-session Records Office celebrations. One night when it was singing a few songs, both in and out of harmony, during a brief period of silence a well-known voice echoed through the room. I think the words were: ‘Sing you senators, sing’. From that day forward, Sir Reginald Wright has become the official conductor of that choir, and I am sure all who have heard it will agree it is unmatched in Parliament House. Last night I had the pleasure of hearing the choir give its last performance under the baton of Sir Reg. Just prior to their singing- and I must mention that they now have new members, such as Tom Wharton and Pete Murdoch as well as a few other ring-ins- the Reg Wright Records Office Choir Book was presented to Senator Sir Reginald Wright in memory of the services that he had rendered to the choir. It was signed by many people, and was very well done. I have a copy of that document and, for posterity, would seek leave to lay on the table The Reg Wright Records Office Choir Book. Also, I would ask that the words on the cover and on the second white page, which begin with: ‘You must have been a beautiful baby’, and on the final page, entitled ‘Now is the hour’, be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE REG WRIGHT RECORDS OFFICE CHOIR BOOK.

You Must Have Been A Beautiful Baby

You must have been a beautiful baby

You must have been a wonderful child

When you were only startin’

To go to kindergarten

I bet you drove the little boys wild

And when it came to winning blue ribbons

You must of shown the other kids how

I can see the judges’ eyes as they handed

You the prize

I bet you made the cutest bow

Oh! You must have been a beautiful baby

Cause baby look at you now.

Now Is The Hour

Now is the hour,

When we must say good-bye,

Soon you’ll be sailing

Far across the sea,

While you ‘re away,

O then remember me,

When you return,

You’ll find me waiting here.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I would like briefly to be among those who join in tribute to our retiring senators this evening. Some have been here a little longer than I have. Others have come since I have been here and are now departing from the Senate. I join with my friends and colleagues in wishing them well and in thanking them for their contributions to the great institution of Parliament. I hope that their recollections of Parliament will be pleasing and satisfying. More particularly, I hope that they will see in the continuation of Parliament something they hope Parliament would be. I, like so many other honourable senators, served on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Indeed, I spent the first six years of my parliamentary life serving on the Committee under the chairmanship of Senator Wood and in company with Senator Wright. I was a member of the parliamentary group which Senator Wood took to Norfolk Island. Both Senator Wood and Senator Wright, each in their own way, have brought their very special skills and talents to this place. The Parliament is better for the contributions which they have made.

I want to extend my good wishes to my South Australian colleagues Senator Donald Cameron, Senator Janine Haines and the former Senator Steele Hall. Senator Cameron comes from a distinguished South Australian political family. Although I have not had the same association with him that others have had, I have known of his work and I was very pleased to hear Senator Bishop speak about him as he did this evening. 1 endorse and underline those comments. Senator Steele Hall has been well known to us for a long time. He has had an association with the Senate and public affairs in South Australia over many years which indicates something of the kind of dedication to parliamentary duty which he has undertaken. Senator Haines, for the short time she has been in the Senate, has made the contribution to which honourable senators have referred. I mention in particular her interest in the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts in respect of the Committee’s hearing on aspects of television. During the six months she has been in the Senate she has attended many of the Committee’s meeting and public hearings. Her interest in the subject and her contribution to the Committee have been appreciated and enjoyed.

I want to refer now to Senator DrakeBrockman who, as Chairman of Committees, has been a good friend to those of us who have served as Temporary Chairmen of Committees. We have relied upon his advice and the opportunity to so serve. I want to mention especially Senator Sir Magnus Cormack for his contribution to the National Library of Australia on behalf of the Parliament and the Senate in particular. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, at the time he was President of the Senate, became the Senate’s representative on the Council of the National Library. As he developed the importance and significance of the office of President, he found that his duties at the National Library could not be undertaken because of the developing pattern there. He has been part of the new development of the National Library of Australia in terms of the resource sharing networks and the information services which have made the National Library one of the very great libraries and which will make it one of the great national libraries of the world.

Finally, while I am speaking about libraries, I should mention to honourable senators and to people who do not already know that the Parliamentary Librarian will retire on 12 July. When we return to the Senate in August, Mr A. L. Moore will have retired from the service of the Parliamentary Library after some eight years of leadership in this field. During his term, he has advanced the whole concept of the Parliamentary Library in the legislative research service, the reference service and in the foundation of new technical advances in information sciences. Mr Moore has had a very long and distinguished public career. For some time he was acting

Deputy High Commissioner in London. Over the years he has had association with the Commonwealth Department of Education, the South Pacific Commission, the Commonwealth Literary Fund, the Commonwealth Arts Advisory Board, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and many other bodies. He served on the Pa ton Committee on the Future of the National Library, to which I have just referred, and he later served for three years as a member of the Library Council. Today he is chairman of the Canberra School of Music Council. But it is his work in the parliamentary sphere and in the Parliamentary Library that we write into the record tonight with our tribute and appreciation. He is a world figure as a parliamentary librarian. My own many experiences and consultations with parliamentary and congressional librarians in several countries have confirmed that he is held in very high regard by his peers.

I mention also Mrs Moore, his wife. For these eight years she has been a charming and accomplished hostess, giving support to her husband in his work or in the Parliament. Primarily, I again say to our retiring colleagues that we wish them well and we look forward to seeing them in the future. We thank them for their many services on committees, within the parties and the Parliament itself.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I will be very brief. I just want to join previous speakers in paying a tribute to the retiring senators. This is the first batch of senators that I have seen go from this chamber. Although some of the older staff members may say, ‘Well, they come and they go’, their absence will certainly be a great loss to me. I do not believe that after they have retired the Senate will be the same to me. We are losing many of the older members of the Senate. I believe that the Senate will lose a good deal in experience and the history that will go with them. Since I have been a member of the Senate I have been able to make friends with members on both sides of the chamber and I would put this down to the Senate committee system which I believe is a magnificent system.

Having sat on a committee with Bill Brown and Tom Tehan, I am very grateful for the committee system. I have really enjoyed your company, Tom. You have helped me considerably on committees and I certainly am very sad to see you go. Bill Brown is a thorough gentleman. Whenever there have been people appearing to give evidence before a committee who have been the slightest bit nervous- and sometimes Senate standing committees can be a bit awe inspiring- he was able to make them feel entirely at home and completely relaxed. We all could have learned from watching the way Bill spoke to them gently. Bill, we will miss you very much on our committees.

I am going to miss Janine Haines terribly. We need more women in this Parliament, and she has proved that we need more women. She has done a tremendous job. We need Janine and I sincerely hopes she comes back. Perhaps more women on this side of the House would be a great help.

I now turn to my great guide, mentor and friend, Sir Reginald Wright. He is the most generous man I have ever known. I think that anyone who has been on a campaign trail with Reg will perhaps understand what I mean. He has made me stand up on the rails at cattle sales and yell and if I was not loud enough then he certainly was able to yell over the top of my voice. He has taken me to hotels all the way between Hobart and Launceston and afterwards had a meeting either in the very north or the very south. It has been quite an experience. He has invited us all to go to Upper Castra to visit him there. All one will have to do is to ask for the local Tasmanian tiger and the people will show you where to find him. It will not be an extinct breed on our island as long as Sir Reginald remains alive. I would like to thank you very much, Reg, for everything you have done for me and for all your help and assistance. Mr President, you may not realise that in Hobart we have a magnificent building, and I am sure that Ken Wriedt will agree with this. All the Liberals’ offices are on the one floor. Ken ‘s office is above us. I am not quite sure why he does not come down and join us. First there is Reg’s office, then Bruce Goodluck ‘s, then Mike Townley ‘s and then mine. Reg had a lot to put up with while he had the three newies around him and he ruled us with a rod of iron, but he gradually let go the strings and honourable senators can see the result. Bruce is very subdued now, so is Michael and Sir Reginald certainly has me under his thumb. I would like to thank you once again, Reg, and wish all the retiring senators well in their retirement.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– Membership of the Whips union is something people cannot relinguish. Apart from the incumbents I believe that we have a number of ex- Whips sitting around the chamber. They include Senator O ‘Byrne, Senator Withers, Senator Young, Senator Chaney and two of the senators who are retiring have been Government Whips in their time. One of them of course is Senator the honourable Sir Reginald Wright. He was Government Whip and has been one of the models to whom I have turned. The other was an honourable senator from New South Wales, a particular friend of Senator Carrick, Senator Scott and me. I refer to Senator the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton. It was Sir Robert Cotton who helped to cement and to establish between the coalition parties the very good relationships which are so characteristic of the State of New South Wales. He might also have got to the Lower House had it not been for Mr Chifley, whom he tried to unseat in the Macquarie electorate on at least two occasions.

Sir Robert Cotton has been proud of a number of his records. Senator Withers has set out most of the facts, but there is one matter to which he did not refer. In fact, Senator Sir Robert Cotton was the first candidate in any election in this country to be returned with a million votes. It is interesting that it is a record of which he often tells people he is the first voting millionaire. But he does not even know how good is his record. In fact six times in the history of this country people have had a million votes. It has always occurred in New South Wales. One of the honourable senators on the other side of the chamber, Senator Mulvihill, had more than a million votes, but Sir Robert Cotton with almost one and a quarter million votes has had more votes in a single election than has any other candidate in this country. He is the only person to have had more than one million votes on two occasions. He is also the first to have done so. He is going to be very much missed by his colleagues in New South Wales. I am reminded that in 1 802, early in the industrial revolution, a book entitled Cotton is King was written. That title expresses a view we still hold in New South Wales.

The PRESIDENT:

– On behalf of the staff of the Senate and for myself, I express warmest agreement with the sentiments expressed and tributes extended by previous speakers this evening, or should I say this morning. The 1 1 honourable senators who now are leaving this place have the proud record of a collective service of no fewer than 145 years. I shall not refer to each honourable senator individually- that has been done with delightful adequacy, I feel. But I must say that each honourable senator has served the Senate and the tradition of Parliament most worthily and well. This place has been enriched by their presence. I join with other honourable senators in thanking them and wishing them well indeed for the future.

I make reference especially to my Chairman of Committees, the Deputy President of this place, the Honourable Tom Drake-Brockman. He has been an absolutely superb Deputy- cooperative, kindly and understanding. In every way he has been a colleague in office and that has meant a lot to me. I should like to say: Thank you very much indeed, Senator DrakeBrockman for that which you have done to make the years I have been sitting here very happy indeed ‘. I thank the Temporary Chairmen in that way also.

I guess that tonight, as we very regretfully note that this is the end of an era to a degree, our thoughts go to all those people who serve and have served us here, who over the 145 years of collective service- be it in the Senate Department, in the Library, in Hansard or on the Joint House Committees- have pulled together to make possible what I feel is a proud record of parliamentary service and I am sure have added to the happiness of those people who have served here.

I make special reference to the imminent retirement of Mr Les Moore, our Parliamentary Librarian, who was referred to by Senator Davidson. I express appreciation for the outstanding service of this honourable gentleman, whose retirement from service will become effective at the close of business on 12 July next. Mr Moore was appointed to the position on 2 June 1970 and during his service the Parliamentary Library has become one of the leading organisations of its kind in the English-speaking world. In particular, there has been a marked growth in the development of the legislative research service, in the provision of current information services and the selective dissemination of information by means of the ALERT system. I desire to place on record the thoroughness with which Mr Moore has laid the foundations for the implementation of technical advances in information science and the inevitable changes that will occur in the storage, retrieval and dissemination of information in the future. I am sure all honourable senators will join with me in expressing every good wish to Mr Les Moore and Mrs Moore for future health and happiness in retirement. I say again to each of the honourable senators who are leaving us: We are proud of you. We are happy and grateful to have had the honour of meeting and working with you all. We wish you well indeed.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-I express my sincere appreciation for the remarks that have been passed this evening by various senators. As one who started in a humble way, I owe my direction towards thinking of local affairs to a wonderful mother. Starting in such a humble way, I was encouraged by her to fight my way up to a much better position. My early entry into government-type work was through the avenue of local government. I became an alderman and then I became the youngest mayor, I believe, in Australia at the time. I did not serve three years as mayor as mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers). I was mayor five times- 15 years altogether. I found it a very interesting avenue in which to work for the public.

I have tried to think progressively for the future. I hope I have played my pan in that avenue. I brought the first town plan by a municipality in Australia into effect. This started town planning legislation. I also played a part in various other aspects, such as the Great Barrier Reef tourist industry and the industry of the area generally. Because of considerable pressure from various people I eventually gave way and stood for election to the Senate. It was not my desire to become a senator because it meant having to come to Canberra which is a cold area. The temperature does not appeal to me at all. Having been a senator for 28’A years, I thank the Liberal Party for having pressed me into the opportunity of serving the people of my State and this country. I hope I have served them well and that my time here has been of benefit to Australians and Queensland people in particular.

I am a simple type of person. I did not have a good education. I left school when I was 12 years and 10 months old, to earn 10s a week to help my mother keep the home. Therefore I did not come in here professing to have any great educational qualifications. I have always believed that what the public appreciates in a public man is sincerity and honesty. I hope that during my time in public life I have been sincere and honest. I feel that people sense sincerity. I believe that my continued re-election over such a long period has shown that I have given sincerity and devotion. It has been a great experience for me. I have enjoyed it. I am sure that I am richer within myself for having had this experience. I have enjoyed the companionship of honourable senators, not just those on my side of the House but those on both sides of the chamber. I believe that there are very good senators in the chamber. They are not just confined to one side. To all those honourable senators I say: ‘Thank you ‘.

In addition I thank all those who worked so well with me in the very valuable work done in my years as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, including my 22 years as Chairman. Several of them are leaving this place tonight- Senator

Tom Drake-Brockman, Senator Brown, Senator Sir Reginald Wright, who has been a magnificent member of that Committee, and Senator Devitt who proved himself to be a very loyal Deputy Chairman and a very good Chairman during the term of the Labor Government. To those people I owe a great debt as does the nation and this Parliament. In addition, pretty well ever since I came into the Parliament I have served as a Temporary Chairman of Committees. During that time I have had the honour on three occasions, in the absence of both the President and the Deputy President, of having been elected to the position of Acting President of the Senate. Having given of my best in my own simple way, I hope that I have done so in such a way that it has been with an understanding of what the people need. I feel that to know and understand the people at the grassroots level is the very best way to understand what to do for the people. When all is said and done, it is the people whom we represent. If we understand what the people need, we will be successful.

In conclusion, I express my appreciation of the work of the officers of this Senate. I believe that Mr Odgers, Mr Bullock and the other six officers of the Senate are a dedicated team. They are very Senate-conscious and they do wonderful work for this chamber. I express to them my very sincere appreciation. As a number of them have served in the position of secretary to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I can say that they have done an excellent job. I have many very good friends around this Parliament building amongst members of the staff. I thank the ladies and gentlemen who work in this building for all the assistance and friendship they have given me. When I leave this chamber, I do so not only with thoughts of the people inside the chamber but also of those outside it who do such a wonderful job to help make this Parliament work.

I leave the Parliament feeling that the Senate is a better place than when I came here. I was determined, because of what people said, to do my best to see that the Senate improved and I hope I have played my part in that improvement. I leave not with any deep regret but with a feeling of happiness that I have served here. As I leave I look forward to a future filled with other activities. I thank all honourable senators most sincerely. Before I sit down, I add that, whilst at times I have been much maligned and whilst I have not been one to seek publicity, nevertheless, I thank the media for the fair treatment it has always given me. May this Senate grow in stature and may it continue to grow in its importance in the affairs of this great country of ours. I am thankful for having had the opportunity to be able to serve in this excellent Senate chamber. I thank all honourable senators.

Senator Sir REGINALD WRIGHT (Tasmania) (1.59 a.m.)- I wish to thank those who have spoken. I feel that a special measure of thanks is due to those who have listened. I include the officers of the Senate in my thanks. To my former leader who announced that I came to this earth as an uncommon man, I say:

And fear not lest Existence closing your Account, and mine, should know the like no more;

The Eternal Saki from that Bowl has pour’d Millions of Bubbles like us, and will pour.

In the Parliament I have seen the pits and pinnacles of change for 29 years. It is as well to review, in just a few brief words the development when this chamber started off. We came in at a time when the situation was 33 to three. Let us reminisce for a moment. It was Arthur Calwell who instituted a decent system of election to the chamber on the basis of which a threshold development began. Over the 29 years some progress has been made. But I still think that the situation is best expressed in Kendall ‘s line:

Humanity’s drama of marvellous wrong.

We have built up a committee system which is growing and has some purpose and prospect. But it will not mean anything if it does not correct the errors that come to us. Until we get out of the mists of this idea that we are restricted in money amendments the chamber will not achieve what it should. As I said in relation to another Bill tonight: We should be extricated from the Executive and have our parallel Executive. Of course honourable senators would not expect a man of such reconciliation purposes as myself to suggest any contention with the Executive but rather cooperation. We should have managers here. 1 can picture a Minister, as with two or three Bills tonight, having to explain his Bill in Committee and to argue his Bill. The managers would take part as Senate managers. But let us not argue the case for these things. I have done what I can for constitutional development. It is nice to remember that having been on the Constitutional Review Committee with a dissenting report in favour of maintenance of the Senate powers, in the only three referenda that have been put forward on this matter either by my side or by the Opposition, the majority of the Australian people, according to the Constitution, have not accepted the view that was put that the Senate power should be eroded. I shall be brief. I cannot forbear to mention though that Parliament is in a predicament. Democracy as Hailsham says is in a dilemma. In the old country the House of Commons has entered into a social contract with the biggest junta in the country and it is threatening us here.

Mr President, if you do not mind my saying so, in the law courts where I have practised now for over 50 years, I consider them to be not the agencies of justice but the opportunities for terror and ruin. We have a problem from the point of view of the law courts, the chief of which is to unify the jurisdiction as to which I see my friend the Attorney-General was in difference the other day with learned Chief Justices. That fundamental cause, unless achieved in the next 50 years, will give us a divided judiciary, as there is in America, to our great ruin. But everybody is waiting for me to speak about my parting from the Parliamentary Liberal Party last week. I have no apology to make nor do I have any pleasure. It was a situation that had to be met. It came to me with great regret after so many years. I take pleasure in looking back to 1949 when I took part in one of the greatest victories ever for our Party. It had great victories again in 1975 and 1977. I felt compelled to stand by my view on what was happening about a particular Bill. Notwithstanding that incident I stand here to acknowledge the cordiality and goodwill I have received from colleagues on the Government side and from all honourable senators on the Opposition side. I appreciate it immensely. I have a poem here but as Senator McAuliffe has gone I will not read it. It is Breaking Point by Sir Paul Hasluck. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Senator Withers:

– Read it.

Senator Sir REGINALD WRIGHT:

-I shall read from it.

Sometimes I want to cry: Oh, go to Hell.

To Hell with pommy babblers, yawping fools and Melbourne Babus in strange clothes.

Oh go to Hell.

The whining loungers in the city pub; the cheapjack hustler in the train; the politician with his jowls of lard; the shrewd accountant with the knowing mask and fifty bankrupt farmers in the bag; the golf-course pirate and the Bondi shark; and civil servants hand in hand with god trotting to hidden ends down devious ways.

Oh go to Hell.

I do not cry. In the quiet corners of my mind I seek my native folk, my own, the quiet folk who wait and understand, men with keen wrinkled eyes, and slow thin smiles, men with firm hands. Men who will never cry, whose voices, hard as sunlight, firm as stone, and level as their own calm gaze across the sandplain to the farthest hill, speak the truth slowly like a stockwhip’s coil, cracking with purpose. Men who know their land.

I think of quiet folk remote in little homes, the patient people who believe in good, keeping the children clean, the socks well darned, a clear fire cheerful in the kitchen stove. The men who start out early, raise their eyes and see earth ‘s goodness in the coming light and think in kindness of their neighbour’s hope.

I think of tired men with calloused hands, lips black with sweat and red-rimmed patient eyes, crying for faith in treeless wastes of pain.

I see the lonely ones, shy on the kerb, seeking for comrades and the friendly flesh of human kind. The multitude denied the simple joy of being one with all, feet moving, heart rejoicing, body merging with the crowd. The isolated soul. The shy, vain hoper in the brotherhood of man. The congregation of the lonely faith.

I see the fearless men, the bold, the strong, who stand like poppet heads against the sky and raise their hands with purpose.

Then I do not cry.

I lift my head and sing.

And Wordsworth wrote:

Harsh judgments nor the thoughts of selfish men, nor greetings where no kindness is, nor all the dreary intercourse of daily life, shall ne’er prevail against us or destroy my cheerful faith, that all that we behold is full of blessings.

When one can retain that faith after 29 years in the Senate, against the vicissitudes that one has had at the hands of government and opposition, that is the time when one will go. Disregard the quorums, quit and be free of them, to return to my valley of flowers and farming and the spirit of my fathers.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

– I thank all those who have spoken. I also thank all those who have not spoken but who, by their support, have shown that they agree with the remarks that have been made. I well recall some of the advice that was given to me when I first came into the Senate. A lot of it went straight out the other ear but there was some advice that I accepted. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) mentioned one or two of those pieces of advice tonight. One Labor senator who had been a Minister in the Chifley Government said to me when I first came into the Senate: ‘I will give you some advice; do not make all your friends on one side of the House. ‘ I think that was very good advice. Another Labor senator said to me, as Reg Withers said tonight of Reg Wright, that in this place one gives one’s best but outside the attitude is: ‘Come and have a drink and let us talk things over. ‘ I think that is very good advice.

Mr President, I thank you for your remarks. I have served with four Presidents of the Senate during my time here. When Sir Alistair McMullin was President, I served as Chairman of Committees and Deputy President. When Sir

Magnus Cormack was the President I served as a Minister. Justin O ‘Byrne and I have had a long experience, dating back to when he was on his honeymoon. I claim that I assisted him. I served as the leader of a party in Opposition under the presidency of Justice O ‘Byrne. I should like to make some remarks about each and every one of those people, but time does not permit me to do so. There have been two Clerks of the Senate during my term here. I should like to say a great deal about what has happened at the table between the Clerks and myself over the years that I have been here, but time does not permit me to do so.

I have served under nine Leaders of the Government in the Senate, two of whom were on the Opposition side. Two of them are here tonight. I could tell many tales about what has happened involving us in those years. I would also like to say a great deal about the officers of the Senate, who have been of great assistance to me, as they have been to other honourable senators throughout the years. I cannot speak too highly of the staff of the Senate for their friendship and, as Senator Wood said, their assistance over the years; nor can I speak too highly about the Joint House Department and the Hansard staff. Perhaps one could tell many tales about what went on in the early days there. But, again, time does not permit me to do so. I should like also to spend some time talking about the staff in the refreshment rooms in Parliament House and about the attendants who put in long hours serving the Parliament. I should like to pay tribute to those people whom we do not see around Parliament House but who we know are in the background working to make this chamber operate. I think they are deserving of a great deal of thanks from each and every one of us.

I want to pay a special tribute to the members of my party who have given me great assistance and great loyalty over many trying periods during the time that I have been a member of this Parliament. There have been many occasions when senators of my party would dearly have loved to have crossed the floor and voted with the Opposition, but they stuck to me loyally when I had the responsibility of leading the party. I thank them for that. I have made many friends in this Parliament on both sides of the chamber. I thank each and everyone of them for their friendship. I am looking now at Reg Bishop, who sometimes used to see me as I walked down the corridor and I would say to him: ‘ How about asking me a question today on the FI 1 ls?’. He was not above asking the same thing of me when we were in opposition.

As Reg Wright said, there have been many changes in the years that we have been in the Senate. All 1 can say is that I trust that the Senate will continue to be a very effective chamber, upholding the very best traditions of the institution of parliament.

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

-At this very late hour may I take a few brief moments to express my appreciation to the Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) and other honourable senators, who have been very courteous in their remarks about my presence in this institution. Like Senator Tom Drake-Brockman, I want to express my appreciation to the officers of the Senate, to the attendants inside this chamber who look after our every need and want, and to those outside the chamber who service the Senate generally. On many occasions I have wondered at their tolerance and patience and endurance. Although we complain about being here until the early hours of the morning, we must remember that they too are here and they are expected to fetch and carry when we ask them to assist us. I have never receieved other than courtesy, co-operation, and the kind of service that one would expect from the sort of people that they are.

One could go on in respect of the staff. In terms of the committees on which I have been privileged to serve, I have always found that the officers of the committee secretariats have shown the utmost courtesy and consideration. Likewise, we could not do without those folk in the place where we water and feed- the dining room- and those who are not in the front of the house, so to speak, but in the kitchens. There is another facilitythe coffee room- adjoining the dining room, and a tribute should be paid to the tolerance of the staff there. They need to be extremely tolerant, as I have observed from time to time with the frivolity that is engaged in, not often but occasionally, in that area.

In spite of myself, and in spite of the politics of some people opposite, when I came to this place I could not help but find some friends amongst them. Believe it or not, I have been very surprised at the number of people with whom I have enjoyed a very warm friendship. Working on committees- one in particular that was referred to was the fact-finding mission in the South Pacific area- one really comes to grips with the people one is with. I have always been of the opinion that there are two ways of finding out what people are like: Either you live with them or you work with them. Without being egotistical, my judgment to date has never been proved wrong.

I thank you, Mr President, for your consideration and courtesy at all times. I convey also my appreciation to your predecessor. At one time I had a rather nasty patch and I will never forget the assistance that was afforded to my wife and family. Anything they wanted was granted without any problem whatsoever. I understand that a gentleman by the name of Oscar Wilde said that experience is the name that men give to their mistakes. I trust that my presence in this place over the last eight or nine years will not be seen by history as a mistake.

Senator TEHAN:
Victoria

-At this late hour I crave the indulgence of the Senate to make a few comments and to thank you, Mr President, the Leader of the Government (Senator Withers) and others for their kind remarks. I have been here for a shorter period than some of my more illustrious colleagues who are retiring from the Senate on 30 June. But I would not be honest- and I always try to be honest, as Ian Wood says- if I did not say that there is a certain feeling of regret and nostalgia when the time comes for one to leave this place. I have enjoyed my term in the Senate. It has been a great experience for me, albeit for only one term, and I thank the electors of Victoria for giving me the opportunity to be here even for such a brief time. It has been said that one of the hallmarks of a successful politician is that he makes some enemies. If that is the litmus test, I suppose I must believe that I have failed, because while I like to think that I have made many friends in this place, so far as 1 am aware, I leave it with no enemies.

I should like to endorse what has been said about the Committee work in the Senate. Coming here as I did less than three years ago, I thought I knew a bit about constitutional history and the set-up of the Australian Constitution. But in my short period in the Senate I have been amazed to see how effective the committee system is in the work of the Senate. Indeed, I do not think I would be putting it on too high a plane if I gave it equal importance with what happens in the chamber itself. Perhaps in the long term and in the mechanism of the Australian Constitution, it may well be a vital factor because a bipartisan approach is involved whereby both sides come together to discuss what are very important matters of reference from the chamber. I think you get a balanced, objective view with both sides working together instead of, as inevitably happens in this place, as in a law court, an adversary situation. I make that comment because I suppose those people who have been here for a long time and who have grown up with the Committee system do not realise its value. Indeed, I think some steps ought to be taken to publicise the work ofthe Senate committees to the electorate at large.

I do not wish to say very much more. I have enjoyed my work on committees. You were kind enough, Mr Leader, to mention our common affinity as country lawyers. I suppose one of the lighter experiences I enjoyed was to go to lunch at the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee and listen to two other lawyers- Senator Chaney and Senator Wheeldon- exchanging repartee, embellished by comments from Senator Button and Senator Missen. That was a delightful experience.

May I just thank everyone on both sides ofthe chamber for their patience and tolerance. May I also say a particular word to the loyal members of my own party, and that includes them all. Tom Drake-Brockman made kind reference to that. If I may say so, I think we are a party which places great importance on loyality to leadership and loyality to the Government or to the Opposition as the case may be in the Parliament of which we are a pan. I thank also the members of the Liberal-National Country Party coalition. I like to feel- in fact I know that this is the casethat I have established a very good working relationship with them. I think if you are in coalition, one of the first things is to do your utmost to make it work. In my experience the coalition has worked well in the three years I have been here. I thank my friends in the Opposition for the opportunity of being here with them. I also thank the clerks of the Parliament, the staff of the Parliament and all those people who work to make this place the wonderful place it is. In conclusion, I trust that my fellow senators, both those retiring and continuing, will enjoy good health and happiness for the rest of their days.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, 15 August next at 3 p.m., unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution of the Senate agreed to this day.

Senate adjourned at 2.24 a.m., Saturday

page 2796

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Public Service: Staffing (Question No. 135)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the anticipated intake of recruits in each of the various levels of the Australian Public Service in 1 978.
  2. What is the anticipated resignation rate of officers in each of the various levels of the Australian Public Service in 1978.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Public Service Board has advised me that forward recruitment estimates in the Australian Public Service are determined and administered on a financial year basis. Recruitment estimates for permanent, temporary and exempt staff for the period 1 July 1 977 to 30 June 1 978 are:
  1. Based on 1977 figures, the following resignation rates among permanent officers might be expected in each of the various levels of the Australian Public Service in the 1 977-78 financial year:

These estimates do not relate to permanent officers who have left the Public Service for reasons other than resignation, i.e. retirement, dismissal, etc. or to temporary and exempt staff.

The estimated total separations for the financial year ending 30 June 1978 are:

Energy: Conservation (Question No. 145)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

In view of the findings in the United States of America of the Ford Foundation’s energy policy project that in many cases it is cheaper to save a watt of energy than to find an extra watt of supply, what efforts are being made by the Federal Government and the various relevant State bodies to (a) investigate the potential for energy conversion and conservation in Australia; and (b) encourage industrial, commercial and domestic power consumers to conserve energy.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I am aware that estimates have been published in America to the effect that in certain circumstances, the cost of conserving energy may be less than the cost of producing the equivalent additional energy. The efforts being made by the Commonwealth Government in relation to the matters mentioned in the honourable senator’s question are described in my answer to Question No. 1 52.

Crude Oil (Question No. 148)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

Does the Minister recall the answer he gave to the Senate Question No. 899 (Hansard, 16 November 1976, page 2007) where he stated: ‘Indigenous crude oil will still be making a useful contribution to Australia ‘s energy requirements in the year 2000 ‘; if so, what is this contribution likely to be for each year from 1 98 1 to 2000.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Any projections of self-sufficiency in crude oil beyond the mid nineteen-eighties can only be regarded as highly speculative at this stage. There are many presently unknown factors which will strongly influence both the supply of and demand for oil in the future.

On the supply side, one major factor is the reappraisal of Australia ‘s known economic reserves of oil in the light of the Government’s crude oil pricing policy, as the price moves towards import parity. As the honourable member may be aware this has happened recently in respect of the Bass Strait fields. A major discovery could also, of course, significantly change the pattern. Exploration is now picking up, especially offshore and the results in such areas as the Exmouth Plateau will be very relevant in this regard.

On the demand side a number of diverse factors could be involved. In the longer term, we can expect changes in oil consumption in response to price movements and the increased use of substitute fuels. Conservation measures presently being considered can also be expected to affect the consumption of oil in the future.

Magneto Hydrodynamic Energy (Question No. 150)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is magneto hydrodynamic energy.
  2. Is this form of energy being now researched or developed in Australia at the moment; if so, by whom.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Magneto hydrodynamic energy is the direct product of electricity from a high velocity flow of hot electrically conductive combustion gases through a magnetic field.
  2. Universities at which research is being carried out into MHD and the related problems of charged fluid behaviour in magnetic fields include the University of Sydney, the Australian National University and Flinders University.

See also the answer to Question No. 366, Hansard. 2 May 1978, page 1317.

Energy: Conservation (Question No. 152)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 27 March 1978:

  1. What is the Government’s policy on energy conservation.
  2. Will the Minister spell this policy out in some detail and undertake a public education campaign to inform all Australians of the need for energy conservation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government’s policy on energy conservation is indicated in a general way by the second policy objective set out in the National Energy Policy Statement of 7 November 1977 viz, for the average rate of growth of energy consumption, particularly in liquid fuels, to be restrained, to the extent that this can be done without reducing the rate of economic growth. The Policy Statement stipulated that to assist in acheiving this objective, the recommendations of the National Energy Advisory Committee (NEAC) in their report of September 1977 on energy conservation would, as appropriate, be developed into an action program. In his speech opening the present Parliament on 2 1 February 1978 the Governor-General further defined the Government’s intention as follows:

A national energy conservation program will be carried out in association with the States, industry and interested groups’.

In pursuance of this policy, I brought the NEAC recommendations to the attention of the Australian Minerals and Energy Council meeting on 10 March 1978. On the basis of these recommendations the Council agreed to initiate a national program to conserve energy with strong emphasis on oil.

The Council, at its meeting of 10 March 1978, established a Consultative Committee to plan the first stage of the energy conservation program, in which it was agreed the major activity should be a national publicity campaign. The report of the Consultative Committee will be submitted to the Council in the very near future.

As well as recommendations on a publicity campaign, I understand the Committee will be recommending training programs, advisory services, energy conservation by governments, energy conservation in transport, pricing and tax policies, and energy conservation in buildings and nouses.

While it is not possible to estimate with any precision the energy savings which may result from such a program, the Government is encouraged by the success of similar programs overseas, e.g. the ‘Save It ‘ program in the U.K.

Energy: Conservation (Question No. 153)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 3 March 1978:

What percentage of energy savings would Australia be able to secure if it were to adopt:

an aggressive energy conservation policy, and

a moderate-low energy conservation policy.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

See my answer to Question No. 1 52.

Freedom of Information: Counter Staff Services (Question No. 321)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister refuse, on 20 October 1977, to make public the interdepartmental committee report presented to him on measures needed to improve counter staff services to the general public; if so, why.
  2. Will the Prime Minister reconsider the decision.
  3. How does the Prime Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In response to a request on 10 August 1977 from Mr J. McMillan, Lecturer in Law at the University of New South Wales, for access to the interdepartmental committee report on ‘Improvement in the Quality of Services Provided to the General Public by Counter Staff ‘, the Prime Minister advised Mr McMillan that such reports form part of the Government’s internal working documents and are not normally available for public access.
  2. and (3) In its consideration of the interdepartmental committee Report the Government asked for certain further studies to be undertaken on specific issues and for the results of those studies to be brought before the Government for further consideration. Those studies are presently continuing. As I am sure the honourable senator will appreciate until such time as the Government has had an opportunity to complete its consideration of the further studies it has requested, the Report remains an internal working document which the Government has before it. Against this background and in line with the recommendation contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400 ‘Freedom of Information Legislation- Policy Proposals- Report of Interdepartmental Committee, dated

November 1976’ that certain internal working documents should be exempt from mandatory access, the Prime Minister has reconsidered his previous decision but has decided that at this stage the Report should not be disclosed. However, the Prime Minister has informed me that, having in mind the public interest in the provision of efficient and economical governmental services and the importance of the Report to the public generally, he will arrange for material, including the Report itself, to be made available for public access when the Government has concluded its examination of the Report’s recommendations which will be prior to the commencement of the Budget Sittings of the Parliament this year.

Servanti Grapier (Question No. 388)

Senator Brown:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 13 April 1978:

  1. Is a pest, Servanti Grapier, which entomologists describe as a green leaf-grass root eating bug, capable of devastating vegetable crops and pastures if protective measures are not taken.
  2. Are current pesticides inefficient in controlling or eradicating this menace.

  3. Will the Minister ascertain:

    1. where this pest has been sighted in Australia;
    2. the dimensions, if any, of infestations; and
    3. what measures may be taken to deal with this serious threat to vegetable crops and pastures.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Regrettably, it is not possible to identify this pest from the information provided in the question.
  2. and (3) In view of ( 1 ) above, it is not possible to reply.

Federal Court: Chief Judge (Question No. 389)

Senator Harradine:
TASMANIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 1 3 April 1 978:

How many days has the Chief Judge of the Federal Court of Australia sat: (a) at hearings of actions brought in the Industrial Division of that Court; (b) at hearings of actions brought in the General Division of that Court; and (c) on an inquiry or inquiries appointed by the Commonwealth Government, since the Court’s establishment.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Between 1 February 1977 when the Federal Court of Australia commenced to exercise it jurisdiction and 10 May 1978, the Chief Judge sat:

In Industrial Division matters:

Court sittings 12 days; chamber applications 7 days.

In General Division matters:

Court sittings 116 days; chamber applications 30 days.

On Inquiries:

Airline Arbitration 6 days; Pecuniary Interests Inquiry 8 days.

A chamber application may have been taken on the same day as a Court sitting.

The Law: Class Actions (Question No. 394)

Senator Messner:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Attorney-General seen recent reports that the South Australian Attorney-General, Mr Duncan, is considering the encouragement of class actions in law?
  2. Has the Australian Law Reform Commission investigated this question; if so, when will its report be available?
  3. Has the Attorney-General considered the problems affecting the legal profession in the United States of America, where class actions have developed rapidly in the last few years?
  4. Will the Attorney-General consider a uniform approach by all States and the Commonwealth to effect any action which might be necessary in this area?
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am aware of the 36th report of the Law Reform Committee of South Australia relating to class actions and of statements relating to that report made on 10 April and 10 May 1 978 by Mr J Llewellyn, Executive Director of the Australian Finance Conference.
  2. The Australian Law Reform Commission is considering whether the introduction of class actions would be desirable. I am informed by the Commission that it expects to produce a working paper and discussion paper on the matter in the near future.
  3. 1 understand that the Commission is examining the experience the United States of America has had with class actions and I expect that this aspect of the matter will be dealt with in the Commission’s report.
  4. The Commission’s terms of reference require it to consider and present proposals for uniformity between laws of the Territories and laws of the States with a view to such proposals being considered by the States.

Teaching of English in Asian Countries (Question No. 400)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many Australians are currently teaching English in Asian countries.
  2. In which countries are they located.
  3. How many are teaching under some form of government sponsorship.
  4. What forms of sponsorship or assistance apply.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I am unable to provide accurate figures on the total number of Australians currently teaching English in Asian countries. However, there are 1 7 teachers of English receiving support through various schemes under Australia ‘s development assistance programs.
  2. Thailand (3); Indonesia(4); Singapore (1); Malaysia (6); India (1); Maldives (2).
  3. See(l).
  4. Of the 17 teachers, there are 2 employed as Australian aid experts at the Department of Technical and Economic

Co-operation, Bangkok and the Regional English Language Centre, Singapore. A further 11 teachers are sponsored under the Australian Volunteers Abroad Scheme while the remaining 4 personnel are working under the Australian Asian University Co-operation Scheme.

The Australian Development Assistance Bureau is examining the scope to expand its involvement in this area, particularly in the preparation of sponsored students and trainees before they proceed to training courses in Australia, or at regional institutions.

Public Service: Executive Development Scheme (Question No. 415)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers of the Australian Public Service have taken advantage of the Executive Development Scheme, outlined in Public Service Board Circular No. 1976-17.
  2. How many officers of the Australian Public Service have worked temporarily in State public service departments on a staff exchange basis.

(3)-

  1. From which departments do these officers come and in which State departments did they work, or are they working at present.
  2. How many officers have worked temporarily in the Australian Public Service on a staff exchange basis.
  3. From which State department did these officers come and in which Commonwealth departments did they work, or are they working at present.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Three groups of participants, totalling 65 officers, have commenced the Executive Development Scheme. The first group, comprising 20 officers, has completed all aspects of the Scheme.
  2. Since July 1976, when guidelines for exchanges were issued by the Public Service Board encouraging departments to participate in such arrangements, 10 officers of the Australian Public Service have undertaken assignments in State public service departments and authorities.

Tertiary Education: Overseas Students (Question No. 423)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have any guidelines or other instructions been issued by the Government or by any statutory body to tertiary education institutions on the admission of students from oversea’s; if so, what instructions or guidelines have been issued.
  2. Is an interdepartmental committee currently considering the question of admission of overseas students.
  3. Has any report been made by the committee and has any change been made as a result of the committee’s deliberations.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. At the request of the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee my Department prepared a publication entitled Private Overseas- Students- Notes for Guidance for Institutions’.

The document provides guidance for tertiary institutions on Government policy in relation to the entry into Australia of overseas students and the procedures to be followed by institutions in processing applications for admission. I have arranged for a copy to be provided for the honourable senator.

  1. and (3) An interdepartmental working group, convened by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, has been convened to consider the policy relating to the entry into Australia of private overseas students. No decisions have been reached yet nor has any report been prepared.

Department of Defence: Employment of Ex-Servicemen (Question No. 439)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 May 1978:

How many persons employed by the Department of Defence in the Australian Capital Territory in a civilian capacity are former servicemen drawing, or who have drawn, full retirement benefits.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The information sought is not easily accessible. Records of this nature are not maintained by my Department.

I would not be prepared to authorise the considerable diversion of resources that would be necessary over a protracted period of time in order to obtain the requested information.

Builders Labourers’ Federation (Question No. 444)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 9 May 1 978:

To what extent did the Commonwealth Government defray the costs of various rank and file members of the Builders Labourers’ Federation who were engaged in an action relating to the restoration of membership against the federal officers of that union.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The Commonwealth has not defrayed any costs in respect ofthe proceedings in question.

Automated Word Processing Equipment (Question No. 464)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

What are the ‘large tenders for sophisticated units’ which are emerging’ in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet referred to in the article ‘New-generation typewriters outsmart the old electrics ‘in the Financial Review, 1 May 1978.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I assume that the author of the article is referring to a tender invited by the Australian Government Stores and Tender Board (ATB 6761) in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette of 28 February 1978 for the supply of Word Processing Equipment, Prime Minister and Cabinet’.

Tenders for this equipment are currently being evaluated by my Department.

Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (Question No. 465)

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 1 1 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What estimate of cost was given to the Government of the cost of elections for a producer consultative group for the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation prior to the introduction of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Bill 1 977 into Parliament in the 1 977 autumn period of sittings.
  2. ) Who prepared the estimate for the Government.
  3. What more recent estimate of the cost of these elections has been given to the Government.
  4. When did the Government request a revised estimate of the cost ofthe elections.
  5. Who prepared the revised estimate.
  6. When did the Government receive the revised estimate.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. $100,000.
  2. ) The Department of Primary Industry.
  3. $205,000 in October 1977; $230,000 in April 1978.
  4. The Government did not specifically request a revised estimate. Detailed costings of the procedures involved in conducting an election showed that the preliminary estimate was much too low. A revised estimate was then submitted and this was updated subsequently.
  5. The Department of Primary Industry.
  6. October 1977 and April 1978.

Model Food Act (Question No. 496)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

What is the position regarding the first draft of the proposed ‘Model Food Act’ referred by the Department of Health to other appropriate Commonwealth departments and the States for comment at the end of 1 976.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The draft of the Model Food Act has now been completed, with the ready assistance and full co-operation of all States and Territories. Work has begun on the Model Regulations under the Model Act. The Health Ministers at their 1978 Conference endorsed the high priority for this project and requested that the work be expedited. A meeting of the Working Party will be held in the very near future to consider progress to date and necessary further consultations. It is expected that the completed Model Act and Regulations will be ready for the 1979 Health Ministers’ Conference.

Private Health Funds: Contribution Rates (Question No. 502)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

What were the contribution rates charged by Australia ‘s largest private health funds in all States of Australia and its Territories in the period from 1 October 1976 to 24 May 1978.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

East Timor

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 8 May 1978 Senator Gietzelt asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, the following question without notice:

Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that the Indonesian Government has again refused the International Red Cross permission to visit East Timor to carry out its humanitarian work? Is this not a rebuff to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Peacock, who early last year said that he expected the Indonesian Government to recognise the rights of the International Red Cross? Does the Government regard the International Red Cross as a highly respected and impartial international body? In view of this, will the Leader of the Government raise this latest refusal with the Prime Minister and ask him to communicate with the Indonesian President with a view to the International Red Cross being permitted to be stationed in Portuguese East Timor?

On 1 1 May Senator Bishop asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and refers to the proposals put up by the Australian Government to Indonesia in respect of reuniting East Timorese families following the occupation of that country. I point out to the Minister that in the last few days there have been conflicting reports about some of the discussions in respect of that matter and as to whether the International Red Cross might be allowed again to visit the country. I ask: Is the Minister able to supplement the earlier reports in respect of this matter? Have there been undertakings recently in relation to the matter, as reported by the Press?

On 11 May Senator Kilgariff asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Today’s Australian reports that the Indonesian President, General Suharto, has agreed to International Red Cross teams visiting Timor, which statement must be received with considerable acclaim. In view of this move, has the Minister any further information regarding the present situation of Timor refugees in Australia being permitted to reunite with their families still in Timor? If the information is not to hand, will the Minister advise the Senate at a convenient time?

I undertook to obtain a composite answer to these three questions. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following in answer to the honourable senators’ questions:

Information available to the Government suggests that there has been no change in the Indonesian Government’s opposition to the re-entry of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to East Timor.

The Government’s concern for the humanitarian issues arising from the conflict in East Timor is a matter of public record as are the efforts it made to achieve the return of the ICRC to East Timor in 1976. lt is also well known that when it became clear that the ICRC would not be able to return, the Government contributed funds to the Indonesian Red Cross for humanitarian assistance to East Timor. A total of $333,000 was provided.

The Government’s interest in humanitarian issues in East Timor has been expressed publicly and privately on a number of occasions and the Government is confident that the Indonesian Government is well aware of this continuing interest. In the light of the aforementioned, the Government doubts the need for a high level communication with the Indonesian Government about the ICRC at this time.

The Government would consider requests from the Indonesian authorities for economic assistance to East Timor.

On the matter of East Timor family reunions, in February this year the Indonesian Government advised that final arrangements for a visit to East Timor by an Australian immigration team would be discussed after the Indonesian presidential election which was held in late March. Since then we have followed this matter up vigorously. 1 have noted a recent reported statement by the Indonesian Foreign Minister that in principle his Government could receive Australian immigration officials in East Timor. The talks on final arrangements for the visit are expected to take place in the near future. The timing of the visit itself will, of course, depend on the outcome of the talks.

Israel: Extradition of Israeli Nationals

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 10 May 1978 Senator Tehan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question without notice concerning the extradition of fugitives from Israel and referred to the effect on extradition of a grant of Israeli citizenship. The Minister referred to me questions relating to the present state of the law in Israel and the following information is supplied for the assistance of the honourable senator.

In January of this year the Israeli Knesset passed a law which, when it comes into force on 13 July 1978, will prohibit the extradition of Israeli nationals from Israel. I am informed, however, that the restriction on extradition will not apply to offences committed before a fugitive becomes an Israeli national. In addition, Israeli criminal procedure has recently been changed to enable Israeli courts to try, in Israel, nationals who have committed offences outside Israel offences that are extraditable under Israeli law. Further, where extradition of a fugutive for an offence of which he has been convicted outside Israel is refused on the grounds of nationality, the Israeli Minister of Justice may direct the fugitive to serve in Israel the unserved portion of any sentence imposed in the requesting country for the offence.

Building Construction: Wall Cladding

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– On 6 June 1978, Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction the following question without notice:

Has the attention of the Minister for Construction been drawn to comments by visiting American architect Jack Robertson that there are serious deficiencies in the unrendered concrete and lightweight finish commercial buildings. Mr Robertson said: ‘For the first time in history a whole generation of new buildings is going to be obsolete in 30 years because they’re going to be falling to pieces. ‘ Will the Minister seek a report from his Department on the matter to see whether this comment applies in Australia and, if so, to what extent.

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

It is overstating the position to say a generation of new buildings will be falling to pieces. Australia, in common with the rest of the world, has its share of problems but they generally relate to cladding rather than to structural elements.

In February, 1977, the Department of Construction’s Experimental Building Station initiated a survey of cladding failures in Government buildings throughout Australia. A limited number of private buildings will be included in the survey and it is expected a report on the subject will be published about September this year. It is the Department’s intention to identify the causes of failures and suggest methods of guarding against them.

Numerous factors contribute to cladding failures including the use of unsuitable materials, introduction of innovative and unproven components devised to solve problems of increased scale in many post-war buildings, lightweight materials, adoption of techniques aimed at reducing requirements for on-site labour and problems of quality control.

Of the many buildings erected in the post-war period, only a relatively small proportion are known to have experienced significant cladding failure. The extent and nature of the problem will however be defined more clearly on completion of the Department’s survey.

Education: Class Sizes (Question No. 118)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which are the ‘other developed nations’ of which the Minister claimed, in his statement of 3 February 1978 upon his return from the Australian Education Council, that class sizes are comparable to those in Australia.
  2. Will the Minister provide a list of the nations, and their class sizes, on which his statement was based.
  3. Will the Minister also list pupil/teacher ratios in those nations.
  4. Is the basis of computation of pupil/teacher ratios in each of those countries the same as in Australia; if not, will the Minister give details, in each case, of how it differs.
  5. In particular, are principals, deputies, occupants of other promotion positions, professional support staff not based in schools, and on leave, included as teachers for purposes of calculating pupil/teacher ratios.
  6. What is the distribution of class sizes in Australia in each of the Government, non-Government non-Catholic, and non-Government Catholic sectors, in both primary and secondary schools.
  7. If comprehensive information on (6) is not available, will the Minister give whatever information is available.
  8. What is the distribution of class size in the nations to which the Minister referred in his statement of 3 February 1978.
  9. What are the specific responses made by each State in the area of future supply and demand for teachers, referred to in the Minister’s statement of 3 February 1 978.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. to (8) Statistics of class size as such are difficult to obtain on a comparable basis for different countries. Information on pupil-teacher ratios is more readily available and may be used as a broad indicator of relative class size between countries. The following table shows the pupil-teacher ratios for selected countries. The source of the data is the UNESCO Statistical Yearbook, 1 976 but the precise basis of computation of the figures is not stated.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated the figures refer to 1 974. The Australian figures for 1977 are 22 primary and 13.8 secondary.

Since 1975 the number of teachers employed in Australia has increased by 10 per cent while the school population has grown by 2.6 per cent. This has further significantly improved the pupil-teacher ratios.

Some limited information on relative class sizes in the various Australian school systems is available in the 1976-78 Report of the Schools Commission. The Commission points out, however, that significant movements away from the fixed class structure are occurring in many Australian primary schools and measures of class size are thus providing a less accurate picture of school situations.

Further information is given in the Commission ‘s recent report for the 1979-81 rolling triennium. This includes reference to the need to consider the scale of provision of ancillary staff and of advisory teachers allocated to a group of schools when interpreting raw class-size data.

Pupil-teacher ratios in government and non-government schools in Australia for 1 974 and 1 977 are as follows:

  1. Intakes have been reduced in most States to preservice teacher training courses since 1975 and further reductions are planned. Details are shown in the Report of the Australian Education Council Working Party on the Supply and Demand for Teachers in Australian Primary and Secondary Schools 1978-85. lt should be noted, however, that later information indicates that reductions in intakes to secondary teacher training that have already been decided on are now expected to be greater than shown in the Report.

All States except Tasmania have reduced the number and value of their awards for teacher training in recent years.

Victoria and South Australia have initiated wide-ranging inquiries into post-secondary education in their respective States and reports of these inquiries are now available. In each case particular attention has been given to the question of teacher supply and demand.

Commonwealth Hostels (Question No. 286)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many people have been accommodated in each Commonwealth Hostel in each State since 30 June 1 976.
  2. What is the number of: (a) adult males; (b) adult females; and (c) children, accommodated in each hostel in each State as at 1 April 1978.
  3. How many adult males and females in the hostels are receiving unemployment benefits.
  4. How many are receiving payment for attending English speaking classes, and how many of those attending such classes are not eligible for unemployment benefits.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

(1)-

  1. As at 1 April, 1978 there were 424 males and 131 females over 18 years in receipt of adult rate unemployment benefit.

A further 775 males and 1 73 females over 1 8 years were in receipt of pre-employment assistance by way of adult rate special benefit.

  1. Persons attending full time English classes are paid a living allowance which is equivalent to unemployment benefits, and are therefore not entitled to unemployment benefits. Persons attending part time English classes do not receive the Education living allowance but are entitled to receive special benefit at unemployment benefit rates and conditions subject to the application of the Work Test in the normal way.

At the beginning of April 1 978, 25 1 migrants living in hostels were attending full time English classes and were in receipt of the living allowance.

Task Force on Australia and International Economic Issues (Question No. 401)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What action has been taken by the Minister’s Department concerning Recommendation 276 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, which suggests that a task force on Australia and International Economic Issues should be established.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Department of Foreign Affairs has not established a task force on Australia and International Economic Issues. A high level Committee on Australia’s Relations with the

Third World has, however, been established to examine the wide range of issues involved in Australia’s relations with Third World countries, and to identify policy options for Australia’s future relations with these countries. Professor Owen Harries is Chairman of the Committee, which includes eminent representatives from business, government, the universities and the unions. As the Third World is playing an increasingly important role in international economic issues the Committee will spend some time reviewing Australia’s position on international economic issues. Continuing review of these issues is also undertaken by the Economic Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Schools: Amenities (Question No. 435)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 May 1978:

Will the Minister indicate whether nationally acceptable standards will be established in relation to: (a) maximum and minimum temperatures in classrooms; (b) the number of toilet bowls a school of a given size should have; and (c) the minimum level of maintenance staff in schools of a given size.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Commonwealth and States have co-operated in a study of the Comparative Capital Costs of School Building in Australia. The Report on this study, which will be considered by the Australian Education Council at its meeting next month, contains recommendations and data relevant to school building standards.

The Report will provide State, Commonwealth and nonGovernment school authorities with a sound basis on which to establish standards and develop approaches to new school building projects in the States and Territories. It will also provide them with the opportunity to re-assess current approaches to the items covered by the honourable senator’s question.

The Schools Commission will monitor the effects of the Report on school buildings and through its Buildings Committee has a role in assisting school authorities to develop appropriate standards for all aspects of school building design, construction and maintenance.

As far as Commonwealth Territories are concerned, I will ask the relevant authorities to direct attention to the matters raised by the honourable senator as part of a review of current practices and the development of new standards.

The provision of maintenance staff for schools of a given size will depend on many factors which will need to be assessed by individual schools and local school authorities in consultation with other involved agencies such as Government Public Works Departments.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Language Training (Question No. 479)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many officers with the Department of Foreign Affairs have been trained to interpreter standards in Asian languages during the past two years; to what level were they trained and in which languages.
  2. How many Departmental Officers, and in what overseas posts in Asia, are qualified interpreters.
  3. What steps, if any, are being taken to increase the number of qualified interpreters in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) During the past two years 1 3 officers with the Department of Foreign Affairs have been trained to interpreter standards in Asian languages. The following table indicates the languages, the levels attained, and the number of officers trained:

In addition, numbers of other officers have during the past two years completed intensive courses leading to lower levels of profiency in Asian languages.

  1. A total of 70 Departmental officers are trained to interpreter standards in Asian languages. The following table shows the number and disposition of such officers currently serving at posts in Asia:
  1. The Department has an ongoing program of language training. The Department recognises that its overall linguistic capacity is deficient and it is doing what it can, within staffing and budgetary restraints, to remedy such deficiencies.

Details of officers currently in training in Asian languages are as follows:

In addition a number of officers are undertaking long-term training in such languages as Russian and Arabic, while a considerable additional number of officers are being brought to a level of minimum professional efficiency in less difficult languages by means of short-term intensive courses.

Cheese Research (Question No.524)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978:

  1. What is the expenditure by the Dairying Research Committee on research into specialty cheese making.
  2. ) By whom is the research, if any, carried out.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. In the year 1977-78, the Dairying Research Committee has sponsored support for two research projects directed to specialty cheese making for a combined total of $6,000. The Dairying Research Committee has recommended support for $2,000 in 1978-79 to enable further research on specialty cheeses.
  2. Both the 1977-78 projects, namely ‘Sampling programs for non-cheddar cheese’, and ‘Cheese technology- eye type cheeses’ as well as the proposed 1978-79 project, ‘Development of an organoleptic grading system for non-cheddar cheese’, are being conducted by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

Valuable work has been conducted by CSIRO since 1959 on Cheese Investigations- Technology and Microbiology. This research, although of a general nature, does also have some application to the manufacture of specialty cheeses.

In 1977-78, the Dairying Research Committee provided support amounting to $1 11,488 to the CSIRO project on cheese investigations.

Southern African Trade

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs or as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. 1 inform the Minister that I have been given to understand from a reliable source that countries such as Zambia, Tanzania, Botswana and Zaire are actively conducting substantial trade with Rhodesia and South Africa. Can the Minister say whether that is a fact? If so, can he ascertain the volume of such trade? Does this not seem to be incompatible with the current political stance being adopted by these front line African states and the fact that these countries were the most vocal in their demands that other countries of the world should apply sanctions against Rhodesia and South Africa.

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

Some Black African states do, in fact, trade with South Africa. However details of this trade are difficult to obtain. The South African Department of Customs and Excise publishes statistics of South Africa’s merchandise trade but only gives data for Africa as a whole, not individual countries. In 1977, South Africa’s total merchandise imports from Africa were worth R287.3 (approximately$A300m) and its exports R529.8 (approximately $A550m). Its merchandise imports from Africa (5 per cent of all South Africa’s merchandise imports in 1977) have remained fairly constant as a percentage of total merchandise imports in the seven year period 1971-77. However, South Africa’s merchandise exports to Africa have dropped from 18.6 per cent to 9.2 per cent in the same period. The merchandise statistics published by the South African Department of Customs and Excise do not show figures for strategic products.

So far as I have been able to establish, of the Black African countries mentioned, only Zambia publishes statistics for its trade with South Africa. For 1976 trade with South Africa accounted for 0.2 per cent of Zambia’s total exports and 7.7 per cent of its total imports. This trade fell by some 75 per cent over the three years to 1976.

International trade with Rhodesia is subject to mandatory United Nations sanctions which have been in force since 1966. Broadly speaking these prohibit all trade with exceptions for certain defined purposes such as medical supplies, educational equipment and material for use in schools and other educational institutions, publications, news material and, in special humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs. The Rhodesian Government does not publish trade figures but such information as is available from other sources is closely scrutinised by the UN Secretariat, the UN Sanctions Committee and the Commonwealth Secretariat, which maintain surveillance of the implementation of the sanctions. In the past 12 months allegations of only three violations of the sanctions by Black African states have been reported. Copies of the relevant Commonwealth and UN reports, particularly the annexes to the annual reports of the UN Sanctions Committee, which contain reports of the alleged offences, are available through the Parliamentary Library/Legislation Research Service.

The Government does not regard trade as the sole or even the major indicator of a country’s attitude to political questions.

Students Family Allowance (Question No. 68)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 February 1 978:

  1. On what date in 1977 were review forms forwarded for family allowance for students, in each State and Territory, continuing their studies in 1 978.
  2. On what date were 1977 family allowance payments for these students terminated pending receipt of completed review forms.
  3. Does the Department of Social Security intend to send review forms earlier in future so that payment of family allowance for students will be continuous.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Family Allowance review forms for students were despatched to endowees over the period 1 2 December to 1 9 December 1977. The despatch details pertaining to each State and Territory are as follows:

New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory-

Despatched 12-14 December 1977

Victoria- Despatched 14-19December 1977

Queensland- Despatched 14 December 1977

South Australia and Northern Territory- Despatched 14-15 December 1977

Western Australia- Despatched 15 December 1977

Tasmania- Despatched 1 2- 1 6 December 1977.

  1. Family Allowance for students was paid up to 26 December 1977, being the last instalment due in 1977.
  2. The Department has amended its form ordering schedule and forms will be available for earlier despatch.

This will extend the period of time for endowees to return review forms indicating continuing eligibility.

Import Quotas (Question No. 232)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What items are admitted into Australia on a duty-free basis, or at a level of duty below 10 per cent from lessdeveloped and under-developed countries.
  2. What items are admitted into Australia on a duty-free basis, or at a level of duty below 10 per cent, from developed countries.

  3. On what items have import quotas been increased or reduced since 1 January 1977, and what is the value or quantity, or both, of the change in the quotas.

    1. ) Did consultations take place with all ASEAN countries or individual member countries of ASEAN prior to the announcement of the changes in the import quotas; if so, on what dates did the consultations take place, and with whom.
  4. Have any changes been made, since I January 1977, to safety design standards or other regulations for items imported into Australia; if so, what are the changes, and to what items do they apply.
  5. Do any of the Australian import quotas, particularly for textiles, clothing and footwear, include an annual growth factor; if so, what is that growth factor; if not, why not.
  6. Do voluntary or specific import quotas operated by other countries, particularly for textiles, clothing and footwear, include growth factors; if so, what countries, what quotas and what growth factors, apply to each item.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. and (2) The Customs Tariff comprises approximately 2,700 different classifications for imported goods, expressed both in specific and generic terms. The rates of duty applying to these classifications range from free to in excess of 50 per cent depending on the country from which they are imported. Of the 2,700 classifications approximately 1,300 provide for the admission at rates of 10 per cent or less for goods from less developing countries and approximately 900 provide for the admission at rates of 10 per cent or less for goods from developed countries.

In addition to the above, the Customs Tariff provides, in certain circumstances, for the duty free admission of a large range of goods under by-law.

It is not possible to supply an exhaustive list of the goods covered by these classifications or by-laws. However, should the honourable senator wish to inform me of the goods in which he has an interest I would be only too glad to supply the rates applicable to them.

  1. ) Because of the wide range of goods currently subject to quota control and the variety of qualifications which would have to be applied to this type of information, an answer to this question does not readily lend itself to a tabulation. I am however arranging to have Senator Wriedt supplied separately with information on the aspects raised in this question.
  2. lt is established practice that a continuing dialogue between Australia and the ASEAN Governments is maintained. This dialogue takes place in Canberra between the relevant Departments and the missions of the ASEAN Governments, as well as in the ASEAN capitals between Australian missions and the host Governments. The purpose of the dialogue is to keep ASEAN Governments informed of developments in Australia’s trade and tariff policies in areas of interest to ASEAN and to make and receive representations on matters of interest or concern in the broad field of trade relations.
  3. The following table shows the various changes made since 1 January 1977 to regulations relating specifically to the importation of goods into Australia.
  1. There are no annual growth factors as such in quota levels for goods currently subject to quota control. However, commodities covered by the broad category of textiles, clothing and footwear fall within the ambit of the Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Review Committee and are subject to a fine tuning mechanism every six months which essentially reviews the import ceiling available for quota allocation taking into consideration current market conditions et cetera.

In respect of other commodities subject to quota control decisions to introduce assistance to local industry in (he form of quota and the level of quota to apply for a specified period follow inquiry and report by the Industries Assistance Commission or the Temporary Assistance Authority and the Government ‘s decision on such a report.

  1. I have no specific information available to me on this subject.

Social Security Appeals Tribunals (Question No. 252)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 15 March 1978

  1. How many appeals in which the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has recommended in the appellant’s favour were referred to State Directors for decision in each month since January 1977.
  2. How many of these recommendations were rejected by the State Directors in each month.
  3. How many appeals in which the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has recommended in the appellant’s favour were referred to the Director-General of Social Security for decision in each month since January 1 977.
  4. How many of these recommendations were rejected by the Director-General in each month.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The number of finalised appeals in which the Social Security Appeals Tribunals have recommended in the appellants’ favour in each month between January 1 977 and March 1978 and which were referred to the State Directors of the Department are shown in the table below-
  1. Nil. If the State Director disagrees with the Tribunals’ recommendation to uphold an appeal the case is referred to the Director-General for decision.
  2. The number of appeals in which the Social Security Appeals Tribunal recommended in the appellant’s favour and which were referred to the Director-General of Social Services for decision in each month since January 1977 is shown below-

Child Migrant Education Program (Question No. 258)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 14 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government conducted an evaluation of the Child Migrant Education Program; if so: (a) what are the results of the evaluation; and (b) were ethnic communities consulted in relation to it; if so, which communities.
  2. What arrangements have been made by the Commonwealth Government to fund Child Migrant Education programs on a State basis.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) There has been no formal evaluation of the Commonwealth’s Child Migrant Education Program. Commonwealth support for migrant education at the schools level from 1971 to 1975 was provided under the Immigration (Education) Act, 1971. This support was provided under the program known as the Child Migrant Education Program. Since 1976 Commonwealth funds for the support of activities in the area of migrant and multicultural education have been provided through the Schools Commission’s General Recurrent Grants Program. While no formal evaluation was conducted on the Child Migrant Education Program and no evaluation has yet been undertaken in relation to the Schools Commission’s Program the matter of the evaluation of the current Migrant and Multicultural Education Program is under consideration by the Schools Commission and some discussions have been held with State and non-Government Education authorities in an attempt to ascertain the most effective and appropriate way of undertaking such an evaluation. However, English teaching and learning materials which are being prepared by the Department of Education have been evaluated through trials wilh migrant students in classes and various teachers’ views on the materials. The results of this research have been incorporated into the design of materials.

There has also been a survey and an enquiry conducted into schools of high migrant density in Melbourne and in Sydney. In March 1973 the ‘Report on the Survey of Child Migrant Education in Schools of High Migrant Density in Melbourne’ was tabled and in 1975 the Report of the ‘Inquiry into Schools of High Migrant Density: 1974 study bases on schools selected in New South Wales and Victoria ‘ was tabled. In addition, for the years 1970-71 through to 1975-76 the Annual Migrant Education Program Reports have been tabled.

Current child migrant education research projects which are being conducted or supported by the Department of Education or funded by the Education Research and Development Committee are:

Study of the educational experiences of migrant children of non-English speaking origin. Dr J Martin, ANU.

Longitudinal study of the educational experiences and adjustment of newly arrived immigrant school children. Professor R Taft, Monash.

Assimilation patterns among Eastern European parents and children and their families. Dr J Smolicz, University of Adelaide.

The educational adjustment of children of Greek workers in Australia. Professor J Appleyard, University of Western Australia.

Inequalities in the school performance of ethnic group children. Professor K. Majoribanks, University of Adelaide.

A study of a bilingual education project. Drs M Rado, G Rowley, L Foster, Latrobe University.

Greek children in Australia. Mrs E Isaacs.

Projects which have been completed are:

The teaching of migrant languages in schools, Research Branch, Department of Education, published 1977.

Ethnic schools in Victoria 1 976. Dr M Tsounis, Flinders University.

The Education Research and Development Committee has appointed an advisory group to advise on and co-ordinate research into multicultural education, one of its four identified priority areas for the 1 978-80 triennium.

  1. Not formally.

    1. Since 1976 the Schools Commission, through its General Recurrent Grants Program, has been providing specific support for migrant and multicultural education at the school level. The funds are made available to Government and non-Government school authorities in the form of a block grant. It is the responsibility of the appropriate education authority to administer the funds as well as to set priorities for expenditure within the funds available as provided through the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1977.

Education: Language Teaching (Question No. 298)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Edu cation, upon notice, on 4 April 1 978:

  1. 1 ) When was the Language Teaching Branch of the Education Department established.
  2. What is the structure and who are the personnel of the branch.
  3. ) What are the functions of the branch.
  4. Have the structure, personnel, and functions of the Language Teaching Branch been re-examined since its establishment; if so, when.
  5. Does the Language Teaching Branch consult with any of the following organisations concerning the applicability of the material if produces: (a) ethnic organisations; (b) subject teacher associations; (c) teachers involved with Teaching English as a Second Language program in the classroom; (d) child migrant consultants in the States; (e) teacher organisations; or (0 parent organisations; if so, which specific organisations are consulted.
  6. What has been the method of consultation with the organisations.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Commonwealth involvement in the teaching of English to migrants began in October 1947 when a significant program of instruction for displaced persons was begun by the Commonwealth Office of Education at the request of the Department of Immigration. These functions were taken over by the Department of Education and Science on its creation in 1967. In 1970 the Commonwealth took over a number of responsibilities concerning special English teaching for child migrants in schools, one of which was the provision of suitable learning and teaching materials. A Language Teaching Branch, responsible for the preparation of teaching and learning materials, was included in the administrative structure of the Department of- Education when it was established in 1 973.
  2. The Branch is sub-divided into five sections as set out below:

Materials No. 1 Section (child material).

Materials No. 2 Section (adult material).

Materials No. 3 Section (graphic design).

Child Migrant Education Development Section.

The Branch is headed by a Director, Mr G. D. Fowler, who is currently supported by 22 specialist officers and 12 clerical/administrative officers.

  1. The Branch is concerned with the development of policy proposals and advice on child migrant education, and on the English language teaching aspects of the Government’s programs of education for immigrants, Aboriginals and overseas students. The Branch functions include the provision of assistance to refugee children, the production of teaching and learning materials, assistance in teacher preparation, test development, and English courses for transmission through Radio Australia.
  2. The Branch was subjected to a major review in 1977.

  3. (a) Yes. Consultation has been established with individual members through ethnic organisations and embassies.

    1. Yes. Associations of Teaching English as a Second Language; Applied Linguistics Association of Australia; History Teachers ‘ Associations.
    2. Yes.
    3. Yes.
    4. See(b)above.
    5. Parents are involved through contacts made as men tioned in (a) above and (6) below.
  4. Through conferences, working parties, surveys, seminars, visits, workshops and by mailing prototype teaching and learning materials in schools and adult classes.

Community Development Employment Project (Question No. 363)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, on 7 April, 1978:

  1. Which communities in Northern Territory and Queensland are receiving funds under Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP)
  2. How many Aboriginals were receiving unemployment benefits in each of those communities before CDEP funding.
  3. How many Aboriginals in those communities are now receiving unemployment benefits.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Finance for the CDEP scheme is provided by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to selected Aboriginal councils in a number of areas to enable the councils to pay for actual work performed by individual community members, preferably on a co-operative, part-time or contractual basis. The total amount provided to a community is determined in consultation between the community and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs taking into account the entitlement of individual community members to unemployment benefit.

1 ) No communities in Queensland receive funds under the Community Development Employment Project Scheme (CDEP). In the Northern Territory there is one community Bamyili, where the scheme is fully underway, and another community, Elcho Island, where the scheme is not, as yet, fully implemented.

In Bamyili, there were four people in receipt of Unemployment Benefit prior to the introduction of the CDEP scheme on 5 April 1977. In Elcho Island there was one recipient before the inroduction of CDEP on 6 March 1 978.

On 18 May 1978 there were 2 current recipients of unemployment benefit at Elcho Island and5 at Bamyili.

Aborigines: Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 364)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many aboriginals in the Northern Territory have been paid unemployment benefit in each month from January 1975, or from the date when the Department of Social Security began keeping such records.
  2. How many of these recipients were living on reserves.
  3. How many were paid from the Darwin office and how many from the Alice Springs office.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

There is no provision on Department of Social Security claim forms to identify whether an applicant is an Aboriginal. The information available to my Department on whether an unemployment beneficiary is an Aboriginal is based on an identification system adopted by the Commonwealth Employment Service at the time of registration for work. On the basis of advice received from the Commonwealth Employment Service an identification of Aboriginal unemployment benefit recipients is coded onto Social Security unemployment benefit records at the time of application for benefit. The quality of this advice and /or coding is in doubt. Statistics compiled annually from Commonwealth Employment Service records consistently show a much higher number of Aboriginals in receipt of unemployment benefit than my Department’s studies of recipients’ records indicate.

Iam reviewing the potential value of having separate statistics of Aboriginals in receipt of social security payments. In the meantime, the answers to the honourable senator’s specific questions, subject to the above reservations, are as follows:

The information sought is not available on a regular basis. The following table outlines the available information:

  1. Accurate information in the form sought is not available It is estimated that approximately SO per cent of recipients at 5 April 1978 lived in communities on missions, reserves or settlements (this excludes those Aboriginals living on station properties or with private addresses).
  2. ) Figures are available for the following dates:

Education: Career Counselling (Question No. 434)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 4 May 1978:

What is the average amount of career counselling which students in Australian schools are currently receiving.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

To date the scope and extent of career counselling in Australian schools has not been quantified.

A major problem in arriving at accurate estimates lies in the difficulty, if not impossibility, of measuring the amount of career counselling which takes place beyond the time officially designated for it.

Recent research on related issues suggests that there is,a wide variation among school systems in the types of provision and in the form that career counselling takes. It appears that there is a similar variation in the amount of student contact time devoted to it.

Northern Territory: School Staffing (Question No. 451)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 8 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Will the staffing levels in Northern Territory schools be brought up to acceptable standards before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly accepts responsibility for education.
  2. Will repairs and maintenance to school buildings be increased to ensure that the buildings are in a satisfactory condition to be transferred.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) Staffing levels for schools in the Northern Territory need to reflect the particular circumstances that exist throughout the Territory. There are problems with repairs and maintenance for schools in the Territory.

Discussions are continuing between the Northern Territory administration and the Commonwealth concerning arrangements for the efficient transfer of responsibilities in the education area.

Unemployment Benefit: Payment to Juniors (Question No. 457)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 May 1978:

What was the total cost and the cost per head of unemployment benefits paid to juniors in each of the financial years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The following table shows the estimated total cost of unemployment benefits paid to juniors in the financial years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77. The costs are shown separately for persons aged 16 and 17 years and for persons aged 18 to 20 years.

The average cost per grant of unemployment benefit for juniors is not available. However, the following table shows the average annual rate of unemployment benefit for juniors for the financial years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.

Invalid Pensions (Question No. 469)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 23 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of Social Security record the medical reasons for the granting of invalid pensions.
  2. Are these records kept in medical categories, and in each State; if not, will consideration be given to keeping these statistics.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Information on the medical reasons for incapacity is contained on the Medical Report attached to the claim form. At present, however, this information is not coded by the Department and therefore is not held in the Department’s computer records. This matter, including the preparation of statistics by medical category, is under examination.

In the past, the Department has conducted sample surveys of the morbidity characteristics of invalid pensioners. The last survey was conducted in 1971-72 in respect of new grants. It is intended to conduct a similar survey next year.

Australia-Japan Relations (Question No. 471)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What efforts are being made by the Government to develop and improve at all levels Australia’s relations with Japan.
  2. What is the role being played by the Australia-Japan Foundation in accomplishing this goal.
  3. Will the Minister give immediate consideration to having his Department approve Tertiary Education Assistance Allowance to eligible participants in the Foundationsponsored intensive Japanese language course being conducted at tertiary level at the Australian National University.
  4. Is this course being attended, in most cases at considerable personal expense, by young Australians from a wide range of callings from both the public and private sectors-
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2)I draw the honourable senator’s attention to a statement on Australia-Japan relations made by the Prime Minister and presented to the Senate on 30 May 1978 (Hansard, page 2082).
  2. The Student Assistance Act 1973 stipulates that courses require approval of the Minister for Education for the purpose of Tertiary Education Assistance benefits. To be approved, a course must meet certain criteria such as being full time (at a university, college of advanced education or technical college) leading to a recognised qualification, and being clearly identified as either an undergraduate or a postgraduate course.

The Intensive Japanese Course at the Australian National University is a full-time one year course but does not meet the remaining criteria. In addition, students undertaking the course are not enrolled students of the University under its Statutes and Rules. No formal qualification will be awarded on successful completion of the course and the course has not been designated by the University as being either ‘undergraduate’ or ‘postgraduate’. This latter point is relevant because under the Student Assistance Act and Regulations there are certain restrictions on individual students receiving benefits for more than one course at the same level.

My Department is consulting with the University to see whether arrangements can be made to meet the criteria for approval of the course.

  1. Personal particulars on course participants are not available to me.

Grants for Education: Expenditure in Electorates of Casey, Diamond Valley and Deakin (Question No. 477)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 24 May 1 978-

What sums were paid under each Schools Commission program for each government and non-government school in the Electoral Divisions of Casey, Diamond Valley and Deakin in the calendar years 1976 and 1977.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Grants, under Schools Commission programs, for government schools in the States are paid by way of block grants to State governments which determine their distribution in accordance with their own priorities. The exception to this is that Special Projects (Innovations) Grants are paid direct to individuals within schools.

In 1976 and 1977 the following amounts were made available to Victoria for government schools:

The following government schools in the Electorates of Casey, Diamond Valley and Deakin received Innovations Grants in 1976 and 1977:

Grants paid to non-government schools in the Electorates are provided in the following tables:

Department of Social Security: Reverse Charge Telephone Calls (Question No. 486)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

What is the text of the circular which was recently issued by the Department of Social Security in relation to reverse charge telephone calls from clients in remote areas.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The currently applicable Departmental circular relating to the acceptance of reverse charge telephone calls from clients in remote areas provides for authorised officers to accept client-initiated calls in individual cases, including instances where the call is not made directly by the client but by another person on his/her behalf.

The guidelines for officers authorised to accept reverse charge calls state that they can be accepted where:

The transaction of Departmental business with individual clients will be facilitated.

Savings can be made in expenditure that would otherwise have been incurred.

Undue disruption, inconvenience or hardship to Departmental clients can be avoided.

There is an emergency or disaster situation.

This circular was issued in 1976 and in recent months there have been communications between Central and State offices concerning the way in which the reverse charge acceptance facility is being handled.

Trade Practices Commission (Question No. 503)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. On how many occasions since 1 January 1976 has notice in writing to the Trade Practices Commission by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs pursuant to paragraph 90 (9) (a) and (b) of the Trade Practices Act 1 974 been sought in respect of the acquisition of shares in the capital, or assets, or bodies corporate.
  2. On how many occasions has the Minister given notice in respect of such acquisitions.
  3. ) What were the names of the persons or bodies corporate seeking to acquire the assets or shares and of the bodies corporate in which they were seeking to acquire the assets or shares (a) in each case for which notice was given; and (b) in each case in which notice was refused.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No record is available of the number of occasions since 1 January 1 976 on which notice in writing to the Trade Practices Commission by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs pursuant to paragraph 90 (9) (a) and (b) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 was sought. Nor was a central record kept of the details of any such requests. These provisions were repealed on 1 July 1977 by the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977.
  2. None.
  3. (a) Not applicable; (b) See answer to ( 1 ).

Department of Social Security: Pamphlets (Question No. 505)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 May 1 978:

When will the booklets Information for Widows and Preparing People for a Death in the Family be available to the public?

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

A booklet entitled Information for Widows has been lodged by the Department of Social Security for printing through the Australian Government Publishing Service and is expected to be available to the public by mid-June 1978. An approach has been made by a Brisbane community group to the Department of Social Security suggesting the publication of a booklet to be entitled Preparing for a Death in the Family but the Depanment has at this stage made no commitment to such a publication.

Canberra College of Advanced Education: Italian Interpreter/Translator Course (Question No. 508)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 May 1 978:

  1. How many persons applied for admission to the Italian Interpreter/Translator Course at the Canberra College of Advanced Education in 1 978.
  2. What were the reasons for the rejection of those who failed to gain admittance to the course.
  3. How many failed applicants were proficient in both Italian and English.
  4. What were the changes made by the Canberra College of Advanced Education administration to the selection procedures for students applying to enter the Italian Interpreter/Translator course in 1978, and what were the reasons for those changes.
  5. How many students arc undertaking each of the language courses offered by the College.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Seventeen.
  2. Of the seventeen:

Six failed to meet the basic admission requirements of the College (i.e. satisfactory completion of ACT Year 12 or equivalent); 1 failed to meet the requirements of the School of Liberal Studies for admission (i.e. the candidate’s proficiency in the language was not satisfactory); 6 withdrew; 4 were offered places (of these 3 subsequently enrolled).

  1. It is not known how many of the 6 who failed to meet the basic admission requirements of the College were proficient in both Italian and English.
  2. From 1978 the normal College entry requirements applied to this course. Prior to 1978 special admission requirements applied. The reason for the change was that in 1978 the course became a normal College course. Previously, it had been externally funded.
  3. In 1978 three students are undertaking the Italian course and eight are undertaking the Spanish course.

Aborigines: Community Development Employment Project (Question No. 534)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What Aboriginal settlements in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia particpate in the Community Development Employment Project (CDEP).
  2. Is it the intention of (he Government to extend the scheme in 1 978-79; if so, what settlements will be included.
  3. Has an evaluation been made of the program to date; if so, what are the details.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Grants have been made to the following Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia for pilot Community Development Employment Projects:

Northern Territory- Bamyili, Elcho Island; South Australia- Ernabella. Fregon; Western Australia- Wiluna, Warburton, Jamieson and Wingellina. Further pilot projects were commenced at Blackstone and Giles at the end of April 1978.

  1. No decisions have been made on the extension of the program in 1978-79.
  2. A preliminary review has been made of the pilot projects to 3 1 December 1 977. lt indicated that there have been a number of administrative problems but the projects have been welcomed by the communities and were providing employment for 529 people at 3 1 December 1 977.

Australian National University: Japanese Course (Question No. 538)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 June 1978:

Is the Minister in the process of deciding if the Intensive Japanese Course at the Australian National University can bc approved for Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) grants; if so, when is the Minister’s decision expected to be made.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 471.

Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme (Question No. 89)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the total amount deposited under the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme for each month from and including May 1977 to January 1978.
  2. How many deposits were in each of the following categories: (a) $1-9,999; (b) $10,000-14,999; (c) $15,000-19,000; (d) $20,000-29,999; (e) $30,000-39,999; (f) $40,000-49,999; (g) $50,000-74,999; (h) $75,000 and over.
  3. Have any persons using the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme sought to redeem the deposits; if so, how many, and to what value.
  4. Were any reasons stated for the redemption; if so, what were they.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The amounts deposited under the Income Equalisation Deposits Scheme for each month from and including May 1977 to January 1978 were as follows:

Drought bond conversions in this period, not included in the above amounts, totalled S525.900. Deposits, excluding conversions, totalling $556,400 were made in the period 1 February 1 978 to 30 April 1 978.

  1. The size distribution of deposits to the end of January 1978 was as follows:
  1. The following details of withdrawals of income equalisation deposits relate to the period from the inception ofthe scheme to 3 1 January 1 978.

  2. Reasons for redemption are not required if deposits have been lodged for more than 12 months. Within the initial 1 2 month period deposits can only be withdrawn-

    1. upon satisfying the Commissioner of Taxation of serious financial difficulties;
    2. b ) because of the death of the taxpayer;
    3. if the taxpayer is a company, because of the winding up ofthe company; or
    4. d ) to the extent that the taxpayer has not been allowed a deduction in respect of the deposit.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 109)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 March 1 978:

Has there been any alteration to the text of the instruction given to staff of the Depanment of Social Security in relation to applications for unemployment benefit from persons who are voluntarily unemployed and from persons whose unemployment is due to misconduct since the answer was provided to Question No. 1675 (Senate Hansard 1977, pages 498-9); if so, what alteration has been made.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Apart from some minor drafting changes the principle amendments to the instructions are as follows:

the instructions relating to the postponement of benefit have been amended by adding two paragraphs-

Note:

Persons who cease work to go on a holiday overseas will not be absolved from these postponement provisions. The lapse of time since work ceased will not be a factor to be considered.

Applications for unemployment benefit received from former residents of New Zealand, or elsewhere, who, without good and sufficient reason, leave their employment in New Zealand to come to Australia, will also be subject to six weeks postponement.

Where an employee voluntarily accepts early retirement from an industry or an employer, and the retirement: is subject to an agreement between his union and his employer, and has as its purpose the avoidance of retrenchments of other (probably younger) workers, and where the employee remains available for work and otherwise satisfies the conditions of eligibility for unemployment benefit, the withdrawal from employment, although voluntary, will be deemed to be for a good reason and no postponement will be imposed.

Where a claim is rejected or a benefit is terminated because the claimant has refused an offer of suitable employment and shortly afterwards he reapplies for benefit and commences to satisfy the work test, it may be appropriate to impose a period of postponement in respect of the second claim. The period of postponement to be imposed is not automatically six weeks; it may be two weeks or four weeks depending on circumstances of the case and depending also upon the period between the cancellation and the re-application. Each case must be considered on its merits.

b) the instructions on the subject of ‘Persons Voluntarily Unemployed’ were also amended by the addition of two new paragraphs:

If the claimant shows that he had good reason for becoming unemployed, there is no case for postponement of benefit. An example of this would be where a single person under 18 years, left his job to move to another location with his parents. (ti) If during the period prior to the date of the claim, the claimant has been in continuous contact with the CES, but has not applied for unemployment benefit, such period may be taken into account as pan of the six weeks ‘ postponement.

Coal Technology and Research (Question No. 164)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is the Australian Government currently investigating the possibility of a joint agreement with the United States of America to encourage joint co-operation in coal technology and research.
  2. At what stage of development is this investigation, and when will the Government be able to announce whether there will be a joint agreement.
  3. What aspects of coal research and co-operation are expected to be the subject of the joint agreement.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Memoranda of Understanding between the Department of National Development and the United States Department of Energy and the United States Bureau of Mines providing for co-operation in this area, are in the final stages of negotiation.
  3. These agreements provide for co-operation over a wide range of coal research topics including mining, combustion and gasification, and conversion of coal to synthetic fuels.

Public Service: Computer Tenders (Question No. 224)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was the original tender for the supply of a computer to the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Trade and Resources advertised.
  2. ) What were the exact terms of the tender.
  3. Was the Treasurer, or any other Minister, provided with the details of the original tender advertisement being placed; if so, which Ministers and on what dates.
  4. Who were the original tenderers.
  5. What was the equipment offered in each tender, and what were the prices quoted.
  6. Did special conditions apply to any of the tenders; if so, what were the conditions and was the price varied as a consequence of these conditions.
  7. Was IBM Australia Ltd an original tenderer; if so, what were the type and description of the computer equipment offered.
  8. When was the original IBM Australia Ltd tender received.
  9. Has any Government department, in Canberra or elsewhere, purchased IBM computer software or hardware or both; if so: (a) what is the description of the equipment; (b) when was it purchased; and (c) in which Department or statutory body was it installed.
  10. Has IBM Australia Ltd tendered for any Australian Government computer tenders in the last two years; if so, which tenders.
  11. Was IBM Australia Ltd successful; if so, what was the equipment supplied and at what price.
  12. What is the composition of the Board of IBM Australia Ltd.
  13. Does any member of the Board of IBM Australia Ltd serve on any Australian Government statutory authority, committee or organisation which provides advice or services to Ministers or their Department.
  14. Has any person employed by the Commonwealth Public Service joined the staff of IBM Australia Ltd, or any subsidiary of that company, over the last twelve months: if so. what was the name of the person and from which Department did he come.
  15. What are the specific terms and conditions of the new tender which the Prime Minister announced that Cabinet decided, on 9 February 1978, should be called.
  16. Is the tender being advertised; if so, what are the terms of the advertisement and in which newspaper was it placed.
  17. 1 7) Do the terms and conditions of the new tender differ in any way from the original tender except for the closing date of tenders.
  18. 1 8 ) If the new tender is not being advertised, why not.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The terms are detailed in Tender Schedules ATB6471 and ATB6472, which covered the Central Computer Installation and the Communications network, respectively. Copies of these two documents have been given to the Leader of the Opposition.
  3. The Prime Minister’s statement to the House of Representatives on 7 March outlined procedures followed in the tendering process.
  4. It would be contrary to the established practice of the Department of Administrative Services to make such information public.
  5. Refer(4)above.
  6. Conditions to which firms responded are set out in Tender Schedules ATB647 1 and ATB6472.
  7. Refer(4)and(5)above.
  8. All tenders considered were received by the official closing date.
  9. Commonwealth Departments are required by the Finance Regulations under the Audit Act to publish in summary form in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette details of contracts in excess of $1,000. The considerable cost involved in collating this already published information would not appear warranted.
  10. Refer(4)above.
  11. Refer(9)above.

  12. Records of the NSW Corporate Affairs Commission show that at December 1977 directors of IBM Australia Ltd were-

    1. G. Moyes
    2. H. Barr-David
    3. A. McAuslan
    4. G. Figueroa
    5. Holmes a ‘Court (alternate)
    6. K. Campbell
    7. S. Grimwade, C.B.E.
    8. McE. Scambler, C.B.E.

  13. (a) Mr J. K. Campbell, C.B.E., is a director of the Australian Industry Development Corporation.

    1. Mr A. S. Grimwade, C.B.E., is a member of the Remuneration Tribunal and member of the Council for the Order of Australia.
  14. 4 ) On resigning, employees of the Australian Public Service are not required to advise their employment arrangements or plans. Some information may be held by Departments on employment of former employees but no attempt has been made to collect this information on a central basis.
  15. The terms and conditions of the new tender have not been finalised.
  16. The tender will be advertised under arrangement yet to be decided.
  17. Refer (15) above.
  18. Refer(16)above.

Public Service: Computer Tenders (Question No. 288)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what occasions has the Australian Government entered into contracts with IBM Australia Limited for the purchase of computer equipment under a certificate of inexpediency rather than by normal tendering process.
  2. If any contracts were entered into with IBM, what equipment was covered by those contracts and what were the reasons for issuing a certificate of inexpediency in each case.
  3. Has the Australian Government entered into contracts with IBM Australia Limited for any equipment, other than computer equipment, under a certificate of inexpediency rather than by normal tendering process; if so, what was the equipment and what were the reasons for issuing a certificate of inexpediency in each case.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

The information sought is not readily available and the cost involved in the preparation of a comprehensive reply would appear to be unwarranted. I would draw attention to the fact that Commonwealth departments are required by Finance Regulations issued under the Audit Act to publish in summary form in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette details of contracts in excess of $ 1,000. 1 would consider any request by the honourable senator for further information in relation to any particular contract so listed in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette.

Department of Defence: Public Relations Officers and Journalists (Question No. 293)

Senator Wriedt:

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons employed by the Department are designated as public relations officers or journalists.
  2. What is the name of each person employed as a public relations officer or journalist and what qualification does each person hold.
  3. ) In what branches of the Service or Department are the public relations officers or journalists employed, and where are they located.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Thirty-one persons- 1 5 civilians, 1 6 servicemen.
  2. -H. R. Rayner, P. R. Arnold, H. Dadswell, B. Davis, F. Doak B. Custance, B. Smart, M. Roberts, K. Llewelyn, N. Tanswell, R. MacDonald, T. Jackson, A. Underwood, G. Parry, S. Adams.

Service: Lt Col. R. F. Duke, Lt Col. A. S. F. Hinds, Lt Col. L. B. Swifte, Lt Col. W. Coates, Lt Col. M. F. Taylor, Major E. Ross-Smith, Major R. J. Cornish, Major D. W. Brown, Major I. H. Edwardson Captain R. G. Skelton, Major J. Hancock, Captain K. J. Wolfe, Captain B. Cummins, Captain J. Weiland, Lieutenant S. Maxwell-Wright, Sqn Ldr W. Smither

Civilian Public Relations Officers- All civilian PROs have had previous training and experience in journalism with newspapers, radio and/or television, and were graded journalists before coming to DPR. The majority of civilian PROs have served with the Australian Defence Forces.

Uniformed Public Relations Officers- There are fifteen officers in the Army PR Service. All were appointed to the Australian Regular Army following training and experience as journalists or in allied professions. Officers of the PR Service are required to pass normal Army promotion examinations to obtain substantive rank. Some have qualified by examination for entry to Staff College.

  1. The public relations officers and journalists are employed in the Directorate of Public Relations, are in Regional Offices and are located in Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Townsville, Hobart and Butterworth.

Police Special Branches: Aircraft Passenger Lists (Question No. 306)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

Are aircraft passenger lists provided to State Special Branches, as claimed in the Australian, 30 March 1978; if so: (a) what are the details; and (b) under what legislation are airlines enabled to provide passenger lists to outside organisations such as State Special Branches.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

There is no legislation under my administration which permits or precludes the provision of passenger lists to outside organisations such as State Special Branches.

The article in the Australian to which the honourable senator’s question refers essentially concerns the administration of a State Government instrumentality and I therefore consider it inappropriate for me to comment. The honourable senator may recall that the Prime Minister announced on 23 February the appointment of Mr Justice Hope to undertake a review of the whole area of protective security in Australia, and this will include discussions with State Governments on Commonwealth-State liaison arrangements.

Wannon Electorate: Unemployment (Question No. 360)

Senator Primmer:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many people were in the work force in each municipality of the Wannon electorate at the time ofthe 1971 Census.
  2. What percentage of the work force in each of the municipalities was unemployed at that time.
  3. What are the comparable figures from 1972 to 1976.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Australian Statistician has supplied the following table in answer to Parts (1) and (2) of the question:

Labour force status of the population of Wannon electoral division for each municipality-30 June 1971(a)

  1. Source: 1971 Census of Population and Housing.

    1. Comparable data based on the 1976 Census of Population and Housing are not yet available and there are no comparable data for the years 1 972 to 1 975.

Legal Aid (Question No. 384)

Senator Colston:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 13 April 1978:

Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to comments by Mr Julian Gardner, a member of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission, reported in the Melbourne Age, 4 April 1978, that ‘The legal aid means test may soon be widened to allow thousands more people to get legal aid ‘; if so, will the Attorney-General give details of the Government ‘s proposals to widen the means test.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes. My attention has been drawn to the report in the Melbourne Age of 4 April 1 978 to which the honourable senator has referred. I am presently reviewing the operation of the current guidelines for the application of the Australian Legal Aid Office means and needs test.

Air Fares (Question No. 386)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 12 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the airfare charges per kilometre for passengers travelling on:

    1. the Brisbane-Cairns route; (b) the CairnsGoveDarwin route; (c) the Sydney-Alice Springs route;
    2. the Adelaide-Alice Springs route; (e) the AliceSpringsDarwin route; (f) the Darwin-Perth route; and (g) interports on these routes.

  2. Will the reintroduction of the fuel subsidy scheme have any effect on airfares in outback areas.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The airfare charges per kilometre for the specified routes are shown in the table below. The cents per kilometre charges based on Ansett and TAA fares.
  1. Yes, as fuel costs represent nearly 30 per cent of outback aircraft operating costs the scheme will help to contain air fares at present level. Indeed, when the Minister for Transport receives future requests for fare increases, after the scheme is in operation, he will, in assessing the justification for such increases, particularly take into account benefits from the scheme that have been received by aircrafts operators and which should therefore flow through to the customers.

Commonwealth Ombudsman (Question No. 411)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many full-time staff members are permanently at the disposal of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
  2. What are their classifications.
  3. What is the average time between receipt of complaints and their investigation.
  4. How many complaints has the Commonwealth Ombudsman received concerning the Department of Social Security.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Ombudsman has informed me that at 26 May 1978 he had an approved establishment of 32 positions. Four of these positions are not filled on a permanent basis leaving therefore 28 full-time staff members permanently at his disposal. In addition to these 28 there are 2 Deputy Ombudsmen who hold statutory offices. Of the 32 positions, 18 are located in the Ombudsman’s Canberra Office, 6 in each of Melbourne and Sydney and 2 in Penh. The Ombudsman anticipates opening his Penh office in July 1978. The classifications of the 32 positions are as follows:

Assistant Secretary (Level1)- 3 positions

Clerk Class 10-6 positions

Clerk Class 9-3 positions

Clerk Class 7-4 positions

Clerk Class 6-1 position

Clerical Assistant Grade 5-4 positions

Clerical Assistant Grade 3- 1 position

Personal Secretary- 1 position

Steno-Secretary Grade 2-2 positions

Steno-Secretary Grade 1-3 positions

Typist Grade 2-3 positions

Typist Grade 1-1 position.

  1. The Ombudsman has informed me that he begins his inquiries immediately on receipt of a complaint. It is not possible to say what is an ‘average ‘ time for an investigation, but while some complex cases can take many months to complete, other more straightforward matters may be concluded in hours or even minutes.
  2. To 26 May 1978 the Ombudsman had received written complaints from 283 complainants about alleged actions of the Department of Social Security.

Purchase of Aircraft for VIP Fleet (Question No. 443)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) When was the decision made to purchase two new or second-hand Boeing 727 aircraft for the No. 34 Squadron.
  2. What is the estimated cost of the aircraft, the spare parts and back-up facilities and the training of Royal Australian Air Force personnel on the aircraft.
  3. Where any other aircraft types considered; if so, what were the types considered and what was the cost of each type and the back-up facilities.
  4. Was the decision made following an investigation by the Royal Australian Air Force; if so, what were the details of the recommendations; if not, why not.
  5. Are the Boeing 727 aircraft, to be the 100 or 200 series; if so, what is the reason for selecting the 100 or 200 series.
  6. Are these aircraft capable of acting as refuelling and general services aircraft.
  7. If second-hand aircraft are to be purchased: (a) what is the estimated cost of overhauling the aircraft and modifying them to Royal Australian Air Force standards; and (b) what is the estimated minimum service life that will be considered for the aircraft.
  8. Have any inquiries been made about availability of second-hand aircraft; if so, to whom have the inquiries been made and what have been the results of those inquiries.
  9. If second-hand aircraft are to be purchased will international tenders be called; if not, why not.
  10. 10) If the Boeing 727 aircraft are purchased will the existing BAC 1 1 1 aircraft be sold; if not, why not.
  11. Are there any airports within Australia at present serviced by existing commercial aircraft or used by VIP aircraft at which a Boeing 727 is unable to land; if so, what are the names and locations of those airports.
  12. What is the range of the Boeing 727 aircraft compared to similar commercial aircraft types and what is the range of the BAC 1 1 1 aircraft.
  13. What is the per kilometre cost of operating the Boeing 727 and the BAC 111.
  14. What is the maximum seating capacity of the Boeing 727 aircraft.
  15. 15) Is it proposed to use existing commercial services for the maintenance and overhaul of the aircraft; if so: (a) on what basis and terms and conditions will those services be used; (b) what will be the availability of those services in the event of industrial trouble; (c) is it proposed to establish service facilities for the two Boeing 727 aircraft within the Royal Australian Air Force and; if so, when, and at what cost.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Defence had provided the following answer to the honourable senator ‘s question:

  1. Early May 1978.
  2. The estimated project cost of acquiring and modifying two second hand aircraft is in the vicinity of $ 18m. This includes: spare parts, back up facilities and the training of RAAF personnel on the aircraft.

  3. The following main options were considered:

    1. Boeing 707 type aircraft were considered but were rejected because of the extremely limited number of airfields that could be used within Australia, thereby limiting the utilisation. The cost of back-up facilities was not determined.
    2. A proposal to add extra fuel tanks to the existing BAC 1-11s was considered. However, the extra range obtained would be at the expense of the present passenger capacity and only about five people could be carried. In addition, an extended range BAC 1-11 would not offer the safety margin that will be provided by the 727 ‘s three engines on long overwater flights.
  4. In conjuction with the Department of Transport, the RAAF studied the possible effects of introducing additional VIP aircraft. No recommendations were made, but various alternatives were examined.
  5. Only Boeing 727-100 series aircraft are being sought as the -200 series aircraft are larger, much newer, are in high demand and, are much more expensive.
  6. The aircraft will not have the capability to provide inflight refuelling. However, they are available for Service transport duties in the event of an emergency.
  7. Based on specialist advice, about $2m per aircraft has been estimated for refurbishment, fitment of extra fuel tanks, interior configurations and changes to and extension of, the avionic fitment to facilitate long range navigation. For RAAF planning purposes a 10 year service is being considered; however, service life is reviewed periodically and often extended.
  8. Inquiries have been addressed to all suitable civilian operators of Boeing 727-100 aircraft and to all aircraft brokers in the United States, United Kingdom and Europe.
  9. The Department of Administrative Services is publicly seeking registration of interest from potential suppliers in accordance with established procedures.
  10. When the Boeing 727 aircraft come into operation, an examination will be made on the long term rationalisation of the aircraft in No. 34 Squadron, against the background of security requirements and the pattern of increased usage.
  11. There are some 52 Australian airports which can be used by a BAC1-1 1 aircraft. Of these, the following 18 are unsuitable for Boeing 727 operations-

Albury, Bourke, Wagga Wagga (New South Wales);

Laverton (Victoria);

Longreach, Oakey (Queensland);

Mount Gambier, Whyalla (South Australia);

Broome, Derby, Geraldton, Karratha, Newman, Port Hedland, Tom Price (Western Australia);

Devonport and Wynyard (Tasmania);

Norfolk Island.

  1. The Boeing 727-100, of which there are a number of sub-variants, has a maximum range of about 2,500 nautical miles. However, to enhance the aircraft’s range, additional fuel tanks to be fitted will extend the range to about 3,000 nautical miles. The BAC1-1 1 has a maximum range of about 1,800 nautical miles. The Douglas DC-9 has a similar range.
  2. RAAF operating costs are expressed in terms of dollars per flying hour. A reasonably accurate estimate of the cost of operating the 727 in the RAAF will not be available until the aircraft come into RAAF service but it is not expected that it will vary significantly from that being experienced by civil airline operators. The operating cost of the BAC1-1 1 is currently $970 per flying hour excluding RAAF personnel costs.
  3. The maximum seating capacity of a Boeing 727-100 series aircraft is 129.

  4. The RAAF propose to use existing commercial services for overhaul and to a large extent for maintenance:

    1. a ) the terms and conditions are yet to be negotiated ;
    2. in the event of industrial trouble, the RAAF will have the capability to continue operations for a significant period; and
    3. some service facilities will be established within the RAAF by the time the aircraft are available; the costs have yet to be determined.

Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (Question No. 445)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

To what extent has the Commonwealth Government defrayed the legal costs of rival litigants in the current faction dispute in the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association?

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The only current proceedings concerning the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association in respect of which financial assistance has been granted by the Commonwealth is No. B 161 of 1975 before the Australian Industrial Court. An amount of $176,205 has been paid to the parties following upon the authorisation of Attorney-General Enderby on 1 August 1975 that financial assistance should be granted pursuant to sections 141a and 1 4 1 b of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I have recently approved financial assistance being granted to the parties in respect of costs incurred as a result of the continuation of those and related proceedings subject to the proper assessment of the costs incurred.

Citizen Forces: Awards (Question No. 447)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many petitions have been received by the Minister seeking that the award of Long Service and Good Conduct Medals be resumed for members of the Citizen Forces.
  2. Has the Minister given consideration to the matters raised in these petitions; if so, what decision has he reached in relation to the requests in the petitions.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In the current session, 8 1 petitions have been received by the Parliament up to 3 1 May 1 978.
  2. Consideration has been given to the matters raised in these petitions but the Government does not propose to change the earlier decision to institute an Australian award to recognise long and diligent service in the Defence Force and other uniformed services.

Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme (Question No. 448)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 9 May 1978:

  1. What premiums have been received and what claim payments have been made under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme for each State and Territory for each year since 1956.
  2. ) What has been the rank order of States and Territories in relation to the ratio of claim payments to premium payments, for each State and Territory for each year since 1956.
  3. Is there any other regional basis other than State and Territory, for which statistics are available for the amount of premium paid and claim payments made under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme; if so (a) what are those regions and (b) what are the details for those regions when the Questions in ( 1 ) and (2) are applied to those regions.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. During the years 1956-57-1976-77 the premiums received and claim payments made under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme, for each State and Territory are as set out in the following table:
  1. The ranking based on the ratio of claims to the net premiums for the years 1956-57 to 1976-77 are as listed below. The order of ranking being lowest to highest.
  1. No.

Proserpine Airport (Question No. 455)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Minister’s reply to Question No. 67 answered on 8 May 1978, how was it possible for the $2 per passenger charge at Proserpine Airport, Queensland, to be introduced on 29 October 1977 when approval was not given until 23 February 1978 in reply to an application on 16 November 1977 that the charge be operative as from 19 September 1977.
  2. Is it possible, as suggested by the dates in (1) for a Council owner and operator of an airport to: (a) charge a passenger fee and then have it approved at a later date; ( b) charge a passenger fee and, at a later date, apply for permission to charge that fee; and (c) apply for permission to charge a fee which has already been introduced at a date earlier than its introduction; if so, what is the point of making councils apply for permission to charge a fee; if not, what happened in the case of Proserpine Airport.
  3. If Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia first showed the $2 in their fare schedules associated with timetables commencing 30 October 1977 as outlined in the answer to Question No. 67, how were they able to do so before approval was given.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) The introduction of the $2 passenger fee at Proserpine on 29 October 1977 coincided with the opening of the new aerodrome facilities at Proserpine. The fee was necessary to enable the local authority who owns the aerodrome to recover part of the additional costs expended on the aerodrome. During the course of earlier discussions, the Department of Transport has made it clear that it would not object to the $2 passenger fee. Accordingly the local authority introduced the fee as soon as the new aerodrome facilities were made available to the public but before formal departmental approval was obtained. In the normal course of events a landing fee is introduced after formal approval has been given.

Survival Manual (Question No. 470)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of the Survival Manual titled Stay Alive by Maurice Dunlevy and published by the Australian Government Publishing Service, have been printed.
  2. What payments were made, and to whom, for contributions to the content of this publication.
  3. Were any of the contributors Government employees.
  4. What was the cost of printing.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 10,430 copies.
  2. Author $4,250; Illustrator $3,050; William Collins (Aust.) Ltd (reproduction rights) $60; Indexer$3 10.
  3. No government employees contributed directly to the manual, although material previously produced by various departments was used for research. Departmental officers also commented and gave advice on draft chapters and departments and authorities supplied material such as photographic slides. No payment was made for these services.
  4. $28, 110.

Postal Services in Remote Areas: Landing Fees (Question No. 488)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is a $20 landing fee charged to residents of outback stations in order that their mail be delivered; if so, what is the reason for this excess cost over postal charges to the detriment of the outback dweller, when people in areas of higher population concentration have no excess mail charges.
  2. ) Will the Government consider bringing the charges for the delivery of mail to all outback people back to parity with their city cousins.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) No. The landing fee is not charged for the delivery of mail. The fee is paid by the station to the charter operator and the level of the fee is negotiated between themselves. By this fee an operator supplements his revenue from passengers, freight and mail. Otherwise he would not be prepared, for financial reasons, to make a call at that station. The Commonwealth also provides a small subsidy amount each year to the charter operator to maintain a minimum airlink to selected outback stations in Northern Australia.

Defence Services: Interpreters (Question No. 495)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many Defence Force personnel, and at what rank have been trained to interpreter standards in what Asian languages during the past two years.
  2. ) How many Defence Force attaches and in what overseas posts in Asia are qualified interpreters.
  3. What steps, if any, are being taken to increase the number of qualified interpreters in the Defence Force.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Defence Force personnel of all three Services, shown by Army equivalent ranks, who have been trained in Asian languages to interpreter standard in 1 976-77 are:
  1. Three Defence Attaches in Indonesia and one in Thailand have been trained in the appropriate language to interpreter standards.
  2. Services language training is directed towards meeting Defence and Service needs in specified postings. While it is the aim to staff certain Asian Defence Attache posts with qualified interpreters, the requirement for other specialised qualifications sometimes precludes this. Army proposes to train large numbers over a five year program commencing 1979 to meet planned future activities. This training will be conducted at the RAAF School of Languages in the first instance and thereafter, for those requiring a higher level of proficiency, in the country of the language concerned.

VIP Flights (Question No. 500)

Senator Chaney:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What VIP flights have been made from Perth to Canberra over the last two years on days within two clear days of the commencement of a parliamentary sitting week.
  2. On which of such flights have there been empty seats, and what were the number of seats in each case.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The honourable senator would appreciate that a considerable number of man hours would be involved in compiling this information.

However details of all passenger flights by aircraft of 34 Squadron are tabled from time to time. Names of all passengers carried are included. The last tabling was on 16 March.

The number of vacant seats for each flight can be obtained by subtracting the number of passengers carried using the following capacities for each type of aircraft, viz.

BAC 1-11-26

Mystere-7 HS 748-14

Department of Social Security, Queensland: Staff (Question No. 501)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social

Security, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

Have any applications been made by the Department of Social Security in Queensland for additional staff since 1 January 1978; if so, what additional staff were requested and how many additional staff were appointed.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Queensland Office of the Department of Social Security has applied for additional staff on several occasions since 1 January 1978; these requests have been taken into account in applications made by the Department’s Central Office to the Public Service Board for additional staff for all offices.

Since 1 January 1978 the Department has made three applications for additional staff which have resulted in an increase of 63 positions for Queensland.

Taxation: Housing (Question No. 512)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 May 1978:

Does the Commissioner for Taxation intend to impose a tax on housing which forms part of an employment arrangement for employees; if so, will the Government give consideration to rejecting the move, particularly in the interests of those employers, whether Government or private enterprise, who need special consideration to attract employees to the outback.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The honourable Senator is referred to the answer I gave to a question without notice asked by Senator Collard on 7 March 1978- Hansard page 352.I add to what I said on that occasion that, for the reasons I then gave, changing the income tax law so that benefits arising from employerprovided houses are not taxable would not be an appropriate way of assisting employers to attract employees to the outback.

Australian Wool Corporation (Question No. 516)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 30 May 1978:

  1. What is the total staff of the Australian Wool Corporation.
  2. Are persons employed by the Australian Wool Corporation employed under the Public Service Act; if not, on what basis are they employed and how arc salaries and terms and conditions of employment determined.

  3. (a) What are the salaries and allowances payable to the Chairman, General Manager and Managers of the divisions of the Corporation;

    1. How and when are alterations made to those salaries and allowances, and how are they determined; and (c) on what date were changes to the salaries in (b) above made in each year from 1 975 to May 1 978, and were those changes in accordance with indexation guidelines.
  4. Do employees of the Australian Wool Corporation contribute to the Commonwealth and Superannuation Fund; if not: (a) to what fund do they contribute; and (b)on what basis are the contributions made.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) 880 including 440 staff of Australian Wool Testing Authority.
  2. Staff of the Corporation are employed under Section 23 (2) of the Wool Industry Act 1972, which provides for the Corporation to determine terms and conditions of employment.
  3. (a) Salary and allowances of Chairman of Corporation, as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal; are:

Salary- $42,582 per annum

Allowances- $2,500 per annum

  1. Salaries of General Manager and Managers of the Divisions of the Corporation are determined by the Corporation under the Wool Industry Act 1972. No automatic salary increases are authorised other than wage indexation increases and all increases are within wage indexation guidelines.

    1. Yes, Section 25(1) of the Wool Industry Act 1972 states that the Corporation is an approved Authority for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1 922.

  2. Staff choosing to join the Corporation’s Provident Fund contribute to that Fund, (b) Basis of contribution is 5 per cent of annual salary.

Wool Testing (Question No. 517)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. ) What is the total quantity of wool obtained by the Australian Wool Testing Authority from machine core testing of wool sold by auction or otherwise. (2 In whom is the legal ownership of the wool vested if the Australian Wool Testing Authority has conducted the machine core tests.
  2. What are the total charges levied by the Australian Wool Testing Authority for machine core testing and the issue of pre-sale certificates.
  3. How many bales of wool have been pre-sale tested by the Australian Wool Testing Authority in each year from 1973 to 1977.
  4. ) Does the Australian Wool Testing Authority sell all or part of the wool obtained by it in the course of machine core testing and in the issue of pre-sale test certificates.
  5. If all the wool is not sold, what proportion is retained or destroyed.
  6. If wool is sold, by what method is it sold and what have been the total proceeds from such sales in each year from 1973 to 1977.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. The Australian Wool Testing Authority does not maintain statistics on the quantity of wool obtained from machine core sampling but see answers to questions S and 7.
  2. I am not in a position to provide a precise and invariable answer to legal ownership of wool samples. The core sample is drawn after bale weighing and hence the grower, who would most often own the wool at the time of weighing, receives payment for the 40-50 grams per core withdrawn for testing. Subsequently, wool may change ownership several times before being processed. I understand it has become accepted trade practice for sample material remaining after testing to become the property of the testing organisation.
  3. Current AWTA charges for Machine Core Sampling, Testing and Issue of Pre-sale Certificates are:
  1. Numbers of bales Pre-sale Tested by AWTA in the relevant financial years have been:

1972-73, 168,075; 1973-74, 502,199; 1974-75, 1,500,902; 1975-76, 1,779,586; 1976-77,2,261,511.

  1. The Australian Wool Testing Authority sells all wool that has any commercial value after testing.
  2. No sample material is retained for more than one year. The proportion of wool destroyed in testing varies in accordance with circumstances applying to individual tests.
  3. Residual sample material is sold by wool waste auctions and/or private tender, whichever the Authority judge will provide the best nett return.

Total gross proceeds from such sales in the relevant financial years have been: 1972-73, $35,000 (estimate); 1973-74, $62,020; 1974-75, $78,721; 1975-76, $127,685; 1976-77, $2 19,081.

For 1972-73 this revenue was recorded as part of total non-operating income.

The costs of handling, storage and sale connected with disposal of the sample material have not been deducted from the proceeds stated above.

Australian Services Canteens Organisation (Question No. 521)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 June 1978:

Does the Government plan to dismiss more than 1,000 permanent employees and 2,000 casual employees of the Australian Services Canteens Organisation to allow Defence Froces staff to operate canteens on a part time basis; if so, what are the reasons for this decision, and what actions does the Government plan to take to ensure that all the workers displaced by the decision are able to find alternative employment.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to Senator Withers ‘ reply to his Question Without Notice which appeared in Hansard of 1 June 1978 (page 2224).

Norfolk Island: Taxation (Question No. 525)

Senator Melzer:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Treasurer veto the plan of the Taxation Commission to send a team of investigators to Norfolk Island; if not, was the Minister responsible for Norfolk Island (the Minister for Administrative Services) responsible for this action.
  2. Will the investigation now take place and will a report be presented to the Parliament.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The honourable senator is referred to my answer to Question No. 1 397 contained in Hansard of 8 June 1 978 at pages 3360 and 3361.

Mr Robert Orbinski (Question No. 576)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 9 June 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What support was given to Mr Robert Orbinski who was arrested and convicted in Melbourne on 19 May 1978, by officers of the Minister’s Department.
  2. What approaches, if any, were made to the Minister’s Depanment, either by Mr Orbinski or on his behalf.
  3. What assistance, if any, would Mr Orbinski be able to obtain from organisations funded under the Homeless Persons Assistance Act 1 974.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Information on this matter which respects the confidentiality provisions of the Social Services Act was forwarded by letter to Senator Ryan on 9 June.

Telephone Tapping . ‘

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 2 March 1978 Senator Jessop asked me a question without notice relating to the tapping of telephone conversations when senators book transport in Canberra after hours. My inquiries into the matter indicate that the honourable senator’s call was to Aerial Taxis, Canberra, which has had a recordconnector unit connected to its telephone service since July 1977. The recording device was supplied by and installed with the approval of Australian Telecommunications Commission and consequently forms part of the telephone service for the purposes of sub-section 4 (2) of the Telephone Communications (Interception) Act 1960.

The warning tone that sounds during the conversation is intended to make callers aware that the call is being recorded. I am informed that 1 8 of those attachments have been approved for use in the Canberra district.

Redcliff Petrochemical Project

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 5 April 1978 (Hansard, page 816) Senator Jessop asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the proposed petrochemical project at Redcliff in South Australia.. The Treasurer and the Minister for Industry and Commerce have supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Both Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd and the Cooper Basin producers are engaged in a very complex process of decision-making regarding the proposed Redcliff project. It is true to say that the companies will be taking account ofthe attitude of Governments to the provision on infrastructure. However, a favourable decision by Governments would not commit the companies to proceed with the project.
  2. The Commonwealth Government has established an inter-departmental task force to examine all aspects of the project including infrastructure financing. The Commonwealth will be considering its position further when the task force’s report is received.
  3. Should the Loan Council approve a special addition to the South Australian semi-government borrowing program for the purpose of financing infrastructure associated with the Redcliff project, the semi-government bodies involved would be required to raise the loan funds on their own account and to arrange for the servicing of the loans.
  4. The Commonwealth Government is aware of the importance that South Australia attaches to the project. The Premier has very recently circulated a detailed submission to Loan Council, and this is now being examined by each of the member Governments.

Visit of Indonesian Officials

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 13 April 1978 (Hansard, page 1232) Senator Mcintosh asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice, concerning visits by General Yoga Sugama and General Benny Murdani to Australia and the entry to Australia of Mr Horta

I direct the honourable senator’s attention to the answer to a similar question on notice on 25 May 1978 (Hansard, page 1920).

Electoral

Senator Melzer:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, without notice, on 13 April 1978:

My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services who is in charge of electoral matters. By way of preamble let me say that a young constituent reported to me that, on finding her name was not on the electoral roll prior to the last Federal election, although she had filled out a card, she was told by the officials: ‘Do not worry about voting this time.’ She reports that a ‘gentleman with a foreign accent’ beside her in the office was similarly advised. I ask: Is it current practice in the Commonwealth Electoral Office to dissuade people from voting? Is the Minister satisfied with the efficiency of the system for having new voters placed on the roil? If this girl had not persisted, would she have been fined for not having been enrolled at the time pf the election?

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The incident to which Senator Melzer referred related to the referendum in May 1977. As a consequence I know that the honourable senator will accept the fact that it is difficult to check out the details of a counter enquiry which happened over 12 months ago. I can only say that the Electoral Act provides that if the name of a person has been wrongly omitted from the roll that person may be permitted to vote.

The representations which Senator Melzer made to me also suggest that there is a need for a general programme of electoral education. The honourable senator will I am sure be pleased to know that the Electoral Office, in conjunction with the Curriculum Development Centre, is developing a basic electoral education kit which should be distributed to every secondary school in Australia before the end of this year.

The Electoral Office has also prepared a small leaflet setting out the rights and responsibilities of citizens for enrolment and voting. This leaflet is being translated into nine major foreign languages. The Electoral Office is also developing general electoral information programmes for use on both ethnic and ordinary commercial radio, and has arranged for special advertisements in the ethnic press.

It is clear from the details with which Senator Melzer provided me, however, that procedures at the time appear to have gone somewhat astray. As I pointed out in my original reply to her, given the number of voters which we have, some errors are bound to occur. Nevertheless, I appreciate the senator’s bringing this to my attention because steps have already been taken to overcome the particular problem to which this case has pointed.

Tourist Resort, Yeppoon, Queensland

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 3 May 1978 (Hansard, page 1329) Senator Colston asked Senator Withers, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the proposal by Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd to establish a tourist resort near Yeppoon, Queensland. Senator Withers undertook to refer the honourable senator’s question to the Treasurer who has provided the following information:

As indicated by Senator Carrick during the Adjournment debate (Hansard p. 1415) on 4 May 1978, the proposal by Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd to establish a tourist resort near Yeppoon, Queensland is at present under examination by the Foreign Investment Review Board. In its assessment of foreign investment proposals, the Board considers all relevant aspects, including such policy aspects as defence implications. In accordance with established practice with major investment proposals, the Treasurer will consult appropriate Ministers before making a decision on this matter.

Visit by United States Vice-President

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 9 May 1978 (Hansard, page 1479) Senator Bishop asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the visit of the VicePresident of the United States. The Acting Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Because the Vice-President was in Australia for only one working day, it was not possible to arrange meetings with as wide a range of people as the Government would have liked. However in answering a question without notice from Mr N. A. Brown on 9 May 1978 (Hansard page 2027) the Prime

Minister informed the House of the matters discussed between the Vice-President and Australian Ministers.

Overseas Investment in Australia

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 10 May 1978 (Hansard, page 1547) Senator Chaney asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning foreign investment procedures. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to my ministerial statement of 8 June 1978.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 June 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780609_senate_31_s77/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant