Senate
12 September 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 439

REPRESENTATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received, through His Excellency the Governor-General, from the Governor of the State of New South Wales certificates of the choice by the Parliament of New South Wales of Kerry Walter Sibraa and Christopher John Guelph Puplick as senators to fill the vacancies in the representation of that State caused by the resignations of Senator the Honourable James Robert McClelland and Senator the Honourable Sir Robert Cotton, K.C.M.G.

page 439

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I inform the Senate that on Friday, 25 August, His Excellency the Governor-General accepted the resignation of Senator the Honourable Peter Durack, Q.C., as Minister for Administrative Services and was pleased to appoint Senator the Honourable F. M. Chaney Minister for Administrative Services. In addition, some minor amendments have been made in relation to Ministers assisting other Ministers and to representational arrangements as they affect the Senate. I ask leave of the Senator to incorporate in Hansard a list of the Ministry, which includes those details and which already has been made available to honourable senators.

Leave granted.

The list read as follows-

page 440

PETITIONS

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 45 citizens of Australia:

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

As Section 6469 on Health Refunds is the number for curette 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 your 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, in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 100 citizens of Australia:

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

That radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

The petitioners request that the Federal Government and broadcasting tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

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

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

That radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

The petitioners request that the Federal Government and broadcasting tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Senators here assembled. We the undersigned humbly pray:

That the Government ensures Item 6469 is not removed from the standard Medical Benefits Table.

That this item under which an estimated 49,145 contributors claimed in the 1976-77 financial year, covers a legal and medically approved procedure.

That the removal of this item from the schedule would destroy the concept of universal health insurance, and would have the most serious repercussions for women and their health.

Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

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

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensions: Lone Parents

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizensof Australia respectfully say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate steps to instigate one ( 1 ) category of Lone Parent Pensions to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Guilfoyle.

Petitions received.

Education Funding

The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of N.S.W. and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our schools be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1 979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for:

  1. Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.
  2. An increase of a minimum of 5 per cent in real terms on base level programmes for 1 979.
  3. Restoration of the $8 million cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.
  4. Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Carrick and Senator Peter Baume.

Petitions received.

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

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

That Radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

The petitioners request that the Federal Government and Broadcasting Tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Hamer and Senator Button.

Petitions received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

To the Honourable President and Senators here assembled we the undersigned humbly pray:

  1. That the Government ensures that Item 6469 (which refers to ‘the evacuation of the contents of the gravid uterus that is pregnant by curettage or suction curettage’) is not removed from the standard Medical Benefits table.
  2. That this item under which an estimated 49,145 contributors claimed in the 1976-77 financial year covers a legal and medically approved procedure.
  3. That the removal of this item from the schedule would destroy the concept of universal health insurance, and would have the most serious repercussions for women and their health.

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

Petition received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

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

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the proposal by the Australian Government to abolish Paternity Leave and restrict the provisions relating to Maternity Leave which are currently contained in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject the passage of any legislation which has as its purpose the abolition of Paternity Leave and the restriction of the Maternity leave provisions.

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

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate 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 Guilfoyle. (Two petitions)

Petitions received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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 Chipp, Senator Webster, Senator Jessop, Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Button.

Petitions received.

Family Allowance

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

  1. It is believed that changes detrimental to mothers and children will be made to Family Allowances and your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

    1. a ) No Family Allowance be abolished or reduced; and
    2. That no Family Allowances be means tested.

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

Petition received.

Political Prisoners in South Africa

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

On 3 May 1978 Simon Phelolo Magane, National President of the Young Christian Workers in South Africa was detained under the Internal Security Act. His whereabouts is still unknown. He is coloured.

On the morning of 29 May 1978 the General Secretary of the Young Christian Workers in South Africa, Marcus Anthony Rogers, was detained under the same Act by the Security Branch of the police force in Cape Town. He is black.

Since 3 May, 18 full-time workers for the Movements (Young Christian Workers and Young Christian Students) have been arrested.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should protest by all means available about these detentions and exert influence to find the whereabouts of and secure the liberty of these political prisoners.

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

Petition received.

page 442

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators will be aware that because of an industrial dispute no services have been available from the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms since yesterday morning. This dispute had its origins on Thursday of last week when the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia ascertained during a check of membership that a Mr Jacques Aper was working in the kitchen. On being asked to join the Union this employee refused to do so. Mr Aper is the same person who currently has an application before the Federal Court of Australia to secure exemption from joining any trade union on the grounds that his conscientious beliefs do not allow him to do so. The hearing of this case is scheduled to be resumed on 18 September 1978.

On Friday the staff of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms had a stop work meeting, after which the Union informed the management that it had been decided that a further meeting would be held on Monday morning and that if Mr Aper had not joined the Union by that time industrial action would be taken. Yesterday the stop work meeting was held, at which the staff resolved to remain on strike on Monday and Tuesdaytoday of this- week and would return to duty at the normal hour on Wednesday morningtomorrow provided the intervention of the Public Service Arbitrator had been sought. The Public Service Arbitrator has been informed of the dispute and has been asked to arrange a statutory conference. This has been set down for Wednesday, 13 September, at 10.30 a.m.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I think a few more comments than those contained in the statement which was just delivered should be made. Whilst we accept the industrial machinery for the settlement of disputes and for rectifying causes for complaint through, in this case, the Public Service Arbitrator, I think that there is one aspect, Mr President, into which you with your responsibility to look after the affairs of the Parliament and the welfare of members of Parliament should inquire. A report in the Canberra Times today stated that the workman concerned when making application for a position as a kitchenhand said: ‘I am opposed to joining a union’. Immediately upon his stating that he was opposed to joining a union, the manager of the kitchen said: You are the ideal man’. I do not know whether his opposition to joining a union made him an ideal man for the job or whether his experience in mixing concrete made him an ideal man for mixing cakes in Parliament House. But his experience is in mixing concrete. He became the ideal man for the position when he said that he was opposed to joining a union.

We have seen a lass create four days unemployment for bus drivers in Melbourne. She obviously was a plant. She was offered alternative employment in the Victorian Ministry of Transport. She refused to accept that employment or was not allowed to accept it until her name was discredited. She was not a reputable, conscientious non-unionist. She had a drug conviction. She was kicked out of Japan. She had had two passports. Immediately this was made public those who had prompted her defiance of union principles said: ‘Take the job with the Minister of Transport’. The dispute was over because they had someone that they could not sell to the Australian public. Now a sub-contractor, a piece worker, an under-award worker in the building industry -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will confine his remarks to the matter which is immediately before the Chair.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am back now to this great hero of freedom in Australia who, in one particular crisis, took the public interest off the Budget and off Fraser ‘s maladministration of Australia. He was recreated for that purpose. No one was more appropriate. Nowhere could the Government be more assured of getting public support and media coverage than in a dispute involving members at Parliament House.

Who is this manager who decides that someone is the ideal man for the job because he will not join the union? What are his credentials? Mr President, I would refer you to the ruling of one of your predecessors, Sir Magnus Cormack, who, when he was President and a barman would not join the union, said: ‘The important thing is the accommodation of members and the number of employees who have to work with him’. Sir Magnus immediately made arrangements for the termination of the employment of that man in the bar. That is on record. So if it can be done on the basis that he used on that occasion, it can be done again.

I would say that points to two things. Do these people come in to provoke disputes for the purpose of satisfying a government want? This man came in with a history as a building trade worker. Does this qualify him as a kitchen hand? God knows what we are eating in the dining room if the qualification of being a contract worker makes one an ideal kitchen hand, and we eat the result. My figure may not slim sufficiently through malnutrition before we get the record of this individual and the strike is settled. The Fraser Government although promoting the dispute, cannot permit a dispute of long duration because it shows the impossibility and farcical nature of its whole Industrial Relations Bureau legislation. Therefore, whilst we know that there may be many days on which we must go hungry to take the light off the Fraser Government and its budgetary incompetence, I hope that you, Mr President, will take some action and step into this dispute.

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator has made reference to an article which appeared in the Canberra Times this morning. I must advise the Senate that earlier today I was informed by the Secretary of the Joint House Department that a meeting had been arranged with

Mr Dearson, the manager of the refreshment rooms, and Mr Aper to discuss the report in the Canberra Times. Mr Dearson informed Mr Aper that at no time during the interview had Mr Aper said that he was fighting unions or that he was black banned or that he was against unions. Mr Aper did not dispute this but said- this was in the tripartite discussion this morning- that the report in the Canberra Times was inaccurate. I understand that he left the meeting with the stated intention of going to the offices of the newspaper to ask that a correction be published to what he agreed was a misleading report.

Senator Carrick:

– I have no wish to deny the Senate a debate on this matter. At a mutually appropriate time I will be willing to bring the matter on for debate. I suggest with goodwill that prior to Question Time is not the time to discuss this matter. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 443

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 443

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is the Government satisfied with the level of home construction in Australia? Is the Minister aware that the current rate of construction is the lowest for many years? If the Government is not satisfied, has it any plans to stimulate the industry and, if so, what are those plans?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government is keen to see that all those who desire to do so acquire a home, whether it be an existing dwelling or one to be constructed. Senator Wriedt will be aware that within the Budget several proposals have been made- I mention particularly the rearrangement of moneys available within trading banks- to stimulate the flow of funds to home purchasers. The things which will increase construction and restore home purchasing ability are the continued reduction of inflation and the continued reduction of interest rates. All honourable senators on both sides of the chamber must have been heartened by the figures released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development today which show that Australia is now leading the countries of the Western world in reducing inflation and, therefore, in providing the capacity for people to acquire their own homes in the future.

page 444

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE FORCE

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-With a great deal of pleasure I direct my first question to Senator the Honourable Frederick Chaney, the new Minister for Administrative Services. I preface my question by referring to the Government’s decision to amalgamate the Commonwealth Police and the Australian Capital Territory Police, which was a recommendation of the Mark report. I also draw to the Minister’s attention the recent Senate Privileges Committee report on the security of Parliament House. When is the amalgamation likely to take place and what procedures will be undertaken with regard to the selection and appointment of the commissioner of the new Australian federal police force.?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-Senator Thomas had the commendable courtesy to let me know of his interest in the Mark report. I hope his example will be followed by others in this chamber. I think honourable senators will be aware that Sir Robert Mark, the former head of Scotland Yard, recommended that a new federal police force be created and that it should incorporate the existing Australian Capital Territory Police and the Commonwealth Police forces. The Commonwealth Government has made a decision and announced it. That decision is that it agrees in principle with the Mark report and that it will be forming a federal police force. It has commenced planning for appropriate legislation prior to the new federal police force being established. In the mean time the two separate forces will continue under the existing legislation. It is not possible for the Government to give a precise date for the establishment of the new force, as discussions with the States are still in progress and the necessary legislation is yet to be finalised for introduction to the Parliament. The Government’s hope is that the legislation will be introduced at an early date and that the force will be commissioned next year. The procedures relating to the selection of a new commissioner will be dependent on the outcome of the discussions now taking place and the form which the legislation ultimately takes. Of course, this Parliament will determine the latter point.

page 444

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I refer to his ministerial statement on education guidelines of 9 June in which he said that after further consideration of Budget priorities the Government might find it possible to review the capital allocation for tertiary education for 1 979. Is the Minister aware of the uncertainty that that statement has introduced into the area of tertiary education planning? Has the review to which the Minister referred now been made?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the statement made by me in June in the ministerial statement on education guidelines. I am not aware of uncertainty that that has brought about; on the contrary. I hope that in the early future I will present to the Senate the report of the Tertiary Education Commission setting out the capital construction programs in the various areas for 1979. Those programs will show a healthy development in the construction field. The Cabinet as yet has not made any review.

Senator BUTTON:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the remarks of the Minister in his statement on education guidelines when he said that after consideration of Budget priorities the Government would review the matter, I ask: When is it envisaged that the review will take place?

Senator CARRICK:

– No time-table has been fixed for that matter. It is competent for the Government at any time to review any or all of its policies.

page 444

QUESTION

RETAIL SALES

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is it a fact that consumer confidence is a vital factor in economic recovery and the reduction of unemployment? Does the Minister have the latest retail sales figures to July 1978? If so, will he inform the Senate of the trends in retail sales over the year to July?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think that Senator Hamer ‘s question has two parts. He asks me whether I am aware of the importance of consumer confidence. Of course I am. He asks me about the trend in retail sales statistics. I have before me the latest review of economic statistics. One should not place too much emphasis on isolated monthly movements, because they do vary. However, the increase of 2.7 per cent for the three months to July suggests that a stronger trend in retail sales is evident and that the trend which has been evident since the March quarter is persisting. The percentage increases on the previous period during the last four quarters were as follows: September quarter 1 977, 2. 1 per cent; December quarter 1 977, 3 per cent; March quarter 1978, 2.3 per cent; and June quarter 1978, 2.7 per cent. The percentage increases on the same period a year earlier for each of these quarters were 9.8, 9.8, 1 1.3 and 10.4. Overall, the value of retail sales, seasonally adjusted, increased by 0.9 per cent or $ 1 9m in July, following a decrease of 0.7 per cent in June, an increase of 1 .9 per cent in May and an average monthly increase of 0.9 per cent in the first ten months of 1977-78. On the whole, there is reason for some cautious optimism, based on those figures.

page 445

QUESTION

WARNBRO: DETECTION OF UNEXPLODED SHELLS

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, relates to a very dangerous situation which has arisen in an area in Western Australia that was occupied by the Army during the last war. It appears that, rightly or wrongly, the Western Australian Government regards the debusing of this highly contaminated area as being entirely the responsibility of the Australian Government. My question is this: Because of the seriousness of the situation and the likelihood of death or injury being caused by concealed unexploded shells at Warnbro in Western Australia, will the Minister see that the Army is provided with modern pulse induction metal detection equipment and perhaps make available to the Canberra war museum the equipment that the Army presently uses?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have up-to-date information immediately available on the matter. I will seek the information for the honourable senator and let him have it.

page 445

QUESTION

TAX RETURNS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. No doubt the Minister is aware that in some countries a submission of personal income tax returns is required only once every two years, the income tax in the second year is based upon the tax for the first year and an adjustment made if necessary when the next return is submitted. No doubt the Minister is well aware that Switzerland is one such country and a country whose economy and inflation rate we could well attempt to copy. Will the Minister ask the Treasurer to consider adopting a similar system in Australia with a view to the obvious economies it would bring within the Taxation Office?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that various countries adopt various methods, either annual, biennial or triennial, for the collection of their revenues. I will certainly refer the suggestion to the Treasurer for his comments.

page 445

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-The Minister for Social Security will recall saying about this time last year that the Government expected to save $30m in unemployment benefit payments because there would be only 25 payments instead of 26 last year. I ask the Minister how many payments the Department will make this year, how the number of payments has affected the Government’s estimates this year and whether the $30m allegedly saved last year is built into this year’s estimates?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to state the number of payments of unemployment benefit that will be effected this year. I will check that matter and see that Senator Grimes is advised. He would understand that periodic payments of any benefits are of a continuing nature and if a payment is continued over from one year to the next- 30 June being the last date in the financial year- the payment is made on the appropriate date in the following year. Therefore if there were a lesser number of payments last year, early in July there would be a payment of the periodic nature that had not been made prior to 30 June.

page 445

QUESTION

STATES EXPENDITURE

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the latest August issue of Round-up of Economic Statistics and I ask: Do the latest Treasury statistics indicate that the States enjoyed ample revenue funds in the last financial year, contrary to the predictions of Labor Premiers and Opposition senators in this Parliament? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the facts concerning State governments’ expenditure?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not wonder that the Labor Party finds some disability in connection with this matter. The Labor Premier in New South Wales has demonstrated the effectiveness of the federalism funding by being able to bring down a budget which increases the number of things that can be done, reduces taxation and increases expenditure at a rate higher than the anticipated rate of inflation. The New South Wales Budget ought to give a pretty clear indication that what my Government has been saying is true. It is true that the latest statistics issued by the Treasury and reported on page 3 of the Round-up of Economic Statistics show a marked increase in the total expenditure of the States in revenue funds in 1977-78. In 1977-78 total expenditure from revenue funds by the States was 11.4 per cent higher than in the previous year. With inflation running at a far smaller level, clearly that was a real gain. The Treasury comment I think is worth quoting. That comment is:

This figure understates the increase somewhat because of changes in accounting practices in South Australia in the recent financial year.

That is the Treasury’s quote. Of course if account is taken of inflation in that year it is seen that the States enjoyed a real increase in revenue funds of something like three per cent to four per cent. As I said, Mr Wran has been able to repeat his efforts and to bring down a Budget that promises tax cuts, announces some new programs and allows for a real increase in government expenditure. Overall government expenditure in New South Wales is estimated to increase by 6.5 per cent in the coming year and inflation is estimated to be less than that. Two-thirds of the increase in NSW government expenditure that Mr Wran has budgeted for will be made up from increases in Commonwealth Government general revenue assistance to that State. This assistance will rise by 10.4 per cent in 1978-79, representing an anticipated increase in real terms of something like 5 per cent more money.

page 446

QUESTION

INDIAN FLOODS

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister refers to the problems faced by India following the recent disastrous floods. Has the Government of India approached the Australian Government for any form of assistance? If so, will the Minister indicate the form of help requested and the response to that request? If no approach has been made, will the Prime Minister, in view of the close bonds which unite our two countries and bearing in mind the generous response from India following Cyclone Tracy, take the initiative and provide some relief in the form most needed by this fellow member of the Commonwealth of Nations?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not have information on this matter immediately at hand. Therefore I am unaware whether there has been a direct approach. In common with all other honourable senators, I am acutely aware of the disaster caused by the floods throughout the whole of the Indian sub-continent. I shall seek to get a response to the various elements of Senator Robertson’s question for him.

page 446

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN RED WINES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health heard reports that a Dr W. Forrest of the Australian

Wine Research Institute, whose earlier comments had some bearing upon the belief that histamines in Australian red wines caused headaches, has now had second thoughts on the matter? Is the Minister aware that it is reported that Dr Forrest now states that after three years of research his studies show no untoward levels of histamines in Australian red wines and also that such things as dried fish, yoghurt, cheese, meat products, bananas and chocolates have levels of up to 1 ,000 times that of red wine. As this latest research has thrown new light on Australian red wine will the Minister for Health have discussions with Dr Forrest on this report and, if it is found to be correct, will he then make a formal statement to clarify the real position regarding Australian red wines?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I undertake to refer the question to the Minister for Health who, I am sure, will be interested in the statements that have been made by Senator Young and will undertake whatever investigations may be required. I suggest that those who have practical experience in this matter perhaps could make themselves available to the Minister.

page 446

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. I refer to the present discontent that exists among members of the Parliament House staff working in the refreshment rooms, cafeteria and kitchens. As co-chairman of the Joint House Committee, will you inform the Senate whether the officer engaging a certain person for the staff in the kitchen knew at the time of the engagement that the person was a notorious, psychopathic union hater? Will you investigate an allegation that some weeks ago a senior member of the Joint House Department was disturbed by members of the Parliament security force at the rear of Parliament House checking on the arrival of the kitchen staff very early in the morning with a pair of binoculars? If either of these allegations is substantiated will you, as co-chairman of the Joint House Committee, make a report to the Parliament on whether such conduct is highly provocative and objectionable to all Australian citizens?

The PRESIDENT:

– I did indicate earlier today the position in respect of the attitude of the person who interviewed this man for employment. I shall have the other matter referred to by the honourable senator investigated and shall reply to him.

page 447

QUESTION

REUNION OF TIMORESE FAMILIES

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the announcement made by the Acting Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Ellicott, on 27 July 1978 that the Indonesian and Australian governments had made arrangements for the reunion of Timorese families. Was this arrangement intended to cover Timorese families being reunited in Australia as well as in East Timor? Is the Minister aware of the newsletters, numbered 14/78 and 16/78, printed in June-July 1978 by the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra- copies of which I have supplied to the Minister- which discuss the reunion of families only in the context of repatriating the Timorese currently living in Australia and in other countries back to Timor? Is the Minister concerned that the Indonesian Government appears to be refusing to give public recognition to the possibility of Timorese leaving East Timor to be reunited with their families in Australia? Will the Minister take action to ensure that the initial agreement of the two-way reunion of families is honoured by the Indonesian Government?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that the agreement reached in Jakarta during the talks between Australian and Indonesian officials provided for an exchange of immigration teams to reunite families in either Australia or Timor. This was reflected in the terms of the statement referred to by Senator Missen. The text of that statement was agreed to by the two delegations. The Minister was aware of the newsletters issued by the Indonesian Embassy. Whilst they do not specifically refer to arrangements for people to come from East Timor- this is understandable- the interest of the Indonesian authorities in Australia is to contact any Timorese wishing to return to Timor.

At the same time the Indonesian Government is making arrangements for interviews and medical examinations to be conducted in Dili by the Australian team when it makes its visit in late October or early November. It is expected that families from Timor will join their relatives in Australia by Christmas time. The Minister asked that I give the assurance that the outcome of the Jakarta talks as reflected in the agreed statement and in the agreed record of the meeting indicates the degree of co-operation given by the Indonesian authorities in seeking to reunite Timorese families whether in Australia or Timor, depending upon the wishes of the people themselves.

page 447

QUESTION

ETHNIC TELEVISION

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of the widespread concern among ethnic communities about the delay on the part of government in reaching a decision on ethnic television? Can the Minister now answer my previously unanswered questions, No. 482 of 24 May 1978 and No. 708 of 12 September this year, about the extent to which the ethnic broadcasters have been consulted in this matter? Can the Minister indicate when the Parliament may expect a decision on ethnic television?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I can inform the honourable senator that this is a matter which is under active consideration by the Government and that there has in fact been consultation of the sort to which she has referred. However, I will have to get a detailed answer from the Minister.

page 447

QUESTION

REUNION OF TIMORESE FAMILIES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I also address to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question regarding Timor. Reports emanating from a group of ambassadors, including an Australian ambassador, who visited Timor recently at the request of the Indonesian Government indicate that it appeared that the Timorese resistance has now succumbed to the Indonesian forces and that survivors, including innocent women and children, were dying of starvation. In view of these reports, does the Government intend to take action to bring immediate relief for these people by providing much needed medical supplies, by assisting in the rehabilitation of East Timor and by the reuniting of so many Timorese families which have been fragmented by the Indonesian intrusion? If so- last but not least- will the Indonesian Government accept aid that may be proffered for the Timorese people?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The visit to East Timor during the period from 6 to 8 September by Mr Critchley, the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia, has enabled us to obtain first hand impressions of the current situation there. The Government is concerned about the reported condition of people in that territory. The people of Timor always have had a difficult existence, most living barely above subsistence level in very poor agricultural terrain. The Indonesian Government has inherited very great long term development and infrastructure problems. The basic problem, the poor condition of the people, has been exacerbated by the fighting and its aftermath. At present, the immediate human problem facing the Indonesian Government is the resettlement of thousands of people already in Indonesian camps and the large number who are continuing to report to the Government. Mr Critchley was given to understand that the Indonesians had sufficient stocks for some months of food and medicines for these people. The main problem was one of distribution because of the very poor state of the roads and the shortage of suitable transport.

Indonesia will welcome all relief assistance from private humanitarian organisations, provided it is channelled through the Indonesian Red Cross. The Government stands willing to consider quickly and sympathetically any Indonesian requests for further humanitarian assistance to East Timor. As pointed out in the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 20 January, in order to do this Australia will need to continue to deal directly with the Indonesian Government as the authority in effective control in East Timor. Australian and Indonesian officials met in Jakarta on 25 and 26 July to make arrangements for the reunion of East Timorese families in East Timor and Australia. The talks in Jakarta were held in an atmosphere of understanding and cooperation and it is expected that the procedures accepted by both sides at that meeting will enable the processing and movement of the people involved by Christmas. To this end it is anticipated that Australian and Indonesian officials will begin selection interviews in Dili and Australia by the end of October. In general terms, arrangements arrived at will be on a reciprocal basis. It should be understood that the only family reunions which can be arranged are those which fall within the terms of this agreement. I have some personal experience of the terrain, the conditions and the people in Timor. The people there live at very much below subsistance level. That fact, together with the very difficult terrain, should be taken into account.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to order. Mr President, I did not wish to interrupt the Leader of the Government while he was making such an important statement to the Senate, but I again draw your attention to the difficulty which Opposition senators have when such important statements are made by way of answers to questions of which notice has been given to the Minister. Two very important answers have been given, one by the Leader of the Government and one by Senator Guilfoyle. The subject matter of both answers should have been debated or in some way placed on the Notice Paper for debate. I ask you to make certain that Question Time is not abused by Ministers making prepared statements in answer to questions of which they have received notice.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot accept that point of order.

page 448

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, refers to Mr Critchley ‘s recent visit to East Timor. Is it not a fact that the visit of Sir James Plimsoll to Goa some years ago precipated the de jure recognition of Goa by the then Australian Government? Is it not normal procedure that, where an ambassador or high commissioner enters territory the control of which has been the subject of dispute such entry constitutes de jure recognition? Does the Government now consider in the light of Mr Critchley ‘s visit to East Timor that Australia has given de jure recognition to Indonesia’s control over that territory?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not equipped to answer on matters of such diplomatic protocol.

Senator Georges:

– You were equipped a moment ago. You were making a lengthy statement.

Senator CARRICK:

– I will respond to the interjection because I took it that the people of Australia, including senators on both sides of the Senate, would be very interested to have some knowledge of Mr Crichleys visit to East Timor. I got a prepared statement from the Minister for Foreign Affairs so that I could respond to any question which may come from either side of the chamber. If Senator Georges is speaking officially for the Labor Party, am I to understand that in future I am not to take note of any prior warning by his colleagues, of which I have had some today, and have the material before me? Am I in future not to give effective information which the people of Australia, and my side of the chamber anyhow, want?

Senator Georges:

– Well now.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Are you raising a point of order, Senator Georges?

Senator Georges:

– No, I am not raising a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Effective information is sought at all times, and it is appreciated when it is received.

page 448

QUESTION

HOUSING: SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community

Development. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the large number of newly built homes in the metropolitan area of Adelaide which are still unsold and the very high proportion of those which are apartments or home units. Is it a fact that even though such a surplus exists the South Australian Housing Trust is still having difficulties in obtaining suitable rental housing for low income families and that it contemplates the possibility of erecting more houses in this category? Would it be to the advantage of the State, the builders, as well as the consumers, for the South Australian Housing Trust to consider the lease of existing apartments or housing for rental to low income families on a subsidised basis rather than to invest more capital in new building? Will the Minister refer this matter to his colleague urging him to use his good offices with the South Australian Government to encourage such an outcome?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not in a position to confirm or deny the matters which have been put before the Senate by Senator Messner in his question. I assume, bearing in mind his general record, that the matters he has put before us are correct. I will, of course, refer the question to my colleague, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, and seek his reaction to the suggestion.

page 449

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Will you get a transcript of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s news service last evening in which this gallant non-unionist, who is occupied in the kitchen apparently keg squatting, made the statement that he did tell Mr Dearson that he was opposed to unions and would not join, which prompted the response: ‘You are the ideal man for the position’? If it is found in the transcript that he did make that statement verbally last night and if he denied in your presence today that he ever made that statement -

The PRESIDENT:

– Not in my presence.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I thought -

The PRESIDENT:

– I mentioned the Secretary of the Joint House Department and Mr Dearson. Those were the two people present. I was not there.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If it is found that there is a contradiction in the statement he gave to the news service and the statement you received this morning, will you then question the character and the reliability of this particular individual to ascertain whether the fight which is going on over him is justified?

The PRESIDENT:

– I can report only on that which has been reported to me in respect of an interview of which I had knowledge this morning. I referred to that completely. The matter of this man’s attitude towards unions was not mentioned. I received a report following that threeperson interview.

page 449

QUESTION

WATERFRONT DISPUTE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the statement made today by the Chairman of the European Shipping Conference in which he indicated that industrial disruption has cost more than $ 100m this year. I ask: As the current waterfront dispute is contributing to our poor overseas reputation as a reliable trading partner, can the Minister say when the people of Australia can expect appropriate action by the Government to ensure that the accumulation of some 1 1 ,000 containers around the ports of this country can be cleared and Australia’s export trading resumed?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not seen the specific statement to which Senator Jessop referred. But it certainly is a well known and well established fact that any waterside dispute has an enormous adverse impact on our economy, particularly on overseas trade which is so important to our economy. The Government is very conscious of that fact and is keeping the present dispute under very close watch indeed. The position is that Mr Justice Robinson of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had representatives of the national employers and the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia before him in conference yesterday. Commissioner Mansini had the parties involved in the Seatainer dispute before him and sought resumption of work. Although the seatainer maintenance employees rejected Commissioner Mansini ‘s approach, a further hearing will be held before Commissioner Mansini tomorrow. The resolution of industrial disputes under the system in this country is primarily a matter for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. At this stage certainly the matter is firmly in the hands of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government hopes that the dispute will be resolved in accordance with the legal processes as soon as possible.

page 450

QUESTION

MISS BARBARA LOUISE BIGGS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: In view of the growing number of passport forgeries, as epitomised in the Flynn case which the Minister will recall I raised in this chamber, have charges been laid against Barbara Louise Biggs following her public admission during a Melbourne television interview that Guam customs officials discovered her in possession of two passports?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I was informed that this question might come to my notice today and I do have detailed information on it. In February 1978 while in Guam Miss Biggs, who was the central figure in the recent Melbourne tramways dispute, was found to have in her possession two valid Australian passports, one in her own name and the other in the name of Robyn Frances Kelly. The two passports were impounded by the United States authorities in Guam at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs and a document of identity, valid for a single journey to Australia, was issued to Miss Biggs. Information relating to the possession by Miss Biggs of two passports was referred to the Commissioner of Commonwealth Police with a request that an investigation be initiated to ascertain whether there was evidence of an offence under the Passports Act having been committed. The matter has not yet been resolved and we are awaiting further advice from the Commonwealth Police.

page 450

QUESTION

CALCIUM PANGAMATE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Health. My attention has been drawn to a report in the Australian of 22 June regarding the import and sale for human consumption of the substance calcium pangamate or B 15, as it is also known. Will the Minister advise whether the Department of Health has approved the importation and use of this substance for human therapeutic treatment or whether these well publicised sales are being made illegally?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand from the Minister for Health that calcium pangamate known also by various other names including vitamin B15, is not formally recognised as a vitamin. No general marketing approval for human therapeutic use has been granted by the Department of Health as intending commercial importers have been unable to substantiate the many therapeutic claims made for the material. However, in line with current departmental policy, sympathetic consideration has been given and is being given to applications made to the Department by private individuals to import calcium pangamate for their own personal use. Formal permission is given on this basis, and provided relevant State legislatory requirements are observed: This latter condition includes the production of a doctor’s prescription issued by a registered medical practitioner in the applicant’s own State of residence.

Commercial importation, for veterinary use only, may be effected without reference to the Department of Health. The open promotion of Calgam by a Sydney firm of importers is, to say the least, unethical, and the Department of Health is currently pursuing this matter.

page 450

QUESTION

RHODESIA: PEACE NEGOTIATIONS

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It arises from the recent shooting down of a Rhodesian civil airliner by forces belonging to the faction of the Patriotic Front led by Mr Joshua Nkomo, which has claimed credit, if that is the appropriate word, for the shooting down of the plane and the massacre of the survivors; also from the statement which is reported to have been made yesterday by Mr Nkomo to the effect that he would not be party to any negotiations with the Salisbury Government and would accept only surrender from that Government. Would the Minister not agree that, to say the least, this would cast some doubt over the possibility of there being fruitful negotiations, or any negotiations for that matter, between the Patriotic Front and the Salisbury Government? As one of the declared purposes of the continuation of the application of sanctions since the socalled internal settlement is the desire to bring the various parties to the conference table, have these recent events caused the Government in any way to review its attitude towards sanctions? As I appreciate that the Minister probably would not be in a position to answer the question without reference to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, would he ask the Minister whether a statement could be brought down in Parliament on the earliest occasion so that members will know what our current position is with regard to these very important and dangerous matters?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– All honourable senators will share the anxiety that Senator Wheeldon indicates in his question and in the nature of his question as to the disruption of negotiations in Rhodesia. All, I think, will have learned the news of the crash of the Rhodesian airliner and the claim by Mr Joshua Nkomo that his people were responsible. All will have learned of it with considerable worry and concern. Certainly, anyone reflecting on it must feel that it must weaken the immediate chances of negotiation. As Senator Wheeldon clearly recognises, I am not in a position to indicate what may be in the mind immediately of the Government and of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in another place regarding the future of negotiations. I will transmit to the Minister the suggestion that a statement be made, and will ask him to comment upon it.

page 451

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION: AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC SERVICE ORGANISATIONS

Senator KNIGHT:

– I address a question to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister, who is responsible for Public Service matters, and as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs as it refers to recent meetings in Geneva of the International Labour Organisation. Can the Minister say what progress has been made with consideration by the International Labour Organisation of a case put to it by Australian Public Service organisations concerning the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act? In particular, can the Minister say what action the Government has taken on this matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the Government has submitted to the International Labour Organisation’s Committee on Freedom of Association its observations on the allegations made by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association concerning the compatability of the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 with ILO Convention No. 87. As I understand this convention, it was designed to guarantee workers’ freedom of association and the right to organise. According to the established ILO procedure in such cases, these observations will now be submitted to the ACOA for comment, following which the Government will be given the opportunity to reply to any further remarks which the ACOA may make upon the Government’s case. The Committee on Freedom of Association will then issue its decision in the form of a report to the ILO governing body. Before submitting its final report the Committee may, at its discretion, issue an interim progress report. The Government’s view is that the legislation in question is in no way in breach of ILO Convention No. 87 or any other ILO convention.

page 451

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and follows the answer that he gave to Senator Kilgariff about the plight of people living in East Timor. Does not the disclosure that about 12,000 East Timorese have been found to be starving and in a dangerous state of health require the urgent attention of the International Red Cross? I remind the Minister that in a reply to a question I asked of his predecessor on 8 May this year and to questions asked by Senator Bishop and Senator Kilgariff the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:

The Government doubts the need Tor a high level communication with the Indonesian Government about the International Red Cross at this time.

Further in that reply he stated that the Government had allocated $333,000 to the Indonesian Red Cross for the purpose of humanitarian work. Is the Government satisfied that that money has been adequately spent? Further, having regard to the views of our ambassador, Mr Critchley, and others, of the plight of this great number of refugees, does the Government not regard the previous reply of Mr Peacock as being inadequate and complacent about the plight of these unfortunate people in East Timor? Again I request that consideration be given to the Australian Government requiring the presence of the International Red Cross in East Timor, having regard to the fact that in practically every other country the International Red Cross is recognised as the body to carry out work amongst refugees?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think that in my fairly lengthy reply earlier I canvassed this matter and indicated that the Government was anxious about the plight and the malnutrition of a considerable number of people in Timor and that it was anxious that aid should be rendered, and rendered by the best possible organisations, including, if possible, international organisations. I have no doubt in the world that the Government will be working actively towards that end. I am not in any position to say whether the money indicated by Senator Gietzelt was well spent or what Mr Peacock’s view is on this matter, but I will make inquiries and see whether Mr Peacock will respond to that question.

Let me stress that, as Senator Gietzelt will know, the island of Timor is one of the most formidably inhospitable places, particularly in the hill country, with very little natural resources in terms of foodstuffs, and that in ordinary times the people have very poor health generally and very poor nutrition. The position becomes increasingly worse, of course, in times of war or civil disturbance, because the problem of distributing food and medicines throughout that mountainous country is almost insurmountable.

The population is something like 600,000 people, and many of the people are tucked away in places to which access is very difficult. The essence of my previous response was that, in the knowledge of the present plight and difficulties of the country, my Government was taking an active interest to see what could be done quickly.

page 452

QUESTION

FAMILY RESEARCH PROJECT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is the $98,000 which has been allocated to the family research project at the University of New South Wales for 1978-79 intended to have particular reference to the stated objectives of the International Year of the Child, that is, to raise the level of services to children? I further ask whether this research project, which was initiated in 1972 and has received a total allocation of $314,000 since then, has published the results of its research into the family. If not, will these results be published, and when?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This year’s Budget allocation of $98,000 for the family research project at the University of New South Wales was provided for the purposes set out in the terms of reference for the project. The project has involved a series of studies and surveys directed towards understanding and documenting families that are at risk. The terms of reference of the family research unit include a study of the incidence and demography of family breakdown, the possible causes and consequences of family breakdown, the emergence of new family patterns and structures and the community services available to the Australian family. The project’s objectives do not have a direct relationship to the observance of the International Year of the Child, although, of course, it will be understood that information which may flow from the report will have significance in programs next year.

The family research unit has undertaken an extensive survey of Australian and overseas literature on the family. It has published three research bulletins entitled ‘The Australian Family’. The Australian Bureau of Statistics undertook a national family survey in 1975. Information from that survey has now become available to the family research unit and it will publish ‘Families in Australia- A Profile’ in November of this year. Two further volumes on Families in Australia ‘ which will provide a fuller analysis of the survey data and include the implications of the findings of the study for social policy purposes will be published in 1979.

page 452

QUESTION

CUSTOMS SURVEILLANCE: USE OF NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick as Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister representing the Minister for Transport. He will be aware of the confidence which was instilled in the Australian aircraft industry by the continued support by governments, both Labor and Liberal, for the Nomad project. This gave the industry a great deal of heart when times were difficult. That confidence has been shattered a good deal by the report that the Bureau of Customs wants three aircraft but the specifications set out by the Department of Transport will make it virtually impossible for the Government Aircraft Factories and the supporting private industry to put forward the Nomad aircraft for that work. The Minister will also know that the aircraft has other qualifications, such as STOL- short take-off and landing qualifications- which apparently have not been considered. If the report is true, will the Minister ensure that the appropriate Ministers review whatever tender specifications presently prohibit the consideration of the aircraft? Will the Minister also ensure that proper and adequate trials are given to the Nomad so that it can at least compete fairly with an imported aircraft?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question traverses a number of ministries. I draw Senator Bishop’s attention to the fact that Senator Chaney now represents the Minister for Transport in this chamber. My reading of the newspapers leads me to believe that the suggested rejection of the Nomad for surveillance purposes was based on its speed.

Senator Bishop:

– That is arbitrary.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes. I merely say that to indicate that I have no knowledge other than what I have obtained from the Press. I fully understand the purport of Senator Bishop’s question. I think that every honourable senator would desire the use of the Nomad aircraft, which is a very fine aircraft, if at all possible. I will transmit the question to the various responsible ministers and seek their comments.

page 452

QUESTION

TELECOM: RELEASE OF INFORMATION

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it true that, quite apart from the employment aspect of the recent Telecom dispute, another fundamental aspect is causing continuing unease in the community? I refer to the amount of detailed information being made available by Telecom to the public and to its own employees. This detailed information, which I understand has not yet been released, concerns, firstly, the means of safeguarding proper privacy to the public in the public’s use of telephones; secondly, the technical reliability of the equipment that is to be installed; and, thirdly, the precise cost of the full installation of the new equipment. Will the Minister require the release of this detailed information so that the public will be reassured of the wisdom of Telecom using the new technology?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Teague raises matters which of late have been the subject of great public debate, interest and concern. The matters that he raises, however, are not within my detailed knowledge. I will refer them to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and seek a reply for him.

page 453

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. In view of the significance of the recent Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into aspects of the sugar industry to sugar cane growers and millers and for sugar cane users and consumers, will the Minister give the Senate an assurance that the established IAC practice of releasing a draft report and holding a public inquiry to discuss that draft report will be followed?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will pass that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. I do not have any particular information in relation to it. If there is some reason for concern about the practice to which Senator McAuliffe refers not being followed I will certainly endeavour to obtain an assurance from the Minister in regard to that practice.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I ask a supplementary question. The Minister will realise that I asked a question in the Senate about this matter about a fortnight ago. I realise that he cannot give an assurance this afternoon without referring the matter to the Minister, but will he give an assurance to the Senate that he will endeavour to obtain an answer to the question as quickly as possible? In the event of requests being received from the Queensland Government to suppress the draft report, will he indicate why the Queensland Government does not wish the draft report to be published?

Senator DURACK:

– I have no reason to believe that there is any suggestion of any suppression of this report. I will not say anything in regard to that matter but I will certainly give the assurance that I will endeavour to obtain the answer as soon as possible. I apologise for the fact that I do not already have the answer. The Parliament has not been sitting for a fortnight and this matter has just been missed in that period.

page 453

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF NEWSPAPERS TO PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator THOMAS:

- Mr President, I direct my question to you. It relates to the delivery of the West Australian newspaper to Parliament House. You may recall that I asked you a question on this matter on 13 March this year and that in your answer then you said that the reason for the delay in delivery to Parliament House of the West Australian was that the newspaper was not leaving Perth until midday of the day of publication. I have pursued this matter with both the circulation manager of the West Australian and the air cargo section of Ansett Airlines at Canberra Airport. It appears that the problem of delivery lies in the actual transport by the local contractor from Canberra airport to Parliament House. I am assured that the West Australian newspaper arrives in Canberra every morningwith occasional exceptions on Wednesdays- between 9.30 a.m. and 10.15 a.m. depending on the type of aircraft used on the flight from Melbourne, and that the papers stay at the airport until the local contractor collects the Melbourne and Sydney afternoon papers. Would it not be possible to have an alternative method of transportation from the airport to Parliament House, thus ensuring that the newspaper arrives many hours before the current arrival time of 4 p.m.?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator indicated to me this morning that he would be asking a question in respect of the prompt delivery of newspapers to the Senate and to Parliament House generally. I have made some inquiries and advise that further to the previous question put to me by the honourable senator I checked with the West Australian newspaper and confirmed that the situation as outlined previously was correct. The situation at that time was as I indicated earlier. It appears, however, that there have also been delays in the actual transport of the newspaper from Perth to Canberra. In particular there have been delays in the delivery of the newspaper from Canberra Airport to Parliament House by the newsagent who acts as agent for the newspaper. In order to overcome the problem of late delivery from the airport to Parliament House, arrangements have now been made for the collection of newspapers from Canberra Airport by a Senate transport officer rather than by the newsagent. This new arrangement will not, of course, overcome any problems which may occur with regard to late arrivals of planes and so on but the delay between the airport and Parliament House will be overcome. This will apply also to other interstate newspapers.

page 454

QUESTION

MISS BARBARA LOUISE BIGGS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations follows a question asked by my colleague, Senator Mulvihill. Were any of the facts concerning the issuing of two passports to Miss Barbara Biggs and her expulsion from Japan known either to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations or to the Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau, Mr Linehan? If so, when?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have no information in relation to that matter. I will pass the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and endeavour to obtain an early answer from him.

page 454

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Administrative Services the third. Is it correct that an eight man mission has been unable to obtain two second-hand Boeing 727-100 series aircraft to indulge the Prime Minister’s imperial fantasies? Is it still proposed to purchase the Boeing aircraft and, if so, what is the estimated cost? Is it correct that Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airways Ltd have been approached to sell this type of aircraft to the Australian Government?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It is certainly not true that there is any attempt to purchase aeroplanes to indulge anybody’s fantasies. As I understand the position, the desire to purchase aeroplanes is related to the need to transport people safely in this country. The original intention of the Government which was announced is presently being pursued. I am unable at this time to answer whether there has been any approach to Ansett or TAA but I shall seek an answer and let the honourable senator know.

page 454

QUESTION

SIR JOHN KERR

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Can you inform the Senate whether you are arranging to have Sir John Kerr hung in private or whether we will all be invited to a public hanging?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am afraid I do not appreciate the humour that the honourable senator endeavoured to put into this matter.

page 454

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Earlier in Question Time Senator Wriedt asked whether there was any parallel between the visit of Sir James Plimsoll to the Baltic States in 1974 and that of Mr Critchley to East Timor and whether the visit of Mr Critchley to East Timor constituted de jure recognition? I am advised that recognition is essentially a matter of intention. In international law it is accepted that this intention can be construed from the conduct of the recognising State, some forms of conduct being more specific that others. But if there is a clear manifestation of a contrary intention- for example, by an unequivocal statement- it will prevail over any inference which can be drawn from that State’s conduct. In the case of the Baltic States, the intention of the government of the day was to accord de jure recognition of the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union. Sir James Plimsoll ‘s visit was consistent with that intention and since the Government did not indicate a contrary intention by statement or otherwise the conclusion could be correctly drawn that Australia wished to accord de jure recognition. Subsequent public reference by the Government confirmed that this was so. However, in the latter case in accepting the Indonesian invitation to visit East Timor Mr Critchley made it known to the Indonesians that the Australian Government’s position on East Timor remained as set out in the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of 20 January and that it was not the Australian Government’s intention that his visit should in any way alter that position.

page 454

QUESTION

THALLIUM 201

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

-On 23 August, Senator Chipp asked me a question relating to the production of thallium 201 in Australia. I give the following information: The supply of thallium 20 1 for cardiac imaging in Australia is currently under study by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Proposals have been put to the Commission by the Australian National University for the use of its cyclotron for the production of thallium 20 1 including an option for the relocation of the cyclotron at the AAEC’s research establishment at Lucas Heights. The AAEC believes that it would not be practical to use the cyclotron in its present location at the ANU and, if it were to become a commercial source of radio-nuclides, it would need to be upgraded and integrated with the radio-chemical processing facilities. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission is examining the economics of the Australian National University proposals, but no data are yet available on the likely cost of local production.

page 455

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT

The PRESIDENT:

– Pursuant to the provisions of the Audit Act 1901,I present the report of the Auditor-General upon the Statement of Receipts and Expenditure by the Minister for Finance and upon other accounts for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 455

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 22 of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the annual report of the Public Service Board for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 455

NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 1 8 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966-67, I present the annual report of the National Debt Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 455

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the report of the Department of Education for 1977.

page 455

ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURE FOR 1978-79

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I lay on the table Explanatory Notes of the Australian Science and Technology Council, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations- two volumes- and the Department of the Northern Territory relating to the estimates of proposed expenditure for 1 978-79.

page 455

AUSTRALIAN TRADE UNION TRAINING AUTHORITY

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 58 of the Trade Union Training Authority Act 1975,I present the report of the Australian Trade Union Training Authority for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 455

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the reports of the

Industries Assistance Commission on:. Starting, regulating and control apparatus and other electrical equipment; certain welded steel pipe and tube (developing country preferences); and short term assistance to brandy.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 455

DAIRYING RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972,I present the annual report of the Dairying Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 455

AUSTRALIAN CANNED FRUITS BOARD

Senator- WEBSTER (Victoria-Minister for Science)- Pursuant to section 36 of the Canned Fruits Export Marketing Act 1963,I present the annual report and accounts of the Australian Canned Fruits Board for 1977.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 455

QUESTION

ELECTORAL DISTRIBUTION PROPOSALS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present:

Copies of minutes from the Chief Electoral Officer to the then Minister for Administrative

Services in respect of the preliminary analyses for Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania;

Copy of a memorandum sent to the Australian Electoral Officer for Tasmania dated 29 July 1977;

Copy of compliments slips sent to the Australian Electoral Officer for Queensland dated 12 August 1977 and to the Australian Electoral Officer for South Australia dated 17 August 1977; and

Copy of a memorandum from the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to the Australian Electoral Officers in all States dated 24 March 1977.

I seek leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Senator CHANEY:

– In the House of Representatives on 23 August 1978 the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) asked whether, in addition to the analyses of the electoral distribution proposals in respect of the six States which had already been tabled, copies of the communications between the Electoral Office and the then Minister for Administrative Services and the Electoral Office and the States in respect of those analyses also could be tabled. The covering minutes are not part of the analyses but the Government is happy to make them available. I have been informed that in respect of New South Wales and Victoria the analyses were sent to the Minister with no covering note.

As for the communications with the State branches of the Electoral Office, I am informed that the sending of the analyses to them was regarded as a matter of routine dispatch under compliments slips. Only in the case of Tasmania was there a covering memorandum which dealt with an additional subject matter. Covering compliments slips are on file only in the case of Queensland and South Australia. Photocopies of these have been obtained from the States and presented to the Senate. I will have copies of all papers provided to honourable senators. The method of circulation of the analyses underlines that it was done as part of the normal administrative processes of the Electoral Office.

In this context I believe it is also relevant to table a copy of a memorandum dated 24 March 1977 from the Chief Australian Electoral Officer to the Australian Electoral Officers in all States. This memorandum, which was an exhibit at the Royal Commission, outlines the procedure instituted by the Chief Australian Electoral Officer of providing to his State offices papers produced by the Research, Legislation and Projects Section of the Central Office of the Australian Electoral Office. It was in accordance with this procedureand this was recognised by the Royal Commission- that the analyses were sent to the States. For the record I also retable a copy of the Victorian analyses, one page of statistics from Attachment ‘A’ of which was inadvertently omitted from the copy tabled on 22 August. The copies provided to honourable senators, however, were complete.

Senator Button raised with the previous Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Durack, the question of guidelines governing the distribution of analyses in the future. Senator Durack indicated to the Senate his personal concern about the question and his intention to give it serious consideration and to make a recommendation to the Government in relation to it. I wish to indicate to the Senate that I agree with Senator Durack that the matter requires serious consideration. I have not yet had an opportunity to consider it in detail but I will do so as soon as possible. When I have had an opportunity to consider the matter fully, I will make a further statement to the Senate.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 456

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senators Douglas McClelland, Rae and Sheil be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.

page 456

QUESTION

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveproposed:

1 ) That, in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, an Estimates committee be appointed to be known as Estimates Committee F;

that the ‘Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1979’ and the ‘ Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1979’ be referred herewith to Estimates committees for examination and report;

that the committees deal with departmental estimates in the groupings indicated in the document which has been circulated to honourable senators;

that the committees report to the Senate on or before Tuesday, 7 November 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to make a few remarks in relation to the motion just moved by the Leader of the

Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick). For some time Estimates committees did not receive explanatory notes in sufficient time before hearings commenced. This year, for the first time while I have been in the Senate, the explanatory notes were tabled on the day the Budget was presented or very soon after that and I congratulated the then Minister for Administrative Services for ensuring that we were provided with the explanatory notes in sufficient time. Today’s Notice Paper shows that there are five Estimates committees, but the Minister has now moved a motion seeking the establishment of a further Estimates committee. Speaking for myself, although this would apply to many other senators on Estimates committees, during the last fortnight when the Parliament was in recess I put a tremendous amount of time into going through the explanatory notes. However, I now find that Estimates Committee A is to examine two further departments- the Department of Education and the Department of the Treasury. Members of Estimates Committee A would not have done any work at all on examining the explanatory notes of these departments.

Further, we find that the estimates for the Department of Trade and Resources, the Department of the Special Trade Representative and the Department of Defence are to be taken away from Estimates Committee A. Many senators and their research staff have done a tremendous amount of work in relation to those departments for nothing because Estimates Committee A will not now be able to explore the proposed expenditures for those departments. No doubt my comments would apply to every senator who takes a vital interest in Estimates committees. Many senators and their research staff will have done a lot of work which will be of no use to them. Estimates Committee A, of which I will be a member, now will be confronted with the estimates for the Department of Education- a very important department- and the Department of the Treasury; but members of that Committee will not have done any research into those estimates because those departments originally were not to go before that Committee.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Any intelligence would have enabled you to anticipate that.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Baume says that anybody with intelligence would have done it.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Would have anticipated it.

Senator McLAREN:

– Why would we antici- pate it when today’s Notice Paper lists only five

Estimates committees? No indication was given to members of Estimates committees that the Government wanted to initiate another Estimates committee, until the Minister advised us of it today. We on this side cannot alter that decision, but I want to place on record the inconvenience caused to members of Estimates committees by the Government’s decision to take some departments away from some Estimates committees and to give those committees instead departments which had been allocated to other committees. We will not be able to do justice to the work we in the Senate are called upon to do.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 457

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:.

International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 1978.

Diplomatic and Consular Missions Bill 1978.

Fisheries Amendment Bill 1978.

Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Amendment Bill 1978.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978.

Commonwealth Employment Service Bill 1978.

Re-establishment and Employment Amendment Bill 1978.

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory (Remuneration and Allowances) Bill 1 978.

Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Bill 1978.

Loan Bill 1978.

page 457

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– We are debating the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1978. The Bill has a variety of purposes in that it provides for certain tax exemptions in relation to a variety of goods. Those honourable senator’s who have had access to the short digest of Bills will appreciate its purposes. However, there is one area with which I wish to concern myself briefly; that is the exemption from sales tax of sun screen preparations certified effective against ultra violet rays. It seems to me extraordinary that we should take all this time to appreciate the inequity of imposing sales tax upon such a very important product. When it is considered that this country is one whose population is prone to skin cancer, it is easy to accept the very important move which is being taken by means of this legislation.

I merely commend this particular exemption. I merely say that those honourable senators who have had any medical experience would appreciate the importance of that exemption. Senator Coleman intended to speak at great length on this particular point, but unfortunately she is not able to be here until tonight. So, on my own behalf, on behalf of Senator Coleman and, I take it, on behalf of every honourable senator, I commend this particular exemption. As for the other matters covered by the Bill, other honourable senators may like to attract the Senate ‘s attention to the changes which are proposed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1978 is not a big Bill; nevertheless, it is an important one because of the matters with which it deals. Senator Georges has already indicated one or two significant points concerning it.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide exemptions from sales tax for sun screen preparations and to restore some exemptions which had become inoperative. The Bill has four main provisions. Firstly, it exempts from sales tax sun screen preparations that are certified by the Director-General of Health as providing acceptable levels of protection from solar ultra violet rays. Secondly, it restores sales tax exemptions on imported goods where the exemption had become inoperative due to changes in the tariff to which they had been related. Thirdly, it harmonises sales tax exemptions on goods imported by persons arriving in Australia with corresponding customs exemptions. Of these exemptions, the first relates to Australian domiciled crews of ships or aircraft on a once-a-year basis and the second harmonises the sales tax and customs duty exemptions applying to vehicles or boats owned by a person overseas for a period of 15 months or more. Fourthly, the Bill aims to give servicemen from Papua New Guinea limited sales tax concessions for importation of certain personal items.

The Opposition, of course, will support the legislation. The last three matters are largely of a machinery nature and really only tidy up what might be called long-standing inconsistencies. There are aspects to the first provision dealing with sales tax exemptions on certain approved sun screen preparations which deserve brief comment. Many Australians, especially those in the younger age group, spend a great deal of time in the sun on beaches and so on and the risks of sun cancer are increased proportionately. The evidence of skin cancer in Australia is high and everything should be done to prevent it. The sales tax exemption goes some of the way. The Opposition is pleased that the exemption requires approval of the exempted product by the Director-General of Health. Research undertaken by independent organisations shows that some products do not effectively reduce the impact of solar ultra violet radiation and that serious skin cancer may result. It is important also that the widest publicity should be given to the approved preparations so that users have some idea about the best means of protection. The Opposition would support national advertising campaigns warning against the potential dangers of skin cancer. The originally proposed tax rate of 27.5 per cent was so high as to force people not to use what in fact is an effective protection.

We are concerned also that the reduction in sales tax may not be passed on to consumers. Where some products are to be exempted and others are not exempt the temptation would be to maintain existing price levels. It is in consumers’ interests that the exempt products should be available at the cheapest price possible. It is also significant that in a country where skin cancer is such a problem none of the Australian universities at which medicine is taught do not, I understand, have a chair of dermatology. In order to work towards minimising the risks of this disease the Government should consider the possible endowment of a school of dermatology for one of the medical schools. I believe that people in this chamber who have a background different to my own would be more competent to judge this suggestion. The Opposition is not opposing the Bill. We believe it is of advantage and for that reason we will support it.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– It is with a great deal of pleasure that I, being one of those of rather light skin, rise to support the Bill. I am one who is particularly concerned about the protection of the skin from skin cancer. I can well recognise that in the past people were precluded from buying skin preparations because of their price. I believe this Bill is a move in the right direction to ensure that people have access to this type of preparation in order to protect themselves from our very hot summers. In the context of Senator Wriedt ‘s remarks I also say that it appears to me that his attitude is well worth supporting insofar as there does appear to be a need to ensure that the preparations that are on the market are adequately screened- forgive the pun- by the Department of Health to ensure that they properly carry out the functions for which they were designed. That particular matter is very important since it is possible that people who find themselves using such preparations and not receiving the protection which they believe they are receiving could endanger themselves very greatly unless this aspect is properly taken into account.

In regard to the broader question of sales tax as it affects the community generally, I just mention one other item which I would like to see incorporated in some later amendment of the sales tax classifications legislation. I refer to the log hauling equipment used in the timber industry. At the moment there is some deal of confusion amongst people engaged in log hauling in my State of South Australia where equipment which, if used in conjunction with a bulldozer or a tractor, would be exempt under the relevant sections of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act either as primary production equipment or as log hauling equipment. A machine which is mobile and, in itself, acts as a picker up of logs and a carrier of logs from deep in the forest to an assembly point, which is not necessarily a timber mill- that particular sort of equipment is called a log forwarder- is not exempt from sales tax under the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. These machines cost something like $90,000 a piece.

The amount of sales tax involved is quite considerable. I believe that it is an anomaly in the law that sales tax is imposed on the purchase of such machinery when machinery which is doing exactly the same sort of job does not suffer the imposition of sales tax simply because the character of its construction is slightly different. So in effect we are penalising new and modern methods in the loghauling industry by virtue of this anomaly, for which I do not feel there is any justification. I support the Bill, mainly for personal reasons insofar as I have a light skin, as I have said, and in the future I will have the opportunity of obtaining more of the skin products covered by this legislation. No doubt Senator Bonner, because of his skin, will not need to patronise that industry very much.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– I wish to respond to the invitation which came from the other side of the chamber for any honourable senator who wished to make some technical comments to take part in this debate.

Australia has the world’s highest rate of skin cancer. Skin cancers are due to solar radiation- to exposure to the sun. Senator Messner in his closing comments, though he might have thought he was speaking in humour, in fact was stating a biological truth. People who do not have a fair skin and live in places with climates with a lot of sun do have a biological advantage. Australia’s problem in relation to skin cancer and melanoma is related to the amount of sunshine to which people are exposed. To the extent that it is a problem capable of prevention this matter should attract our interest and attention.

One of the big difficulties we find in the whole area of health is to identify or to separate out those issues which are effective preventive issues. Any analysis of the economic basis of health care in this country shows that the preventive measures are economically far sounder than treatment measures which might subsequently have to be brought in. The best example that comes to mind is the single greatest preventive measure of the past 10 or 15 years, which I think is in operation in five States and awaiting only the agreement of Queensland and the Northern Territory. I refer to the fluoridation of water supplies, which in one fell swoop has eliminated much dental caries in Australia. It has had the most important effect upon the dental health of Australian children. Yet it is a simple, low cost preventive intervention which has been supported and which has obviated the need for a lot of expensive treatment intervention.

Senator Lewis:

– Is it safe, Senator?

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Senator Lewis asks: Is it safe? I can assure him that it is safe. Apart from gross prejudice I cannot think of any good reasons for people to object to fluoridation. I must say that in our family we were anxious to have fluoridation even before the Sydney water supplies were officially given this additive.

Other preventive programs come to mind. The first of these relates to the fact that one of the major health problems in Australia in terms of cancer is capable of preventive intervention. Of course, this relates to the question of the role which cigarette smoking plays in the genesis of disease. We have talked about that at other times; I do not intend to go into it at the present moment. But one of the problems we get into when we talk about preventive medicine is that any statements are simply pious declarations. Many actions which could be taken and which could be effective preventions do not get taken.

For all these reasons it is highly undesirable that governments should interfere with active prevention programs. I think, as other speakers in the debate have pointed out, that the government impost on the range of products which are the subject of this Bill would have constituted a disincentive to use these products which have been shown to be effective in cutting down exposure to those elements of sunlight which bring about skin cancer of various kinds. It is even less desirable that governments should interfere when they do so by mischance, when they do so unintentionally- when the desires of one department to raise money lead to another department being unable to fulfil its role, in this case a role in preventive health.

The situation that arose in the present circumstance was that representations were made to the Government pointing out the consequences of any failure to make the adjustments to sales tax which are being made at the present time. The Government has recognised the justice of the case, has recognised the logic of the case and has responded. To this extent I think it deserves to be complimented for having adopted a simple but effective measure which will cost not very much revenue but which will allow another effective preventive health intervention. To the extent that preventive health is going to be cost effective and that most treatment facilities are not cost effective, I think that this is the kind of intervention which we should be seeking more and more in the health area in this country.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– It was not my intention to speak on the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill. But I have been listening to some of the comments that have been made. As a matter of fact, I did not know that this Bill was coming up for consideration. That is my fault. I must make some remarks on the Bill because at the moment I am paying for the years I spent in the surf life saving movement and for the amount of time I spent out on the beach. I certainly support what Senator Wriedt said about a national advertising campaign on skin cancer. I think especially that such a campaign should start in the schools. At the moment children from their earliest days are encouraged to spend their time on the beaches and the massive advertising which is going on makes it very fashionable to have a suntan. All the time we see in the advertising world the promotion of a lot of products that in fact do nothing at all to help to prevent skin cancer.

When we go to doctors about the problem of skin cancer the first thing we are told by a lot of them is that we should get a hat or cap. When we go around and try to buy a hat today we are amazed to find that very few places stock hats anymore. As a matter of fact, I raised this issue with the secretary of the felt hatters union. He said: ‘Nobody is making hats. They are going out of fashion. We as a union and as an industry are going out of business’. Certainly not for that reason only, I think that the wearing of hats should be promoted at a very early level in the schools, even if only to promote the wearing of the sort of caps that can be worn on the beach.

Recently I went to three skin specialists with a problem that perhaps will keep me away from this chamber for some time next week. In speaking to the specialists about the general problem two of them raised the fact that there is not a chair of dermatology in any of the Australian universities. Again, this was raised by Senator Wriedt. I think that as a Parliament we should promote the establishment of a chair of dermatology. I think that the whole issue is important. A national advertising campaign on skin cancer starting in the schools should be supported by all honourable senators.

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

– in reply- The Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill, as mentioned by previous speakers, is not a particularly important Bill. It does remove the imposition of sales tax from certain preparations that are used to protect the skin from ultraviolet rays. Perhaps the withdrawal of a tax impost on a product provides greater encouragement for individuals to use that product. The point made by Senator Wriedt and Senator Sibraa is of importance. Perhaps the issue goes beyond the conclusion that what they have suggested would provide the main encouragement needed for people to use certain skin preparations to avoid the incidence of skin cancer. Perhaps the establishment of a national advertising campaign or the undertaking of research at universities into this matter would be particularly important.

The Opposition and the Government would recognise the arguments that have been put for many years. We honourable senators of some long standing now- certainly those of us who have been associated with the production of such types of skin preparation- have been arguing that taxation in the form of sales tax should be removed from such items when those items are of benefit to the community. That does bring forward the comment expressed by Senator Messner, that in his view log forwarders used in timber-getting should be exempt. I recognise the interest of the senator from South Australia. Certainly items such as those he mentioned are of great importance in increasing efficiency in the timber industry, especially as it relates to softwoods in South Australia. Senators may recognise that acceptance of the general proposition that sales tax should be reduced on, or eliminated from, items that may be of technological import to the community would involve making enormous changes to legislation. In fact, even keeping step with the continual changes in technology would require extensive debate whenever an item was suggested as an appropriate subject for tax relief. It would require, I would imagine, a detailed reply from the Treasurer, and if any senator wished to follow through that argument I would be pleased to put it to him.

Senator Wriedt raised a point concerning the establishment of a Chair of Dermatology. That perhaps is important in the area of research. Senator Baume mentioned the use of fluoride. I was not clear as to its connection with this Bill.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It is an important preventive measure.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I realise that it is a preventive measure. I was not sure as to its relationship to the incidence of sales tax. Apparently there was none. I thank honourable senators for their contribution and I am pleased, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), whom I represent, to note that it finds support from both sides.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 461

EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– With the presentation of the Budget Speech, the Government announced a series of further changes to the pricing of domestically produced crude oil. As a result of that decision, a Bill will be introduced to increase to $ 1 0 a barrel, in round figures, the levy payable on Australianproduced crude oil. This Bill provides for a rebate of $7 of that $10 levy on that portion of domestic crude oil currently priced at world parity. That is some 27 or 28 per cent of the total production. It is part of what would very loosely- I emphasise the term- be described as the package which the Government has introduced over the last couple of years in relation to crude oil pricing policy. I say that the term ‘package’ would have to be used very loosely because nowhere is a coherent plan being followed by the Government in its energypricing policy, about which I will say more later.

One thing needs to be very clearly established from the outset, and that is the reason for that government decision to increase the levy to $10 a barrel in round figures, thereby pricing Australian domestic crude oil at full import parity. We could discuss at some length the definition of import parity, but I do not propose to do that at this stage. The Government has not explained what assurances it will seek that the posted price of Middle East crude oil will be in fact the real price at which it will be sold, so there are some grounds to argue about what import parity is, but we will do that on another occasion. The reason that this enormous impost has been introduced was spelled out very succinctly by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) the day after the Budget was presented. On A.M., on 16 August, he said:

In relation to Bass Strait oil it was never a question of a resources tax or no tax. It was a question of a resources tax or levy.

So the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that the reason that we have this enormous impost, which will add at least $800m in a full year to the refinery cost of crude oil, is that the Government, in June, reneged on its earlier promise to introduce a resources tax. We have this enormous impost on the Australian community because the Government did not have the courage to proceed with the resources tax, which it had promised in the 1977 Budget, because it caved in, as it is accustomed to do, to pressure from powerful business interests. As it did with IBM Australia Ltd, so it does with EssoBHP. It is very important to note, and I am indebted to the Prime Minister for making it so perfectly clear, that this impost is the direct consequence of the Government’s decision to abandon a resources tax. The Prime Minister is, of course, correct in saying that as far as government revenue is concerned they are alternatives. There is, however, a crucial difference between their impact. A resources tax would have been paid from the windfall gains of Esso-BHP and other domestic oil producers. This crude oil levy will be fully passed on to consumers and will be paid by the Australian people.

There is some doubt as to the precise aggregate effect of this measure on crude oil cost. The Budget Papers provide an estimate of $804m. The Melbourne Age, on the Friday after the Budget, 18 August, carried a report from the Petroleum Refiners Association which estimated the additional cost in a full year to be $ 1 ,000m. So there is some difference of opinion about the precise effect of this increased tax, but it appears certain, notwithstanding the Prices Justification Tribunal decision of last week, that it will add at least 16c a gallon to the retail price of motor spirit. That increase will, of course, be additional to the increases in petroleum product prices resulting from the 1977 Budget decision to increase the pre-existing levy and to price some 1 5, 16 or 17 per cent- I am not sure of the exact figure- of Australian domestic production at import parity, as well as the additional 10 per cent or thereabouts of Australian crude oil production at import parity as from 1 July 1978. This 16c a gallon increase is additional to those increases which we have already had thrust upon us this year and last.

The Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced in the Budget Speech that the Government intended to continue the policy on the price to be received by Australian producers of domestic crude oil, that it announced in the 1977 Budget. By 1980-81 50 per cent of domestic crude production will be priced to the producer at full import parity, minus only the pre-existing $3 a barrel levy for government tax. So the only logical deduction possible from those facts is that the proceeds of this levy, which are estimated to be some $6 80m in this financial year, will be transferred progressively from the Government to the Australian domestic oil producers, principally EssoBHP. As a result of that transfer and the pre- 1978 Budget pricing decisions, Esso-BHP by 1 980-8 1 will be receiving a windfall profit of the order of $500m.

One of the more ominous statements in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech which has not received the attention it deserves was his statement that after 1980-81 the producer’s price, that is the price received by Esso-BHP and the other producers, would be ‘moving to 100 per cent as soon as possible’. The 100 per cent refers to 100 per cent of import parity. Insofar as this Government makes any decisions that stand, the policy is laid down to 1 980-8 1 . Beyond that there is no precise time-table, but we have the Treasurer’s statement on the record that after 1 980-8 1 the price to the producers will be moved to 100 per cent of import parity as soon as possible. After that has been done there are two possibilities. Either the revenue which the Government collects from this tax will have been entirely passed over to the Australian producers or the Government will retain the levy for revenue purposes and Australian consumers could then expect a further massive increase in petroleum product prices, and for motor spirit an increase of the order of 20c a gallon. That is over and beyond general cost increases.

The motive behind the major legislation which is yet to be introduced to the House- I am not talking about this legislation, because this is really consequential legislation- is to produce revenue. The Government has backed itself into a position because it has closed off so many options in the revenue production area. It has abandoned the resources tax. It has partially abandoned and will progressively completely abandon inheritance taxes. At enormous cost to the revenue, about $500m a year, it has provided an investment allowance which subsidises the replacement of humans with machines. It has partially abandoned the coal export levy and has given an undertaking to Utah Development Co. to abandon the levy totally as from 30 June 1 979. The reason that we have this impost is that the Government has offered so many bribes to its friends and to assorted vested interests that it is desperate for revenue.

Various attempts have been made to rationalise the Government’s policy on other grounds. All of these attempts are either spurious or are contradicted by other Government statements, or both. The first contradiction of the Government’s present policy arises from the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) on 1 6 August last in Parliament, when he said:

  1. . I have constantly argued that we should move gradually and predictably towards higher oil prices.

On 7 November 1 977 in Parliament he said:

There is no need, nor would it be desirable, Tor prices to move to world parity levels overnight.

That was the Government’s policy less than a year ago. According to that policy, there is no need, and it is undesirable, to move to full world parity levels overnight. The Government announced at the time a progressive time-table in which world parity pricing would be phased in. Why has the policy been repudiated? It has been repudiated because of the Government’s desperate need for revenue as a result of its other financial mismanagement. The honourable member for Forrest in Western Australia, Mr Drummond, who has many farmers in his constituency, who are quite properly irate about the effects that this measure would have on them- I will quantify that later- made an incredible comment on the Budget which is quoted in the Western Farmer and Grazier of 3 1 August last. He said:

  1. . the only ‘real negative’ affecting farmers was the increase in fuel prices, but this was an inevitable measure if more drastic rises were to be avoided in the future.

I fail to understand how more drastic rises in the future will be avoided by a movement to world parity now. It has just telescoped the previous time period in which world parity pricing would be introduced. The Minister for National Development, Mr Newman, attempted to put over a more absurd variant of the same theme when he attempted to justify the policy on the grounds that the new higher pricing would condition us to world parity pricing. In other words, we are to be conditioned to world parity pricing by having it thrust upon us overnight. I guess that if one takes that spartan view, one could justify murder on the grounds that it conditions people to accepting death.

Another spurious argument used by various Government members in justification of the earlier decision to increase the producers’ price of crude oil was that higher prices encourage further exploration. I will deal with that matter later. The point I want to deal with now is the claim that it would cause a much greater quantity of oil to be recovered from existing or known fields. It is undoubtedly true that the cost of extraction continues to rise as the field becomes exhausted and that if the price is altered it affects the cut-off point at which a producer will stop pumping oil out of the field. But the important element in this argument, of course, is what will be the quantitative effects of that price increase on the percentage of the total reserve which is economically extractable from a field? There might be some difference of opinion about that, but the National Energy Advisory Committee, the Government appointed expert committee on this subject, in the report entitled, ‘Australia’s Energy Resources: An Assessment’ issued in December 1977 had this to say in relation to the higher producers ‘ prices:

Price increases would also enable more oil and gas to be recovered from many known fields but again the increase in Australia ‘s recoverable resources would probably be a small percentage of the total.

So Government rationalisation is shown to be substantially unjustified. On the question of new fields, it should not be necessary for me to make one point in Parliament again, but it is apparent from a couple of statements which I will cite shortly that it is necessary to do so. World parity pricing has applied for newly discovered fields ever since September 1975, when this was announced by the then Labor Government. I find it astounding- although there is an alternative view, but for the moment 1 will be charitable and say it is quite astounding- that senior oil company executives such as Mr Froggatt of Shell Australia Ltd were saying earlier this year that parity pricing for new discoveries was introduced in the 1977 Budget and that the chief geologist for West Australian Petroleum Pty Ltd was still saying the same thing in an article which was published this year. Unless one believes that these senior oil company executives are so ignorant that they do not know that world parity pricing unequivocally applied from September 1975 for new fields, I can only assume that some sort of conspiracy is afoot involving members of the Government and senior oil company executives to try to make the decision of the 1977 Budget to move the price for production from existing fields progressively to world parity more acceptable. We can take a choice between inexcusable ignorance on the part of the senior oil company executives or a conspiracy to mislead and deceive the public.

Another rationalisation by the Government is that higher prices for crude oil and petroleum products will lead to conservation of those resources. The crucial factor here is the price elasticity of demand for petroleum products. It is well known from experience in Australia and in other countries that at least in high income countries the demand for petroleum products is highly price inelastic; even doubling the price of petroleum products does not have a very significant impact on the quantity sold. The Australian Financial Review took up this theme in its editorial yesterday when it showed that, notwithstanding the Government’s public rhetoric about higher prices leading to conservation and therefore spinning out an exhaustible resource, the Government’s own estimates of revenue from petrol and distillate excise show that the Government anticipates a 5 per cent increase in the volume of consumption in the coming financial year. Changes in the level of excise over the years make straight comparisons difficult. However, the figures in the Budget Papers show that the increase in revenue collected from the excise was 6 percent from 1974-75 to 1975-76, 4.18 percent from 1975-76 to 1976-77 and 12 per cent from 1976-77 to 1977-78.

It is interesting to note from those same figures obtained from various Budget Papers that the Government last year had estimated that revenue from excise on petroleum products would be $849m; but in fact it was $867m. We must presume that the Government obviously underestimated excise collections. Since excise collections, once the rate has been set, are tied directly to the volume of sales, the Government obviously underestimated the volume of sales last year; in other words, it believed that the relatively heavy price increases in last year’s Budget would affect the consumption of petroleum products. They do not appear to have done so. This year the Government, learning from that experience, I suppose, has forecast a 5 per cent increase in revenue from this item. Since the rate of excise has not been changed, the Government has forecast a 5 per cent increase in the volume of sales. How can such an expectation be reconciled with the belief stated in a different context that higher petroleum product prices will significantly reduce consumption? The alternative view to that is that the revenue figure has been deliberately overestimated. Given the Government’s record in this area in last year’s Budget and this year’s Budget, I certainly would not rule that possibility out of consideration. In other words, this is another cooked, fraudulent figure. That is the alternative possibility.

If the Government were really serious about conservation instead of just trying to rationalise a revenue necessitated policy- necessitated because of its previous fiscal mismanagement- it would not be playing around with 20 per cent increase in prices; it would do some or all of these things, or perhaps some other things: It would impose punitive taxes on fuel hungry cars. It would provide better public transport. In fact it has cut, even in money terms, the allocation for public transport. It would encourage or coerce State governments and those who have control of traffic flows to provide priority lanes for buses so that the buses get to the central business districts and the cars stay in queues for hours. It would not take the public long to work out that it was better to travel by bus. The Government would ban automatic transmissions, which increase fuel consumption by between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. It would drop emission controls. Those are some of the things which the Government could do if it were serious about conservation of petroleum products. Of course, the Government is not serious about this.

The Government has no rational energy policy. Let us look at the economic effects of this decision in the broader context. It will add at least one per cent to inflation in the financial year. I find it rather amazing that so many simple minded people could have seen this Budget as an anti-inflationary Budget and been willing to accept, without question, the Government’s assertion that it was such, when it contains measures like this which are quite unnecessary. The only sense in which this Budget is antiinflationary arises from the certainty that it will drive the economy deeper into depression. In no other sense can this Budget be regarded as antiinflationary. Certainly, this arbitrary revenue raising decision will add one per cent to the consumer price index.

The decision, in the area of agriculture- an area in which I have specific responsibility these days- will add somewhere between $120m and $ 160 m to costs. The figure cannot be precise because neither the direct impact of the increase in the cost of crude to the refiners nor how much will be built on as the product moves along the marketing chain is known. The decision will reduce net farm income by some 6 per cent. Where is the National Country Party on this issue? It is working furiously for the abandonment of the resources tax which, according to the Prime Minister, was the direct reason for this measure having been brought in. The National Country Party has abandoned agriculture in favour of the international mining and petroleum conglomerates.

Senator Young:

– You never knew it existed.

Senator WALSH:

– I daresay that in about 10 minutes time we will hear a speech from the senator for Utah trying to justify this decision.

Senator Young:

– Who is the senator for Utah? Declare yourself.

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Collard, who today will be wearing his cap as senator for EssoBHP. Certainly the honourable senator does not represent agricultural interests. If he did he would not be supporting the Government’s measure.

Applications are already in the pipeline for a 5 per cent increase in air fares. This is particularly important in the most distant State of Western Australia and in the island State of Tasmania, which has no feasible alternative for passenger transport. Where will the Western Australian and Tasmanian senators be on this matter? A couple of weeks ago the Western Australian Premier, Sir Charles Court, was whining about the impact of this decision on the State Government. He said that in fuel costs alone it would add $4m to the expenditure of the Western Australian Government on its own vehicles. Typically, he tried to absolve himself from responsibility on the matter by saying that the decision was clearly taken by the CanberraSydneyMelbourne axis which, according to Sir Charles, fails to think through the consequences of its own decisions. As a person who enthusiastically led the campaign to abandon a resources tax which was, according to the Prime Minister, the direct cause of this decision being made, Sir Charles himself should have thought through the consequences of his own policies.

The Labor Party is trenchantly opposed to this measure. To call it part of a package is highly misleading. The Government’s whole policy on petroleum pricing is a hotchpotch legacy of a series of capricious decisions on tax concessions for the Government’s friends, revenue demands, ideological prejudice and simple ignorance.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-I rise as a senator for Queensland, although I have been accused of being a senator for Utah. I have no interest in the Utah Development Co., although at times I wish I had. If we had a few more companies around the country as successful as Utah and Esso-BHP we would have a far less tax base for the ordinary citizen of Australia. Unfortunately, because of what the Labor Administration did to the companies and the general attitude of the Labor Party- which of course will keep it out of power for years to come- we have not as many of those successful companies as we would like. In the years to come Australia will be increasingly dependent on overseas crude oil. We have used our fossil fuels as though there were no tomorrow. We have used them as though there were a bottomless pit and very shortly we will be paying the price for that. Mainly because of the finds in Bass Strait by Esso-BHP we have had a good supply but it is not going to last. Our self-sufficiency will be reduced to 50 per cent by 1979-80 and 30 per cent by 1980-85.

This measure has been introduced to raise additional funds, about which the Government has made no bones. When it brought its Budget in last year it said this measure would bring us up to world import parity. It has done that sooner than it anticipated and it has made no bones about that either. It has been introduced to raise money but also to encourage conservation. It is the conservation of our portable fossil fuels which will be of assistance to the rural sector of Queensland. That sector cannot transfer to coal as can many of the major industries. Fortunately, this Government is one which does not think of just today; it thinks of tomorrow. Its whole strategy has been to plan for the future so that this country can move along in orderly development and so that the people in rural Australia who have been disadvantaged will not all of a sudden be slugged by having to change to some alternate method that is not yet even on the horizon. The Government has acted responsibly. We believe that this measure of conservation will ultimately be to the benefit of those people in the rural areas of Australia and in rural industry.

I suppose the most wasteful use of our fossil fuels has been the burning of petrol. On occasion

I have said, and some of my colleagues have mentioned, that the diesel engine provides a most efficient means of transport. Most of the people in rural Australia use diesel tractors and diesel trucks. As I said, the most wasteful use is the burning of petrol. I hope that when the Prices Justification Tribunal considers the passing on of these prices- it has already done one survey and come down with a finding- it will go easy on the users of the liquid petroleum gas and the distillate that comes out of the refineries and will maybe let the petrol burning section bear the brunt a little harder. LPG and distillate are associated with the most fuel efficient sections of our society. LPG used in internal combustion engines provides far less pollution. I will touch on that shortly. It also provides for far less engine wear, far less servicing of engines, far fewer oil changes and those son of things. I think that the PJT should consider the use of LPG and distillate when deciding on fuel increases and should treat the users of those products far more kindly than it treats the petrol burning section of the community.

In Australia we have pretty inefficient motor vehicles, I suppose because we have much cheaper fuel. Australian vehicle manufacturers have given us none too cheap, generally uninspiring, relatively inefficient and thirsty means of transport. Senator Walsh said that higher prices will not necessarily mean less consumption. But they will certainly mean better fuel efficiency. We have only to look at the cars that come from the Continent where prices are more than twice as high as ours to see where the most fuel efficient cars come from and where the most innovation has been with the development of the internal combustion engine. When we consider the cars that come from there and the relatively inefficient fuel burners that we have had put up to us and the fact that we have to protect our own inefficient industry, we realise that high prices can have a quite good effect to the benefit of those people who want to purchase motor vehicles.

This brings me to the subject of pollution and the notorious Australian Design Rule 27A. Probably some of my colleagues, including Senator Young and Senator Messner, will want their 2 bits worth on this subject. Pollution first became noticed in the smog in London in 1952 when about 4,000 lives were lost. It has since become apparent in some of the major cities of the world and, unfortunately, in Sydney and Melbourne. Because of the fact that it worries Sydney and Melbourne we have all had foisted on us not so much the ADR 27a but what the Australian motor vehicle manufacturers have dished up to us as an answer to exhaust pollution. The emissions we get from an exhaust consist mainly of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides. Apparently by some pretty complex series of chemical reactions the nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons react with oxygen in the atmosphere with the sun as a catalyst and we get this smog which can be so devastating. Because of that the Government brought down requirements that vehicles had to meet certain emission control standards- no more than so many grams per kilometre of each of those major pollutants. To do that the motor manufacturers have dished up to us a method by which we generally lean the mixture, retard the spark and recirculate the exhaust gases. Unfortunately this has meant that the power output of the engine has been reduced and as result more fuel has to be used in order to get a pre-ADR 27A power output. So we have ended up in the situation in which we now find ourselves. We may have less pollution- it is very questionable as to whether these regulations are really having the effect which people think they are- but we have less power and we are burning more fuel.

The State and Federal governments when they discussed these regulations should have insisted that at the same time as exhaust emissions are reduced fuel consumption is also reduced. We can learn a lesson in this regard from the United States of America. In that country the Government has insisted that fuel consumption has to be improved at the same time as exhaust emissions are reduced. Unfortunately we did not do it in Australia. The Americans have gone about it in a different way. We are about five years behind them. They have used such things as catalytic converters in their exhaust systems. I believe that one of the Swedish manufacturers, Volvo, has gone a little further by using a small computer at very little extra cost to the converters and at very little cost additional to the cost of what we have put on our cars. It can meet all the fuel emission requirements and be well under them. By using a small computer and rhodium sensor in the exhaust pipe, it can literally feed the right mixture and the right spark advance into the computer so that the vehicle is far more efficient.

There are plenty of ways other than the method that we have of getting better efficiency out of our internal combustion reciprocating engines. We can get better fuel consumption by introducing fuel injection and turbo-charging or stratified charging. Also there is no reason why most vehicles- in Australia they are usually doing long trips at some time or other- cannot have overdrive, not only on manual but also on automatic gear boxes. Or they could have variable speed gear boxes. If a vehicle has to be automatic- and I guess many of our people like the automatic- it could have a lock out torque converter so that there would be no slip at all once a high range had been attained. More attention should be paid to the weight of the vehicle and to aero-dynamic drag and there should be a better design for the tropics. The provision of a smaller glass area would ensure that one did not have to have one’s airconditioner running all the time. We should look at electric cars, and external combustion cars; for instance, the steam car. I think that Mr Pritchard in Victoria has done a tremendous amount of work on this car which causes no pollution whatsoever. It can burn any sort of fuel. We should look at steel belted radial tyres and so on.

I believe that with all this technology there is no reason whatsoever for manufacturing either a 6-cylinder or V8 engine. Any 4-cylinder 2,000 c.c. engine with fuel injection and turbo-charging will give all the power that is needed. When extra power is not needed extra fuel is not burnt. Our manufacturers in Australia have been very tardy with innovation and I believe leave much to be desired. The more that the price of fuel goes up the more they will have to pay attention to fuel economy as more fuel efficient cars come from overseas.

I mentioned previously the burning of liquefied petroleum gas. I think the use of this gas should be almost compulsory for vehicles that spend most of their lives in city areas, such as taxis and delivery vans. Most fork lifts that work in warehouses now use LPG. Vehicles burning LPG meet all Australia Design Rule 27a requirements easily. Their hydrocarbon output is only 12 per cent of that of a petrol burning engine; carbon monoxide output only 1216 per cent and their nitrous oxide output is only 27 per cent of a petrol engine. This is why I suggested that the Prices Justification Tribunal should look sympathetically to LPG when it is looking at the pricing arrangements and it should encourage as many people as possible to use this fuel.

In America, as I mentioned, the manufacturers went the way of the catalytic converters. Unfortunately unleaded fuel is needed for them to work. That raises a problem on its own. To have unleaded petrol requires a vast amount of capital expenditure in the refineries and also means the use of more crude oil to produce fuel of a higher octane rating. So that is not altogether a satisfactory way of dealing with the problem. The

Americans have already developed a lead converter to go on the exhaust system ahead of the catalytic converter.

It was interesting to note that, when the manufacturers in America were screaming about the emission controls that were put on them, the Honda Co. of Japan developed a stratified charge engine which was an embarrassment to Detroit because it easily met all the emission standards at the same time as the major manufacturers were saying that it could not be done. The Honda stratified charge engine works by having a small firing chamber in which a rich mixture is inducted which when fired in turn fires a very lean mixture in the main chamber which is the main propulsing charge in the cylinder. This works very effectively and shows what innovation can do. In fairness, the Ford Motor Co. has worked out a system similar to this whereby a very lean mixture is inducted into the cylinder but a fuel injector injects a rich mixture around the spark plug at the time of firing. This has the same effect. It shows what can be done without the debilitating result that the motor manufacturers in Australia have given us.

I believe that there is a man on the Continent who has developed a new type of cylinder head which when installed on an ordinary engine with no other modifications can give a far better combustion of the fuel mixture and a far lower level of polluting emissions. Often a small concern or even an individual without any outside help has been far more innovative than the big manufacturers, who have screamed about what is presently required of them. I hope that by encouraging conservation we can put the squeeze on the major manufacturers to come up with a far better answer than they have done. I think that the Government should tell them that they have to meet certain mile-per-gallon requirements in the near future.

I wish to talk briefly about alternative fuels. I speak specifically of alcohol- ethanol and methanol being the main two. As the price of petrol goes up it will not be long before their use is viable, firstly mixed with petrol and then as complete fuels themselves. If we start working on these fuels now, another industry in Australia would be created. Methanol can be used in a 15:85 ratio with petrol and ethanol in a 20:80 ratio without any alteration of the compression ratio or the fuel air mixture of an engine. The use of fuel alcohol is not new. It was used in Europe for a considerable time in the 1930s and in Queensland from 1929 to, I believe, as late as 1956. Mr Acting Deputy President, you would probably be aware that alcohol was used in a 20 per cent mixture with petrol in North Queensland where it was available. In Sarina we have the largest power alcohol distillery in the southern hemisphere. The alcohol is distilled from molasses as a by-product of the cane industry.

Methanol can be produced from any municipal, industrial or agricultural waste, wood or natural gas. But, more importantly, it can be made from coal. We should forget all the talk about converting coal to oil and get on with the job of converting coal to methanol because more energy per ton of coal can be produced by converting coal to methanol and a far greater range of coal can be used in this process. We should be investigating this. As I said, we can use methanol in a 1 5: 85 ratio without any alteration to engines. But a properly modified vehicle can use pure methanol. Indeed, a lot of racing cars do, but they are modified fork.

In the agricultural areas of Queensland we are looking towards the use of ethanol. As I said, it has been used previously. In Nebraska in the United States of America experiments are being conducted with maize ethanol. Cars are running on cane ethanol in Brazil. A massive amount of work is being done in Brazil with cassava. An interesting effect of using either of these alcohols in a ratio with petrol is that they raise the octane rating of the fuel. As I mentioned before, with the catalytic converters in America a vehicle has to have a lead filter in the exhaust system before the converter. A fuel with up to 89 octane rating can be produced without lead in a mixture of 20 per cent ethanol and 80 per cent petrol.

People in inner city areas are becoming more concerned about lead pollution, especially lead in the human body. We know what lead poisoning can do but to the present we are not aware that it is having any deleterious effect on people living in the inner city areas. But that does not mean that it will not in the future. The lead that is put in petrol to give anti-knock properties and increase the octane rating is released in particulate form into the atmosphere and people breathe it in. As I said, with a 20 per cent ethanol to 80 per cent petrol mixture no lead whatsoever is required to produce a fuel with an 89 octane rating, which is standard fuel, and only a small amount of lead is required to bring it up to premium grade fuel. So there is a trade-off in this process plus the fact that the production of fuel alcohol would establish another Australian industry. As the price of fuel rises with world parity it will be more viable for us to do this. At present the alcohol is distilled from molasses. There is no reason on earth why when we have a peak crop and there is not a market for the sugar that standover cane cannot be used and instead of processing it to make sugar and molasses the juice could go straight into ethanol manufacturing.

We could be looking at areas which could grow sugar beet exclusively for ethanol manufacture and also the growing of cassava which is coming under increasing attention around the world. In a small town in southern Queensland, Boonah, Richter Engineering Pty Ltd is doing a lot of work on cassava harvesters. It is significant that the only successful harvester for cassava in the world has been manufactured in Queensland. Yet Australia is doing the least towards developing this alternative fuel source. The harvester was manufactured from a modification to an arrowroot harvester. It has been shown around the world. It is the only one competing against all the big engineering works of England and the Continent and it is doing it effectively. The tubes of the cassava plant can be used for ethanol manufacture. The leaves have a high protein content and can be used as a chaff or hay for cattle feeding. The stalk itself can be used for the planting and growing of further cassava plants. It is not planted in the same way as cane where the stalk is laid in the ground. Cassava is planted upright. This is something at which we could and should be looking.

In the Budget the Government is, as well as putting up fuel prices, which is what we are debating today, encouraging conservation methods by allowing $ 15m for research into and development of alternative fuels. I think that is what Australia should be doing. Senator Walsh did mention public transport. I think that much as we would desire the public to use public transport to a greater degree the average citizen in an affluent developed country does have a love affair with his motor vehicle. No matter what we do, short of what might be done in a totalitarian state, I do not think we will break up that cosy relationship. We have to accept the fact that the ordinary person likes his motor vehicle. We have to live with that fact. We should make public transport as efficient as we can and encourage as many people as we can to use it. I guess that public transport will never actually pay for itself. Of course a consideration of the cost to the community in getting people to use public transport is a different matter. The motor vehicle is here and is here to stay. We have to make it more efficient. We have to provide alternative fuels. I believe that the law of supply and demand and the fact that there are more efficient manufacturers than the major manufacturers in Australia will help us to achieve those objectives. If we can encourage those sorts of things we will have achieved something. I commend the legislation.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I support the Opposition in opposing this measure. The audacity of the Government in bringing forward this measure at this time is really quite breathtaking. It is in charge of Government Business in this place yet it brings on for debate legislation to provide rebates to crude oil producers before it brings on for debate the legislation which imposes the vicious inflationary tax on consumers of oil products. This chamber is being asked to agree to the forgoing of revenue from the producers of Australian crude before it is being asked to agree to the placing of an extraordinarily unexpected impost on the Australian people. I believe that this timetabling speaks eloquently of the Government’s priorities and of the lobbies to which it responds or which it is most anxious to appease. The consumers of oil products can wait for parliamentary debate on the legislation which will impose this tax. In the meantime the extractors of our energy resources have the Government ‘s ear. The rest of the oil industry and its consumers have the Government’s foot, dealing blow after blow.

The Opposition has over the past several years indicated its general support for a gradual move to import parity price being paid for Australian crude. A gradual move is what we have supported, not this sudden and unexpected surge to immediate parity. We have all the time, as was pointed out by Senator Walsh, reserved the right to examine the structuring and the components of this so-called import parity price. After all, the price is composed of various elements, very few of which have any relationship to reality in the sense that the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries prices are set by a cartel of producers. The price OPEC establishes bears no relationship whatsoever to the production costs in the Middle East. It is a means whereby money is obtained from the international consumers of oil. The freight component in the import parity price also is most questionable. As I understand it, the large element in the freight component is the socalled AFRA- the average freight rate assessment- which bears no relationship whatsoever to the average cost of long term charters used by many companies which bring oil to Australia and of course bears no relationship to the question of transport in oil-company owned vessels where transfer pricing is practised and abused. We may well bring this up in the Committee stage.

The Labor Party has in reserving at all times the right to question the actual components that go into the structuring of the import parity price in general agreed to a gradual move to parity, but what we of the Opposition do object to and why we oppose this measure is the fact that this Government’s pricing arrangements as announced on Budget night make an immediate impact on refiners, distributors and consumers of oil products. There are 16,000 distributors throughout Australia- ordinary service station owners. There are refiners throughout Australia who now find they need greatly increased working capital to purchase stocks. Out of the blue a company like Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd- for which honourable senators might not expect me to express sympathy, but I can understand its predicament in this instance- finds on Budget night that it needs millions more dollars than it had expected to need for working capital. There may be a significant decline in sales in the immediate short term whilst motorists reel under the impact. At the same time refiners will find that the cost of their raw materials will rise by 50 per cent overnight.

Of course the same applies to the ordinary service station proprietor who has to pay for his stocks. Throughout Australia 16,000 distributors suddenly find that the cost of acquiring their raw product has gone up overnight. Where will they obtain the extra working capital? The Prices Justification Tribunal will not permit them to pass on any costs related to the obtaining of this extra working capital. It is quite clear- I accept thisthat no firm or individual can be immune from a change in his financial position on Budget night. When a clear understanding was fostered by the Government that the move to import parity would be only gradual then one can describe what happened on Budget night- the move to full import parity to refiners- only as the culmination of a massive deception which led business to make decisions in good faith. It now finds those decisions valueless. I can assure honourable senators that no future Labor Government will treat industry in such a contemptible manner.

Not only is there an immediate apparent effect on the refiners and the distributors of oil products but also there is a massive inflationary impact on consumers. Let me give the Senate a couple of down to earth examples of the inflationary effect of this measure. Firstly, I deal with the transport of goods and persons throughout Australia. Outside this building earlier today we saw those great semi-trailers which roll down the highways between the State capitals. These vehicles carry about 20 tons in freight and average about 4lA miles to the gallon. A semi-trailer uses about 124 gallons of petrol on the 560-mile trip between Sydney and Melbourne. The increase of 16c in the price of a gallon of petrol as a result of the Budget will add about $40 to the cost of transporting each lorry load of freight between those cities. That simple sample is an indication of the impact which this measure will have on transport throughout Australia. Anyone who talks, as I did earlier today to the chaps who drive those semi-trailers, will be assured that as a result of the decision announced on Budget night there will be many more semi-trailers in the repossession yards in the great cities throughout Australia.

It is quite clear that high fuel prices are significant in their impact on the economy. As was pointed out by my colleague Senator Walsh, the impact on an island State such as Tasmania which is dependent largely on airlines for personal travel to the mainland will be severe. Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia can each expect about $14m to be added to their costs in the next financial year. It has been estimated that on that basis we could expect a price increase in domestic fares of over 3 per cent- yet another effect of the Government’s hasty move announced on Budget night. Perhaps what this Government is doing can be illustrated best by considering a simple staple food such as bread. Wheat farmers will spend an extra $700 harvesting their crop, as a result of the impost announced on Budget night. It will cost more to truck wheat to the silos, more to haul it in diesel trains to the cities and more to mill it, and more to bake the bread and deliver it. Let us see how the consumer price index deals with this attack on a staple of everyone ‘s diet, such as bread.

The cost to farmers is quite horrendous. Having just pulled out of a rural recession, they were greeted in the Budget with increased income tax on whatever they managed to make after paying the damaging extra slug in fuel costs. It is no wonder that we read statements such as that made by Mr Barry Cassell, a former director of the National Country Party. He made his statement on 4 July, a couple of days after the abandonment by the Government of the resources tax. He realised on 4 July that with the abandonment of a resources tax the consumers and not the extractors of petroleum products would end up funding the Government’s Consolidated Revenue Fund. Is it any wonder that he made this statement which, one may think, makes a rather pointed observation about the futility of rural organisations supporting the National Country Party. He said in Rockhampton on 4 July:

When rural industries collapsed and strong political leadership became necessary there was little evidence of a dividend return on farmers ‘invested political funds.

If a former director of the National Country Party on 4 July realised, as I have no doubt he did, that oil consumers rather than oil extractors would have to pay into Consolidated Revenue and went on record as saying that farmers are throwing away their money by giving it to the National Country Party, his words should carry some weight. However, being more perceptive, Tasmanian farmers and their organisations some years ago saw the move of the National Country Party towards appeasing the mining lobby rather than serving the interests of rural industry. Several years ago farmers in Tasmania and their organisations rebuffed the attempts of the National Country Party to organise in Tasmania, so much so that Mr Bill Cassimatty, a man of very considerable farming expertise and political talent in Tasmania, declined to field a National Country Party team in the last Federal election. So much for the National Country Party looking after the interests of those engaged in agriculture. We cannot expect it to say anything because its interests are now firmly attached to the mining lobby.

Why then did the Government decide that despite the inflationary impact of this particular measure it should go ahead? The answer is clear. It was a measure designed simply to raise revenue, nothing more. Over one-third of the extra revenue to be raised this financial year, some $676m, is to come from the consumers of petroleum products as a result of this decision. There is no other reason for this measure. Some other reasons were advanced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his speech on 15 August. He spoke of the decision being taken in the light of both the budgetary situation and the desirability of improving energy use and the allocation of resources. That is absolutely ludicrous. Can any honourable senator opposite give me an indication of the comprehensive energy policy of the Government within which this sort of pricing arrangement might make sense? A statement by Mr Newman, the Minister for National Development, was reported in last Saturday’s Examiner. In the context of Mr Newman defending the increase in oil prices, the report states:

Mr Newman stressed that this pricing policy was the key to development of a national energy policy. It -

That, is the pricing policy- would provide a framework in which oil conservation, oil exploration and the encouragement of alternative energy strategies could be further disclosed.

There is the admission that this Government determines a pricing policy in order to fund the Budget. In other words, it determines a revenue raising policy- that is the key element- and the energy consumption patterns will develop within that framework. No doubt that is the case; but would it not be more rational for the Government to devise an optimum energy consumption policy, bring it before the nation for debate and refinement, and then effect a price structure in order to serve that energy policy? An energy policy comes before a pricing decision. To have the pricing decision first as the framework within which an energy policy should be developed is ludicrous; but it shows how threadbare is the reason given by the Treasurer to the public on Budget night.

If I thought for a moment that any of the extra revenues accruing to the Government or the money channelled to Esso-BHP were to be used in the pursuit of an advanced energy conservation program or research into alternative sources of energy, many of which were indicated by Senator Collard, I could be somewhat sympathetic to the proposal. Senator Collard mentioned that there is need for research into, for example, the sugar beet industry in Tasmania as a possible source of ethanol. There is also the question of refinement and further use within Australia of valuable and wasting assets, a scheme which is envisaged by the proposed petrochemical plant in South Australia. If there were any indication that any of the extra revenues going to either the Government or EssoBHP would be directed to these ends I could go along with the Government’s proposal to an extent. No doubt the Tasmanian and South Australian Liberal senators, despite the fact that there is no indication that this is where the money will go, will vote for this measure. After all, apparently they cannot dissent even in the party room on any aspect or line of the Budget; so we cannot expect them to dissent in the Parliament.

The key point is that there is no provision in this Bill for the directing of any part of the forgone revenue- the rebate of hundreds of millions of dollars which this Bill effects- to exploration and development in the energy sector as a whole or in the oil sector in particular. In the Australian Financial Review on 7 September, the Chanticleer column has an article headed: ‘BHP robs oil to pay steel and minerals’. The article shows clearly that for most of this decade BHP has been using cash generated from oil to invest in steel and minerals. It shows that the company generated cash of $446m from Bass Strait, after exploration expenses, in the last four years of which only $ 1 94m was invested in capital works in the oil division, including $6 lm spent on buying into and paying calls on the North West Shelf venture. By contrast, capital investment in steel and minerals was well in excess of cash generation. The gap was made up with oil money plus loan and equity raisings. The article does not take into account sums representing working capital.

It is quite clear that BHP’s steel and minerals division has been extremely successful in getting funds from the greatly enhanced cash flow and profits from the oil division. My point is this: What BHP has done is perfectly legal, honest and proper, and I do not agree with the title which Chanticleer gave to his article- ‘BHP robs’. That is emotive and gives an unfortunate impression of the situation. What the community needs to understand, to use a well known expression, is that by forgoing a resources tax and allowing the company to retain these huge profits, as it does by virtue of this rebate, the community is paying for the development of BHP’s steel and minerals division. The community is paying for exploration and development that might take place in the oil fields. BHP is, in effect, selected by the Government as its agent. If that is the case, vigorous supervision should be exercised to ensure that the agent puts money where the community desperately requires it, namely, into energy exploration and development. That is not done under this measure. We are forgoing revenue from the public purse. We are granting rebates of hundreds of millions of dollars, and nowhere is there an assurance given that the money will be spent in energy resource exploration or development. I have not been able to trace what may happen to the funds going to Esso, but I can assure the Senate that I intend to find out. The point I have made is that the Government ought to announce a policy of directing these funds to the sorts of projects about which Senator Collard talked at length.

What does this Bill do? Let us get down to the basics of it. In respect of 80 per cent of old oil in the Gippsland Basin, the producers will receive $12.59 a barrel from the refiners and consumers. Of that $12.59, they will pay $10 a barrel to the Government. There is no rebate. In respect of 20 per cent of old oil in the same basin, the producers will receive $12.59 a barrel from the refiners and consumers and pay only $3 a barrel to the Government after this rebate. As far as

Esso-BHP is concerned, this measure brings about an average return of $4.30 a barrel for the whole field, of which BHP’s share is 75 million barrels. As the years go on, the proportion of oil in respect of which the oil companies pay only $3 a barrel rather than $10 a barrel- that is, after they get the rebate-will be 20 per cent, increased the following year to 35 per cent, increased the following year to 50 per cent, and thereafter it is negotiable up to 100 per cent. Correspondingly, of course, government revenue decreases. This obviously generates a massive cash flow, which is probably more important to consider than any profits which must also result.

As was pointed out by Senator Walsh as recently as last- September, Mr Anthony in replying to a question without notice said in respect of this tremendous cash flow: there are good and sound reasons for looking at a secondary tax or a resources tax in respect of oil that has already been produced in Australia and in respect of areas in which profits will be greatly increased because of government decisions’.

The Labor Party believes, and until 2 July the Government believed, that these extraordinary profits created by government fiat- they bear no relation to the cost of production but are necessitated by the action of the OPEC cartel- should be shared between the community and the companies in an equitable manner. The 1 977-78 Budget gave windfall profits to producers. In 1977-78 Esso-BHP received $1 19m in windfall profits. This year it will receive $298m. As I said, there is an indication by Government that the proportion of oil which will attract $3 a barrel levy rather than the $10 a barrel levy will increase to 35 per cent of production next year, 50 per cent the year after and so on. It is negotiable up to 100 per cent. Despite that tremendous cash flow, for some reason on 2 July the Government abandoned any attempt to recover part of those extraordinary profits.

The Labor Party does have a constructive alternative to this approach by the Government. What we would have done, of course, was gradually move to world parity within an overall energy policy. That opportunity has now passed. We would have levied a resources tax on extraordinary profits. In respect of the Esso-BHP field, I fear that that opportunity has probably passed also. When we present our Budget in a couple of years’ time it will unfortunately be too late in that the production from those fields will by then be declining. The years in which to levy a resources tax on the production from that particular basin are 1978 to 1981.

Many people do not understand or are fearful of the notion of a resources tax but, of course, such a tax applies only when the profits are excessive. It applies in a clearly understood sense- in the sense that they represent a rate of return on funds employed in excess of the rate required to attract funds to an industry or project in question. With regard to oil we would probably have calculated a threshold rate separately for each project and then taxed the profits which remained after the deduction of the company income which corresponded to the return necessary to attract or to retain the investment in that project. Thus, by definition and certainly by consultation with the companies concerned- this Government appears to have lost that art if it ever possessed it- the levying of a resources tax has no adverse impact on decisions to explore, to produce or to invest, for it deliberately levied on those profits which remain only after we deduct the level necessary to attract investment to the project.

This is not something which is taken out of the academic air or out of some ideological preoccupation. A study of the risk borne by companies engaged in oil exploration and development was conducted by BHP and that company presented the results of that study to the Industries Assistance Commission’s inquiry into crude oil pricing. BHP concluded, and the IAC agreed more or less, that investors required an annual return 12 per centage points higher than the long term government bond rate in order to compensate them for the higher risks of investing in oil shares rather than in government bonds. On the basis of that submission the IAC suggested that a threshold rate of return of, say, 25 per cent may be reasonable for the petroleum industry. Those figures were on a before-company-tax basis. Expressed on an after-company-tax basis it is about 15 per cent. Using that basis of a threshold rate of return of 1 5 per cent after company tax, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table prepared by the Finance, Industries, Trade Development Group of the Legislative Research Service which shows the revenue raising potential of a resource tax applied to Gippsland crude oil, natural gas and liquid petroleum gas production.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

As mentioned earlier, an after-company-tax threshold rate of15 per cent has been used. However, because most large capital outlays associated with the project were incurred before 1976, and given the high profitability of the project, all capital outlays and past losses are likely to have been recouped (with interest) by 1978-79, the first year for which figures are given in the table. Consequently, the figures in column 7 are the same as in column 6.

Columns 1 to 4, assessable receipts, are based on estimated crude oil and natural gas production figures supplied by industry sources, and on the crude oil pricing policy announced in the 1977-78 Budget. It is assumed that all the natural gas is sold at 32c per thousand cubic feet, whilst the parity and non-party prices for crude are assumed to be $ 13 and $2.33 per barrel respectively.*

Pricing and production estimates were not available for LPG. Consequently, some very rough approximations had to be used. It was assumed that, on average, LPG annual production would be about1½ million tonnes, at an average price of around $100 per tonne. This would give an annual revenue from this source of around $ 1 50m.

Column 5, deductible payments, consists of estimated current operating costs (excluding depreciation and interest), company income tax liability and capital outlays in the year incurred. It has been assumed, for ease of calculation, that the company income tax system is also levied on the basis of immediate expensing of capital outlays. A company tax rate of 46 per cent has been used. The cost figures have been privately confirmed by industry sources as providing ‘reasonable estimates’.

The sixth column (and, for reasons explained earlier, the seventh column) is simply the difference between columns 4 and 5.

Columns 8 to 1 1 show estimated receipts from the resources tax levied at the rates of 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent and 70 per cent respectively. All figures in the table are in 1977 prices.

Senator TATE:

– The table shows that at even the lowest conceivable rate of a 40 per cent resource tax on excess profits some $588m would be raised for the community revenue over the three years 1978 to 1981. Those moneys- almost $600m- would then be available for the vigorous investigation of alternative energy research and development so needed in Australia. I believe that this perfectly reasonable scheme of support for oil exploration and development is backed by the overwhelming majority of Australian public opinion. When one speaks to members of the community one realises that they can appreciate the difference between ordinary profit and excess profit. They recognise excess profit and they feel that there is no interference with the ordinary course of industry decision making in a government coming in and taking some of the cream which results from government decision. For some reason the imposition of this particular resources tax was abandoned by the Government on 2 July and the only reason in the absence of any technical Treasury reasons advanced by the Government- that has not been done- is simply that the Government is succumbing to political pressure from those industries which extract Australian natural energy resources.

Senator Young:

– I do not believe that.

Senator TATE:

– No other reason has been advanced, senator.

Senator Young:

– They are sound government policies. You people should know. You drove all the investors away from Australia. You should know that.

Senator TATE:

– There is a very bland, four paragraph statement by the Government of 2 July which gives no indication of any technical reason why a resources tax could be levied. The most that the statement does is to repeat what is a complete misunderstanding of a resources tax. It states that such a tax would discourage exploration and development decisions. By definition, as the Industries Assistance Commission accepted, the whole nature of a resources tax is such that the tax is levied only at such a rate and on excessive profits as would take into account what moneys are required to attract investment to the particular project under consideration. By definition, a resources tax can have no adverse effect on exploration, development or investment decisions. There was simply a refusal by the Government to do what ought to have been done- what I believe even an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald indicated should be done- namely, to take an equitable share of the tremendous profits generated by the Government’s own decisions, which profits bear no relationship whatsoever to ordinary market forces.

In any case, I believe that the Australian people are beginning to see that this Government does not regard our natural energy resources as belonging to the community. In law our natural resources do belong to the community, as the mechanism of vesting legal title in the Crown shows. The Australian Labor Party strongly believes that these natural energy resources belong to the Australian people. We of the Labor Party will act on that belief. After generously rewarding business enterprise for taking risks in exploring and developing our community resources, the community should get the major benefit of the revenue flowing from these extraordinary profits. As consumers of dwindling energy commodities the community has had to bear extraordinary prices. We would bear them with a better grace if we knew that some of those profits were being returned to Consolidated Revenue for community purposes. For these reasons, I am pleased to support the Opposition in its opposition to this rebate of revenue which properly should go to Consolidated Revenue.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I listened this afternoon to the debate on this legislation and I must say that I was fascinated with the attitude and arguments adopted by Opposition members. The old old bogy of profit still comes through as a dirty word. I was fascinated to hear Senator Walsh going on and on in condemnation of companies that had done so much for the development of resources in this country. I do commend Senator Tate for his well prepared and presented speech. Indeed, I conveyed that to him personally when we rose for dinner, but even his speech came through as expressing basically the same philosophy, a philsophy which, when the Australian Labor Party was in power, helped to destroy so much that had been developed in this country in the post-war years.

As I recall it Senator Tate said: ‘Now, of course, the producers have the Government’s ear’. In the two long years when Labor was in office it had the whole lot- the oil and mineral producers- and its policy literally drove the explorers out of Australia. One has only to look at what has happened with development compared with what would have happened. As a South Australian, I would refer to the Redcliff proposal- a petro-chemical industry- which tragically did not eventuate. Through no fault of the State Government- which I make clear, is a Labor Government- but through every fault of the Government of that time, the Whitlam Government, and its interference, Redcliff has not been established; it is still a cliff-hanger so far as South Australia is concerned. It is a project that would have been able to utilise so much of the liquid resources of this country from the Cooper Basin- virtually in the centre of Australia- and would have given a lot of incentive to companies to go out and explore further. One cannot expect companies to go out and explore by investing millions and millions of dollars and then sit back with virtually a useless resource because there is no ready market for it. That is the position with regard to exploration in the Cooper Basin.

The other great problem that has to be faced- it affects both South Australia and New South Wales- is the fact that as the dry gas runs out, the producing companies will have two alternatives. One is to flare off the liquids, which can make up 30 per cent to 60 per cent of the resource in particular wet gas wells. The other is to use it in a project such as Redcliff, a petrochemical industry, or perhaps try to store it somewhere else at considerable expense. As I said earlier, the attitude of the Opposition fascinates and astounds me: It still speaks in such critical terms of the oil companies and accuses the present Government of having its ears twigged by those companies because this Government is doing something on a national basis, for national security in the future. This is a long-term planning project, and I will have more to say about that later.

Let us look at the history of oil exploration in Australia over the years. We recall that the Labor Party came to power in December of 1972. Exploration, following the discovery of gas in the Bass Strait region in particular, escalated suddently throughout the country. In 1973 some 69 wells, on-shore and off-shore, were drilled. In 1 974, as a result of the first year of the Labor Government’s term of office, with the attitudes that I have mentioned, the number of wells drilled dropped from 69 to 54. In 1975 the number was right down to 23-23 from 69. In 1976 the downturn continued, the figure dropped to 21 wells drilled. I know that the present Government had by then returned to power, but one does not suddenly move out and start drilling wells overnight. One of the things that happens is that companies have to find oil drilling rigs. Virtually all of those rigs had left Australia. They had gone to other countries because here there was no incentive left for the oil companies. There was no incentive left for the companies which owned the drilling rigs, so by 1 976 they had left our shores.

As a result, Australia experienced a great delay in the resumption of exploration. Although there should have been an increase in the number of wells beyond 69, unfortunately in 1976 the number slid right down to 21. The number stayed at 2 1 in 1 977, but it is interesting to note that the projection for 1978- dependent, I must say in qualification, upon certain economic circumstances, upon seismographic surveys and upon many other factors such as labour, including industrial troubles- stands at a figure of between 40 and 68 wells. I want to repeat those figures- between 40 and 68. Only 30 wells may be drilled, but what I am attempting to get through to this chamber is the fact that oil companies have returned to this country and are prepared to invest multi-millions of dollars to go out looking for oil. So let us not have any more of this ballyhoo- I could use other language- on the part of the Labor Party, whereby its members condemn the so-called multinationals as though they were sinners, ripping off everything in this country. We need outside expertise and finance to come into this country if we are to exploit, to find, the resources both on-shore and off-shore.

Much has been said today about a resources tax and what the Government should do with it. Let us go back again to what happened when Labor was in power. It did not bring in a resources tax. It went further: It wanted to nationalise every section of the industry if it could. It frightened hell- if I might use that word- out of the exploration companies and out of overseas investors, who consequently left our shores. What we have been finding in the last few weeks, since the presentation of the Budget, including this excise Bill, is that overseas companies are turning to Australia, to invest their money here, to invest risk capital which will help in the further development of this country. Our coming out with a resources tax- with a resources tax it is not where one starts but where one finishes- is exactly what had overseas companies scared. They had one bitter lesson in Australia and they were not prepared to take the risk of being taught a second bitter lesson in this country. If we want to develop Australia we must be prepared to accept that, in return for high risk, there must be high profit.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Sell it out to the multinationals as fast as you can.

Senator YOUNG:

– Here we go again: That is the sort of philosophy that destroyed so much of the initiative and incentive in this country to get on with the job of exploration to develop our resources. So let us have no more of this rubbish. Let us look at the history of exploration. What are the costs of exploration today? It is so expensive that it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to drill a well on-shore, irrespective of whether or not one finds oil. Discussions are being held by the companies, by the consortium, in the northwest of Western Australia, a highly potential area which is full of promise but which is extremely expensive to explore. It has been estimated that each well on the North West Shelf could cost between $6m and $10m. Such investment is a hit or miss proposition. If exploration companies are lucky enough to hit in sufficient quantities for a commercial well, the expenditure really starts to grow. They have to start looking at the development of platforms which can cost up to $200m each. They have to look at the expense of pipelines, which can cost $200m or more. So the initial risk capital is colossal and if companies are lucky in their search the investment capital is colossal. Such companies deserve the right, the opportunity and the expectation to get some profitability from their risk enterprise.

I have mentioned the risks. I shall now relate a little history. It is estimated that for every 200 exploration wells drilled on-shore in Australia so far one commercial well has been discovered. In off-shore exploration the chance of success is increased. Bass Strait, with the exception of the North Sea, has the history of being the best area in the world for luck, if I might put it that way. Off-shore exploration so far has produced one successful well for every 30 wells drilled at a cost of some $6m a well. That is a lot of money. I emphasise again that exploration involves risk capital. So much risk is involved the whole way through the venture that there is a need for companies to be given some incentive to look for oil, which is of benefit to this country as well as to themselves. Hence we start to talk about production levies. We heard much about them from Senator Walsh.

What is the overall position in Australia today? It is estimated that by 1985, unless we find more crude oil in Australia or offshore from Australia, we will have something like 30 per cent self-sufficiency. The cost will then increase because we will have to start importing more oil at a high cost. For a long time we have had cheap oil in this country. I said in the Senate some 18 months ago that the days of cheap crude oil and petrol prices were over whichever way one looks at it. Unless we find more oil we will have to import more oil. I repeat that by 1985 we will be down to 30 per cent self-sufficiency or less. Hence the import cost will go up. We know that at present it costs something like $2.30 a barrel for indigenous crude oil. I stand corrected on that, but that is the position as I understand it. The cost of overseas oil is $12.60 a barrel. So there is this great gap. By giving a higher price to the exploring, producing companies, we could increase our known reserves, as happened in Bass Strait. Because Bass Strait oil was brought up to import parity reserves increased by some $400m- a 20 per cent increase in Australia’s reserves- and more wells have become commercial propositions.

Again I express my amazement at the continued opposition of the Australian Labor Party to higher oil prices. Of course this Bill will introduce extra costs, but they amount only to some 3c a litre. The price of crude oil and petrol will go up in any case because in last year’s Budget, the Government introduced its import parity proposals- proposals that were based specifically upon the need to encourage further exploration in this country in the hope that we would find more resources in the way of liquid hydrocarbons and dry hydrocarbons. These proposals were also designed to encourage the conservation of fuel in this country. Australia has had the cheapest crude oil of any country. We have been a lucky country. In Europe petrol prices have gone up to 30c a litre or more whereas in this country, with the increase in the excise, the price will go up to 2 lc a litre. To me that in itself is very important. We are hearing so much today in this debate of how much more petrol will cost in Australia. It will cost more, but we have been lucky that it has not cost a lot more much earlier. I repeat that we have had the cheapest petrol in the world.

As the Government said in last year’s Budget, there was a need to do something about oil prices. The Government was doing something about it. It introduced a sliding scale so that by 1981 producers will receive each year import parity prices for six million barrels or for 50 per cent of the production of a field, whichever is the greater. In real terms that means something like 60 per cent of the production would be sold at import parity prices. A production levy of $2 a barrel, repayable to the Government, was increased to $3. Let me make it clear that the Government’s crude oil policy is not a rake-off for the companies. There has been criticism by Senator Walsh about all the increased prices. Let us have a look at some of the prices in other parts of the world. The cost per litre of motor spirit in the United States of America is 15c; in New Zealand, 25c; in the United Kingdom, 26.2c; in Sweden, 30.9c; in Spain, 32.9c; in West Germany, 34.2c; in Austria, 35.8c; in The Netherlands, 38.9c; in France, 40.1c; and in

Italy, 48.8c. The increased price in Australia is 21.6c. Perhaps in some ways that is affecting some people. Unfortunately there has been an increase in the price of fuel.

With this legislation the Government has virtually brought forward what it proposed to do with these import parity proposals. It is giving companies more incentive to find more resources for this country. Present resources are scarce and are being depleted. It is also trying to improve its revenue to overcome a deficit that was created by the Labor Party during the times of high inflation when it was in power. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has made this perfectly clear. The excise is a revenue winner for the Government. There is a need to look at all these aspects. On top of this the Government has made sure that it will encourage conservation in this country. I heard Senator Walsh this afternoon say ‘Rubbish. Prices will have no effect whatsoever on conservation’. I am fascinated by the wisdom of Senator Walsh; but, at the same time, as an Australian I am glad that he is not a member of the Industries Assistance Commission. Let me refer to the IAC report on crude oil pricing of 30 September 1976. The summary states:

The terms of reference for this inquiry ask the Commission to make recommendations on the price to September 1 980 of indigenous crude oil discovered before 14 September 1975.

It goes on:

The prices which local producers of crude oil currently receive are set by the Commonwealth Government. These prices are considerably below those which could be obtained in the absence of price control. Crude oil from the Gippsland fields, for example, which accounts for over 90 per cent of local production, is priced at $2.33 per barrel; its value on a free market is estimated to be at least $ 1 1 per barrel.

I am quoting from the report of 1976. It then states:

The pricing situation limits the returns to local producers and subsidises users of petroleum products . . .

This pricing situation has a number of undesirable consequences for the way resources are used.

Senator Walsh:

– Now read the recommendation for a resources tax.

Senator YOUNG:

-I think I should repeat statement:

This pricing situation has a number of undesirable consequences for the way resources are used.

The report states:

First, it encourages increased consumption of a scarce resource.

I repeat, for Senator Walsh’s benefit:

First, it encourages increased consumption of a scarce resource.

The report continues:

Second, investment in projects to expand the supply of indigenous crude oil is discouraged.

The report shows that in this country there has been no discouragement of use to conserve a resource which is scarce not only in Australia but also worldwide, and also that there has been no encouragement whatsoever for companies to get out to find more indigenous crude for Australia, which, in the long term, will give us greater security in regard to a depleting resource.

One can go on. I take on board what was said today by Senator Collard on emission control. I think it is a scandalous waste of a scarce resource. Honourable senators opposite talk about increased cost to the motorist. They should get the two Labor governments in New South Wales and South Australia to do something rational about emission control. It has been estimated that emission control will cost the Australian motorist some $300m in the next five years. The money is totally wasted, apart from easing the problem of pollution and smog in cities such as Sydney. Honourable senators opposite should persuade Mr Wran and Mr Dunstan to get rid of emission control and thereby save the Australian motorist some $300m. What are honourable senators opposite doing about that? Nothing. No doubt, as time goes on, we will hear more about emission control in further debates.

I said a long time ago that crude oil prices would increase; that the days of cheap crude oil were over, whatever way we looked at it. The Government has brought forward something that was to be carried out over a longer period. We must commend the Government. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has commended Australia on the economic policies it has adopted. Australia has one of the best inflationary trends in the world. Let us not start haggling about the economic and fiscal policies of this country. Let us admit that the OECD, which has some ability through its involvement in a cross-section of the world, has commended the policies and the inflationary trends of this country. This is entirely different from what happened when honourable senators opposite were sitting on this side of the chamber.

The Government, through this legislation, will be able to reduce the deficit. The deficit is still causing grave problems. At the same time the legislation will encourage conservation of a scarce resource. We hope that overall the encouragement of conservation and the encouragement of companies to get out and risk their capital will be for the benefit of Australia. Although we realise that the extra revenue earned will affect some in the community, in totality it will be for the benefit of Australia in the longer term. We will overcome the problems that were created in so many ways when the Labor Party was in government in this country for three long years.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The purpose of the Excise Amendment Bill 1978 is to allow for a rebate on the excise duty payable on certain categories of indigenous crude oil. Listening to the contribution of Senator Young, one would not think that that was what we were debating. The legislation is required to bring into effect the Government’s decision that all indigenous crude oil is to be priced at import parity levels. The principal thrust of the legislation is to boost revenue to the Government. All the pious platitudes of the Government cannot cover up the fact that the principal purpose of the legislation is to reduce the deficit. It is not part of an overall energy conservation policy. This Government has no such approach or policy. The prime purpose of the legislation is to assist the Government in its general direction of trying to boost revenue as it has failed in its other direction of building up revenues and reducing expenditures generally through the Budget. That broad aspect will be debated later. We will probably then have the opportunity to discuss some of the extraneous matters that Senator Young has raised in his meanderings. That is all we can say about his contribution.

The Opposition does not support the Government’s proposition. It goes in a direction that is completely different from the Government’s alleged strategy which is to reduce inflation. I do not think there is any doubt that the drastic increase that will come about as a result of this legislation and the subsequent piece of legislation will add greatly to the cost of living. The price of petrol, even Senator Young concedes, will rise considerably. If we take into account the increase in the price of petrol brought about by the 1977 Budget and the increase that inevitably will follow from this Budget- approval has been given recently by the Prices Justification Tribunal for an increase; it has even invited the oil companies to make further submissions if they are not satisfied with the increase that has been granted already- we can expect that the price of petrol will have increased by something like 30 per cent. This will have a tremendous effect upon the general cost of goods and their transportation and distribution in this country.

Figures which I have been able to get seem to indicate that the cost of distributing goods in this country approximates 30 per cent of the total cost of goods. I am not able to assert that to my complete satisfaction because I have not been able to get all the figures. If that is true the increase which flows from this year’s Budget will have a dramatic effect upon the general level of prices in this country. Therefore, one has to regard the Government’s proposals as being highly inflationary. They make somewhat of a mockery of the Government’s claim that it is really about to reduce the level of inflation. We all know that whenever distribution costs increase so does the margin of all costs down the line. We can anticipate that in the price of goods there will be a very considerable increase which must flow on right through the whole of the community. Of course that will occur with not only petrol but also fares in the public and private sectors, the price of transporting goods, taxis, heating of oil in homes and so on.

In those circumstances the Opposition finds itself unable to see the logic in the Government’s propositions particularly as they fly in the face of all the advice that has been given it. Mr Justice Collins’ Royal Commission on Petroleum in 1973 recommended that import parity prices should rise gradually. The Industries Assistance Commission report of 1976 made a similar recommendation. Yet for purely monetary reasons associated with the Budget that advice, which was soundly based, has been bypassed and in fact will assist the Government only in its endeavours concerning the Budget deficit. The income resulting from this legislation will not go towards expanding job-creating industries; it will not go towards providing funds for research and development of energy alternatives; it will not be seen as part of any energy conservation policy; and it certainly will not be seen as providing funds for urban public transport. I find it rather ironic that Senator Young should attack the Labor governments of New South Wales and South Australia which have done more in recent years than any other State government in Australia to upgrade urban public transport. The Australian public has been called upon to make the sacrifices for no benefit whatsoever, only to meet the short-term interests of Budget deficits.

What is it that brings about the Government supporters’ acquiescence in any proposition that the Government, the Cabinet or the Treasury brings down in respect of the Budget? If, for example, it was recommended that the legislation be phased in over a three or four year period we would have had the Government supporters getting up and supporting that policy. But no, the Government decides on a certain course of action and Government supporters scurry around trying to develop inane arguments to justify their Government’s policy or legislation. After all it was this Government itself that talked about a resource tax. I will not give it any credit for that because we in my party had talked about it but it was seriously floated by Government Ministers. Yet tonight we have Government supporters in this place, as indeed was the case in the House of Representatives when the matter was being debated there, deprecating any suggestion of a resource tax. The plain fact is that Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has not introduced a resource or secondary tax. It is part of the tax structure in most developed countries. When we hear some of the rubbish that is peddled in this debate by people like Senator Young and see the crocodile tears that we had from him about oil exploration it is clear that Government supporters have not done their homework. If he feels that there is some justification for the private sector dropping its number of exploration projects from 69 to 21 and that that ought to be defended and that the private sector can make those sorts of decisions which may affect the welfare of the nation, then he has a strange logic in his thinking.

The evidence shows quite different historical developments in other parts of the world. For example, when the great oil finds were made in the North Sea, there were no problems in the United Kingdom firstly in getting the cooperation of oil companies, secondly in getting the technology and thirdly in getting private and public funds invested in that tremendously successful enterprise. The oil companies were prepared to take a small share of the profits; a smaller share than the oil companies in Australia have ever been asked to accept. Of course the facts are that the costs of production, including exploration for oil or gas, are something less than 20 per cent of the total costs. Yet we hear from time to time this great plaintive wail from Government supporters that we have to provide hundreds of millions of dollars as incentives otherwise the oil companies and those associated with the exploitation of our natural resources will not come to the party. The facts are not disputed. If one looks at overseas experience one will see that most countries of Europe have arrangements by which there is a proportion of public sector involvement in oil exploration and development. We in this country are the exception to the rule. To hear Government supporters speak one would believe that the reason this is not the case in Australia is that the public sector does not like the political colour of a particular government or the particular state of the economy at a particular point in time.

What is the Government doing in this legislation? In ignoring the advice of its own experts and the royal commission it is really in the first year getting a windfall of pretty close to $700m in respect of income by reducing the deficit and then in subsequent years handing over hundreds of millions of dollars to the private oil companies. What we are really doing is transferring money to the friends of this Government, the oil companies- particularly to EssoBHPwho stand to gain a tremendous sum of money. George Bernard Shaw once said that a government that robs Peter to pay Paul can count on the support of Paul. Of course that is exactly what will happen if it has not already happened. There is reason to believe that the oil companies have been very generous in the past in their donations to political parties but not to the party to which I belong. When this sort of money is just handed on a platter to companies like Esso-BHP and others, when such windfall profits are passed on, one can expect that certain assistance will be given in return. The suggestion that the Labor Party’s belief that there ought to be a secondary tax on such windfall profits is somehow unAustralian, unpatriotic and unnecessary and that the Labor Party’s motivation is designed to drive Australia downhill seems to me to represent the most illogical thinking that one can expect, particularly as it has been government spokesmen themselves who have floated the idea of a resource tax.

What surprises me, amazes me and dismays me is that Government supporters can make statements in this chamber which clearly indicate either that they have been conned by their political leaders or that they have not done their homework or their sums. The very estimates of this Government show that it anticipates not what Senator Young suggests- a conservation of oil resources- but in fact a five per cent increase in consumption in the very year in which the price will rise considerably, unless we are able to draw the conclusion which has been drawn by some of my colleagues in another place, that perhaps the books have been cooked, as they conceivably could have been, on the question of estimates of income as far as taxation is concerned.

We do not disagree that a scarce and limited resource is involved and that we ought not to be encouraging indiscriminate consumption. But where is the fuel and resource policy of this Government? Where has it put down in any statement or in any contribution or conference, least of all to the Parliament, that suggests that this Government is concerned about the misuse of our natural resources? There has been none.

The Government is failing the nation in the same way as it did in respect of the advent of technology. It is not acting. Despite the fact that it was obvious in 1960 that some time within the next 20 or 30 years from that time we would enter a period of advanced technology, automation and cybernation. The Liberal Government has not faced up to its responsibilities in that area any more than it has in the area of fuel conservation.

I do not lose any sleep about the fact that exploration projects dropped from 69 to 21. If there is oil or natural gas somewhere it does not have to be discovered in 1976, 1977 or 1978. It will still be there in 1980 or 1985. Perhaps other forms of energy will take its place or we will be forced to rely on those resources that may well be there. There is no reason to suppose that we have to discover all available resources that are in our country in a particular period. I cannot see the reasoning behind the Government’s proposal, nor can I see that the Government regards its actions in respect of this piece of legislation as part of any long term energy policy or strategy. It has to be said- it has not been denied by any of the Government speakers- that it is purely a revenue issue at 1978 and it is purely an attempt to transfer unlimited funds to the oil companies in the next two or three years. I do not think that there has been any justification for that type of transfer, that type of windfall.

In the light of this, I think we are entitled to say that the Government is being dishonest not only to its own members and to this Parliament, but also to the nation as a whole in its failure to explain to the nation what really is the ideology behind this decision, if it is not to be seen purely as a revenue issue. Of course there are great misgivings in the Australian community about the economic effects. On the one hand we have Government ministers talking a great deal about, for example, on farm costs and the need to make our agricultural products competitive on world markets. Yet as the National Farmer points out:

Australian farmers will each be about $2,000 poorer as a result of the harsh medicine dealt out in the 1 978-79 Howard budget.

It says that the hike in fuel costs will add about $1,000 to the fuel bill of the average farmer and the flow-on effect will inflate his farm costs by an estimated further $1,000. The article goes on to deal with income tax and states that the Australian farmer will face an average rise of something like $2,000 in his income tax bill. This Government has said that it is concerned about costs,reducingtheinflationrateandmaintaining our exports of agricultural products at a competitive level on world markets. What has the Australian Automobile Association said in its publication? It stated:

Australia ‘s motorists are paying too much for their petrol through inefficient marketing and distribution methods used by oil companies.

The AAA put that submission before the Prices Justification Tribunal hearing in Melbourne recently. Yet there is no attempt by this Government to see whether there is merit in that sort of criticism. This piece of legislation is ill conceived and the Government has been ill advised to introduce it. With the inevitable flow-on that will affect every item of goods transported in Australia it will have disastrous effects on the Government’s so-called anti-inflation policy. Instead of Government members debating the valid criticism of this piece of legislation made by Opposition members we find on the contrary a great deal of the sort of rhetoric that has plagued this Government since it came to office at the end of 1975. It has tried to suggest that everything went wrong in Australia in the period from 1 972 to 1975. Of course we know that that is not the case. That is a refuge which the Government ought to be putting aside when it looks at the more fundamental problems facing the Australian people.

This hike in petrol and petroleum products costs will have a disastrous effect, as indeed will the whole Budget, upon the disposable incomes of the vast majority of the Australian people at a time when the Government says it is concerned about the state of the economy, the lack of confidence and the inability of consumers to buy. This Government claims to have the mandate and the support of the Australian people. The people are not responding to the Government’s strategy by spending. I think even Senator Carrick had to accept that today in his reply to the Dorothy Dix question asked of him. Just because there has been a marginal increase in consumer purchases in the three month period in question that should not be taken as representing any substantial improvement in the whole retail area. If there was an improvement it flowed from the tax concessions that were granted in February of this year. Obviously the effects of those concessions will fall. I submit that disposable income is not being spent. The evidence is there that deposits are continuing to remain at a high level. Because of the spending situation the building industry is in difficulty. State and local governments are only holding their own and not keepingabreastoftheneedsforservicesandthe expansion of services. This can be only a reflection upon the way in which the Australian people regard this Government. Instead of dealing with these sorts of questions and dealing with what I believe to be valid criticism that has been raised by the Opposition on legislation such as thisthere will be a lot of this sort of legislation in the next few weeks- the Government relies upon rhetoric and a degree of dishonesty in the way in which it is seeking to convince us that its policies are working. Of course we know that they are not working. When we suggest that there is justification for introducing a secondary tax or a resources tax in order that the Australian people can gain some benefits our motives are impugned by Government members.

Look at the extraordinary steps taken in this Budget to tax the paper boy, to tax the blind and for the first time in history to put a tax on exservice pensions and look at all of the other new avenues of tax grab which this current Budget imposes upon the community generally to get $4m here, $3m there and $2m somewhere else. Yet Government members are prepared to support a piece of legislation which this year will provide revenue of $676m and which in the following three or four years will pour into the coffers of the giant international and major oil corporations something in excess of $300m to $400m.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is scandalous.

Senator GIETZELT:

– It is not only scandalous; it is obscene that Government members can possibly justify that sort of give-away and at the same time impose forms of tax upon people who hitherto have not been a part of the taxation system in this country. It is in the light of that sort of hypocrisy that the Opposition makes no apology for opposing the legislation.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– Firstly, I would like to answer a few of the points raised by Senator Gietzelt. The honourable senator put forward the argument that somehow if the Australian Labor Party were in power it would impose a resources tax which would save the ordinary consumer in Australia money, that somehow it would reduce the rate of inflation and that in fact would assist in the economic recovery. I think that anybody with half an eye could quickly see the falsity of that sort of stupid argument, if I may put it that way. As Senator Geitzelt would well understand, if a resources tax were imposed it would be a cost on the community. It would be a cost on business. It would impose through the consumer price index further costs on the community simply because in the first place it is recognised that in order to pay the resources tax the price of oil must rise to a level at which it could support such a tax. The essence of the honourable senator’s argument is that first of all the price of oil must rise to import parity, otherwise the resources tax would not be applied. The honourable senator views the resources tax as some sort of a claw-back of that increased value; that is all.

There is no way that the Labor Party can confuse the people of Australia by suggesting that in fact Labor’s policies would lead to cheaper fuel. The people who were outside this building today with their semi-trailers and who were complaining about the Budget would not be drawn into that sort of silly argument that comes from the Opposition. Those people know full well that the price of oil ought to rise, must rise and will rise irrespective of what this Government or any other government does simply because as the supply of oil within Australia runs out we will need to find imported oil to replace it, and it is as simple as that. Whether we do it sooner or later we are going to have to pay the cost. The sooner we wake up to that the sooner we will be better off.

I will just deal with a point that Senator Gietzelt raised in connection with the resources tax. The resources tax is a very cunning argument which is put forward by the Opposition to create the impression that somehow the assets out in Bass Strait, on the North West Shelf or somewhere in Australia off-shore or on-shore that have not yet been found belong to somebody who has not yet found them. The situation is that although these assets may be there they simply have not been discovered. If they have been discovered they have not been developed and the oil has not been brought on-shore. Those are the essential points of this argument. It is a question of establishing incentives for people to want to get out there and get involved in the business of exploration, discover the new oil wells which would supply Australia with its own oil in order to ensure that Australia will be able to succeed in the future, have its own source from a defence standpoint and to keep oil prices within the parity level.

Senator Walsh:

– They have had parity prices since 1 975. Don ‘t you drongos know anything?

Senator MESSNER:

-Mr Acting Deputy President, we are used to this sort of thing from Senator Walsh. When he argues a case from one side to the other he is inclined to go all over the place, but he does not allow anybody else to expand an argument a little beyond the immediate point of discussion. The issues that are before us, of which this Bill is a part- this Bill is of course part of a larger Budget- include the question of the consumer price index which is a matter that the Opposition totally ignores. While it is recognised by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget that an increase in the price of oil will lead to some impact on the consumer price index in the coming year- that is well recognised in the community- there are offsets in the Budget that will reduce that impact. I mention the changes to health insurance. The new health insurance arrangements will assist families in meeting the extra costs which arise from the impact of this type of increase. The fact is that we do not live in a fool’s paradise any more. We have to live with the fact that we need to conserve energy, particularly oil, because our whole economy is oriented about that at the moment. We need time to adjust our economy and our industrial structure to new forms of energy. Consequently, we have to pay the costs of that.

Let me quickly turn to the whole question of motor vehicles and the use of fuel in Australia. Senator Collard, who is very experienced and expert in the matter of design rules for motor cars, mentioned earlier this afternoon emission controls. I believe that Senator Young also mentioned this. We know that in Australia these things have been imposed over the last three years, I think, on motor vehicles manufactured in Australia and on imported vehicles. The fact is that emission control systems have significantly increased fuel consumption which means greater costs for the motorist. Quite apart from that, there has been a depletion of the supply of oil and fuel within Australia. It is a very significant factor not only in the development of the motor vehicle industry itself but also very much an imposition on community assets of crude oil in wells which are yet to be discovered and those which have been discovered. The fact is that without the degree of emission controls that have been implemented in Australia we would be able to save a considerable amount of fuel. It could be of the order of 15 per cent to 20 per cent of current motor vehicle fuel consumption. That would be a significant factor in moving towards improved conservation of crude oil.

I turn quickly to the more important question of the motor vehicle industry itself. It is clear that the imposition of new design rules in recent years has had a great impact on the price of motor vehicles at a time when the cost of vehicles to the public was inflating as a result of other factors, such as wage demands in the community generally. Coming on top of these other factors, the imposition of new design rules has reduced the demand for motor vehicles and people have put off purchasing new vehicles the prices of which have been inflated by these factors. We know that people have retained vehicles for longer periods than they otherwise would have done. This has caused lower employment in the motor vehicle industry and has had an effect on regional areas, particularly in the metropolitan area of Adelaide in my State of South Australia where two of the largest car manufacturers in Australia are located.

I should mention the role of the South Australian State Government in this regard. As we well know, the Dunstan Government in South Australia refuses to consider the reduction of emission controls, with the effect that Adelaidians and other South Australians are not able to find jobs in the motor vehicle industry to the degree that would have been the case had these controls not been so rigidly imposed. I understand from information given to me that the Premier and the South Australian Government are absolutely adamant on this matter, preferring to trade off costs against some theoretical political advantage that the Premier sees in maintaining emission controls on motor vehicles. That aspect ought to be examined by the Federal Government in an attempt to have State governments, particularly the South Australian Government, see the light and come to some arrangement whereby the design rule requirement may be alleviated in some way.

I return briefly to consider the resources tax because it is one of the key issues raised by the Opposition tonight in the debate on this Bill. The matter of the resources tax arose very largely because we have seen what the Opposition calls windfall profits emerge in favour of those companies which have control over old oil, that is, oil which already has been discovered. The increase in the price that these companies charge the consumer through their various marketing organisations accounts for the increased profits in the industry. The Opposition would like to see most of those profits stripped off in favour of the Government. The point we must recognise here is that Australia has not yet discovered sufficient oil for its future needs. The next round of exploration and the next round of development of” oil wells in Australia will cost significantly more than did the last round of development, particularly the development in Bass Strait. We have only to look at the example of the WoodsideBurmah off-shore development on the North West Shelf. If it comes to fruition there will be of the order of $3,000m invested in that venture. What company in its right mind would invest in such a major project and take the risks involved unless it saw an adequate return? That development will take many years just to plan even before it becomes a reality in the sense of establishing drilling rigs in those deep waters.

As the supply of oil in Australia diminishes, exploration will have to extend further beyond the coastline, further into deeper waters, and this in turn will be more costly. Obviously we need to keep up a pool of expertise within our oil exploration companies to ensure that we can go on discovering more oil. It is clear to me that those companies will survive only if they are given an adequate return on the investment which they make, bearing in mind that the cost of development is rising quickly and is likely to rise faster than the average cost increase in the community as a whole. Consequently it is only proper that adequate profits be earned by such companies to provide them with sufficient capital for further investment in future exploration and development. It is that factor which the Government has recognised in assessing the applicability of a resources tax, and I commend it for announcing in the last couple of months that it would not apply a resources tax. That decision will be of great importance to this nation as it will lead to further development of our resources. Related to that development will be the element of expertise within our oil exploration community which is so important to the future of this nation.

I finish by referring again to the fool’s paradise within which the Opposition would have us believe we are able to exist. Australia needs to face up to the fact that in a very few years time we will have to import considerably more oil than we do at present and we will have to pay the price for doing so. Consequently the movement towards import parity in this and accompanying legislation, which will come later, is essential for a proper understanding of future movements in the community.

Debate (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) adjourned.

page 482

BOUNTY (AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 22 August on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I will comment very briefly on these two

Bills. Firstly, I will deal with the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill 1978 which continues the bounty assistance into 1979 pending consideration by the Industries Assistance Commission and its final report on the long term levels of assistance. The Opposition does not oppose that Bill or the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1978, although I would like to make some comments and to express a couple of reservations about it.

The Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill extends the bounty which formerly had been payable on tractors below 105 kilowatts- or about 150 engine horse power, in the language that is more commonly understood in agriculture- to tractors above 105 kilowatts in accordance with the recommendation by the IAC in its report of August 1977, even though it appears that at the time the IAC made that report it was ignorant of the fact that tractors in that power range were being made or at least fabricated within Australia. The long term objective as perceived by the IAC was a level of assistance equivalent to an effective protection rate of 25 per cent, to be provided by way of bounty instead of import tariff which is more common in Australian manufacturing industry. The amount of bounty payable varies with the horsepower of the tractors. The Schedule attached to the amending legislation shows that the maximum bounty payable per unit will be $3,480 for tractors with an engine capacity above 105 kilowatts.

Clause 4 of the Bill- this is the question on which I invite the Minister to elaborate either in reply to the second reading debate or during consideration of the Bill in Committee- provides for adjustments to that basic bounty to be made in accordance with a factor which is governed by the movements in the Reserve Bank’s index of imports of machinery other than electrical machinery. Neither the second reading speech nor the Bill itself has offered any explanation of the operation of that factor, other than to give the very brief summary which I have just stated. In particular I would like to know whether the Government envisages that the amount of bounty payable in the next 12 months will be close to the figure set out in the Schedule to the Bill and, if not, approximately what proportion of that figure the Government envisages being paid as a bounty. It is quite clear, of course, that given the pricing of these very large machines above 105 kilowatts- they range in price from a little below to above $50,000- the level of assistance falls well short of the 25 per cent effective rate of assistance.

The bounty payable cuts off altogether for a machine with less than 55 per cent local content. That is one of the features of the Bill in relation to which I want to raise some doubts and express some reservations. Although the Industries Assistance Commission appeared to be unaware of it at the time of issuing its report, in fact tractors of this horsepower are made or fabricated by three small firms in Australia. One is located in Merredin in Western Australia very close to where I lived, another in Victoria and another in New South Wales. It appears to be uncertain whether any of these firms will qualify for the bounty under the existing arrangements, because two of them produce machines of less than 55 per cent local content. There seems to be some doubt about whether the third one has the 55 per cent local content required to attract any level of bounty. Of course, at 55 per cent content the full bounty is not payable. It is phased out as the local content falls from 100 per cent to 55 per cent and it ceases altogether at 5 5 per cent.

It is believed that International Harvester Australia Limited and Chamberlain John Deere Pty Ltd may start manufacturing in Australia units of that horsepower within the next few years. Those units will have something above 55 per cent local content. The matter on which I wish to express some reservations is this 55 per cent local content. The small firms which are already producing tractors of this horsepower are quite obviously doing so in an economically efficient way. They are not in receipt of any tariff protection or any bounty protection. So it is selfevident that they are efficient. One of the reasons they are efficient is that their local content is below 55 per cent. Because the size of the Australian market is so limited it is not conceivable that engines for these machines could be manufactured efficiently in Australia in the economic sense because the production run would not be long enough. The same situation applies to a number of other components parts for these very large machines. So it seems at least possible that one of the consequences of a protection policy of this type, which incorporates a local content requirement and a cut-off point, could be to drive out of business the most efficient manufacturers in this country to the advantage of some other firms which are less efficient but which, because their local content component is different, will qualify for the government subsidy.

In general- I note that the Labor Party spokesman in this area, Mr Hurford, expressed this view in the House of Representatives as well- we favour the payment of bounties as against import tariffs. We do so, firstly, because it is more obvious to everyone precisely what is being done. It is a move towards open government, if you like. It does, of course, carry some political ramifications which are not likely to be attractive to government. For example, tariffs, being a hidden tax, are not noticed and not recorded in any official publications, but if governments had to impose enough taxation to provide by way of bounty assistance of the same magnitude it would lead to an increase in personal taxation, if the bounty were to be funded entirely from that source, of the order of 40 per cent or 45 per cent. Governments would be reluctant to accept the political odium which would be attached to a tax increase of that magnitude. In particular, of course, the idea of paying bounties instead of providing protection in other ways, such as by way of tariff, would seem to be particularly unattractive to the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who seems to think that if expenditure is not recorded in government accounts then it does not happen; as long as it is not written down in government accounts there is no need to worry about it.

My reservations already expressed about the possible effects of a cut-off point at 55 per cent of local content would be transformed from a possibility into a grave danger if, as is being rumoured, the Government proceeds with the proposition which it first received from the Australian Industries Development Association, namely, that an investment allowance should be continued at the rate of 40 per cent for investment in plant and machinery which has more than 65 per cent local Australian content. That is a highly dangerous proposition, particularly for the local manufacturers of these machines. If such a proposition were to be introduced, the three existing small manufacturers would be very heavily discriminated against. It would be the equivalent of a retail price subsidy of almost 10 per cent for the competing imported or other Australian machines- a subsidy which would not be available to these existing and efficient Australian manufacturers. I suggest, while we are dealing with these large machines, that a low local content and economic efficiency are acceptable. Because the production runs are so small it is just not feasible for engines and other major components for these units to be produced economically in Australia.

I suspect that that proposition will be adopted by the Government; it is likely to find favour with the Prime Minister because it combines higher protection with a tax dodge. They are ideaswhichobviouslyconsistentlyfindfavour with the Prime Minister. If on top of the discrimination against these small firms because of the local content components under the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Act we have further discrimination because of manipulation of the taxation Act so that it provides a further protective device, I fear that the consequence will be that firms such as Phillips in Merredin and the other two firms in New South Wales and Victoria, which obviously are efficient manufacturers because they are competing in an open market, will not have a future. They will not be able to meet the unfair competition which will be thrust upon them because of government manipulation of the market.

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

– in reply-I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill 1978. I noted the words of Senator Walsh who spoke for the Opposition. On one occasion I was going to rise and ask him to withdraw some of his comments. But the Senate has become used to the types of remarks that he makes. I do not think they are very much to his credit, but apparently that does not concern him on any occasion. He raised the matter of the support that is given to manufacturers who have a substantial Australian content in their products. That is something with which I would have thought that all honourable senators and honourable members on both sides of the chambers in actual fact would have agreed.

It is very simple to say that greater efficiency will be achieved if manufacturers are allowed to lower the Australian content of a particular product. That argument has been raised with respect to a range of difficult pieces of manufacture, whether it happens to be vehicles generally or specifically tractors. My understanding is that the small manufacturers did not give evidence at the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry and the Commission made no recommendation to reduce the minimum local content requirement below the existing level of 55 per cent. This minimum local content requirement has been a feature of the agricultural tractors bounty since its inception in 1966. So we have heard the honourable senator from Western Australia say something that he is willing to say now although apparently he did not have the nerve to say it when his Party was in government and he was seated in this chamber. But that is not an uncommon procedure for him to adopt.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to pursue a couple of questions on the Bounty (Agricultural Tractors) Amendment Bill. During the second reading debate, I raised a matter concerning clause 4 of this Bill, which refers to the factor by which the amount set out in the Schedule to the Bill will be multiplied. What factor currently applies? Does the Government anticipate any substantial change in this factor next year or in subsequent years?

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

– I am advised that the factor is worked out on an import price and that that factor will be varied according to that price. Is that sufficient information for the honourable senator?

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-That is written in this Bill. But what is the factor now? Is it one, 1.5, 2, or 0.75? From reading the Bill, I understand that there is a precise figure by which the dollar amounts listed in the Schedule of the Bill are multiplied to determine the bounty which is actually payable

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

– I am advised that the factor is calculated on a quarterly basis and promulgated by regulation. Copies of those regulations would be readily available. The factor by which the amount ascertained in accordance with the Schedule should be multiplied is 1.281141. This factor will continue until 30 September, when a new factor will be promulgated.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I thank the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) for his answer about the factor. I have a further question. There are other references in the Bill to the bounty being gradually phased down as the proportion of local content falls. I make the observation that this matter of local content has far more relevance now that the bounty has been extended to units of above 105 kilowatts because in this power range the total Australian market is very small; consequently, given the very small domestic market, the chances of producing in Australia engines and other major components or the chances of achieving economies of scale for the production of engines and other major components are remote, to say the least. There is a better chance of achieving acceptable economies of scale with units of below 105 kilowatts. But that is a passing comment. The information I seek is to what percentage of local content or within what range of local content percentages will that factor of 1.281141 apply?

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

– If I understand the matter correctly, the factor will be multiplied by the figure which I gave the honourable senator, on which he can get a reference, and the factor will be reduced by one per cent for each percentage point that local content falls below 100 per cent, down to 55 per cent. Does that make sense to the honourable senator?

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I am still thinking this through. I am seeking confirmation or otherwise of my understanding of the issue. If there were a local content level of, say, 56 per cent the factor would be in the vicinity of 0.6. If that is so, will the bounty fall from 0.6 of whatever is printed in the Schedule to nothing just because the local content level falls another couple of percentage points?

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

– The honourable senator has presented a difficult equation for me to respond to quickly. I shall detain the Senate for a moment while I get the proper equation from the departmental officer. It appears to me that, if the factor is going to drop by one per cent for every percentage point that the level of local content falls below 100 per cent down to 55 per cent, the factor would probably drop by approximately 45 per cent of the original figure. I notice that not many honourable senators on this side of the chamber are entering this debate on agricultural tractors to help us. Perhaps they do not have agricultural tractors in New South Wales. The information I have is that the amount ascertained in accordance with the Schedule will be multiplied by the factor and the resulting figure will be reduced by one per cent for each percentage point that local content falls below 100 per cent down to 55 per cent. That is what I said previously, but my remarks then still elicited a question from the honourable senator opposite about what the factor actually will be.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I thank the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) for that information. What will happen when the level of local content falls to 54 per cent? Will the bounty cut out altogether? Will it cut out completely from between 0.6 and 0.7 of the amount ascertained in accordance with the Schedule as printed in the Bill?

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

– The first proposition, I am advised, is correct in that the bounty is eliminated altogether. As to the second proposition, I am afraid I am at a loss. I wonder whether it would be possible for the honourable senator to repeat his final query. I did not fully understand it. It appears to me that the support is eliminated when the local content falls below 55 per cent, and the honourable senator is correct in saying that at 54 per cent it is cut out altogether. Perhaps he would reiterate his last point.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I might not have made the question entirely clear. Let me put it in these terms: In the 1 50 and over category listed in the Schedule- I seek confirmation or correction as to my understanding of the position- for a machine that had 56 per cent local content I assume a bounty of around $1,900 would be payable. I do not want to be held precisely to that figure- give or take $100 or $200 either way. If the local content fell to 54 per cent no bounty would be payable.

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

– I am advised that that is correct, senator.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 485

PIG SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

First Reading

Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to the first reading of the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1 978 I want to take the opportunity of raising again a matter which I proposed to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in the Senate on 4 November last. I refer to the plight of many pensioners who are in receipt of superannuation benefits and find themselves in a very awkward financial situation because the Minister has not as yet increased the ceiling on the means test. To put my argument in proper perspective I want to read again the question which I put to Senator Guilfoyle on 4 November last. My question, which referred to the Social Services Act, was:

I ask the Minister whether she will make a further amendment to that Act at the same time to raise the level of the pensioner means test so that a great many pensioners who are in receipt of Superannuation payments will not lose their fringe benefits because of increases in their superannuation payments, which are due solely to the cost of living adjustments made in October each year.

Senator Guilfoyle replied:

The Social Services Amendment Bill is in the House of Representatives for discussion today and an amendment will be moved with regard to the benefit that is to be made available for lone fathers.

Lone fathers came into it because the earlier part of my question was addressed to that subject. The Minister continued:

The Government has no other amendments which it proposes to make at this stage. I take note of the honourable senator’s question. I will consider his suggestion when any further discussions are being held about changes in our legislation.

I did not hear anything from the Minister, so on 12 January of this year I wrote to her in these terms:

I wish to again draw your attention to the need to raise the level of the Pensioners’ Means Test, as I did on 4 November 1977 . . .

Because of an increase in superannuation payments due to cost of living increases a great many pensioners now find that they are no longer eligible for a Pensioner’s Medical Entitlement Card and as a result have to pay prescription fees to chemists, as well as losing all rights to many concessions granted by State governments.

Your immediate attention to this grave problem would be greatly appreciated by the many pensioners affected.

The Minister replied to me under date of 14 February in these terms:

I am replying to your letter of 12 January 1978, concerning the income test for Pensioner Health Fringe Benefits.

I can understand the concern of pensioners who, because of automatic increases in superannuation payments, may lose entitlement to fringe benefits. Although it is true that the income limits for fringe benefits have not altered for some time, successive governments have continued with this, and other income tests, to ensure that the Government’s limited resources in the social security area are used to assist those in greatest need.

They include people who are solely dependent upon the pension.

In addition, you will be aware of the need the Government sees for continued restraint in its spending to help achieve its economic objectives.

To raise the income limits on fringe benefits would involve a substantial increase in expenditure.

I might also mention that my Department issues a social security card which identifies pensioners who do not qualify for fringe benefits. This card assists in obtaining any concessions which may be granted by private business people.

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. I will keep your comments in mind when consideration is being given to altering the income limits on fringe benefits.

I would like to make two comments on that letter of the Minister, wherein she said that a card is issued to some pensioners who do not qualify for fringe benefits, which assists them in obtaining any concessions which may be granted by private business people. So far as I am aware, there are very few concessions granted to pensioners by private business people.

What concerns me, and what prompted me to raise this matter again in the Senate, is that, now that we are getting near October, I have coming to my office pensioners who will get an automatic increase in their superannuation payment due to the rise in the consumer price index. Many of them now will find themselves ineligible for the rate concessions granted by the South Australian Government, jo the extent of up to about 60 per cent in some cases. This will place a great economic burden on many penisoners. I thought that the Minister, having been made aware of the problem of these pensioners, would have taken it into consideration when the Budget was drawn up, because she said in a news release on 15 August, the night when the Budget was presented, under the heading of ‘Social Welfare: Directing Assistance To Those in Need ‘:

The 1978-79 Budget demonstrates that the LiberalNational Country Party Government is committed to assisting those in need in our community.

I claim that these people on a small superannuation are indeed in need. A lot of them have commitments. They have their own homes and, because of small automatic increases in their superannuation, which is only because of the cost of living going up- they are not making any profit out of it- they are put over the level at which they get the fringe benefit entitlement card, so they then lose their concession rates from councils. Therefore, whereas in fact they might gain perhaps something less than $100 in a year in superannuation payments they could lose up to $200 or $300 in rate concessions; so they are down the drain. This is something that ought to be rectified.

In the Budget Speech, under the heading ‘Assistance for the Aged ‘, we find at page 77 the following statement:

The estimated cost of the proposed increase in the rates of age pensions is $58.0 million in 1 978-79 and $88.0 million in a full year.

At 30 June 1978 there were 1,293,000 age pensioners (including wives of age pensioners in receipt of a wife’s pension) and during 1978-79 the number is estimated to increase by 47,000 to 1,340,000.

If one does not read the Budget Speech very carefully one may think that there is going to be a massive increase in pension payments, but a large proportion of the increase will be made up, not by increases in actual payments to pensioners, but by the increased numbers of people who will go on the age pension. The Budget Speech continues:

The average amount of age pension (including additions for children and supplementary assistance) is estimated to rise from$44.40 a week in 1977-78 to$47.50 a week in 1978-79. an increase of 7.0 per cent. The main reasons for this are the increase in pension rates in line with the CPI and the full-year effects of increased rates of pension introduced during 1977-78.

There we have the Budget Paper admitting that there will be a rise in the CPI. That is given as the reason why the pension has increased. Why then did the Minister not see fit to increase the ceiling on the means test for pensioners so that pensioners will not be disadvantaged by the small increase they will get in superannuation payments in October, which occurs only once every year for those on State superannuation in South Australia. As the ceiling has not been lifted greater numbers of people will be disadvantaged by having to pay the full rates to councils. If the Government had seen fit to lift the ceiling it would have been at very little cost to the Federal Government. It would have been the State governments which would have had to bear the cost. They have to reimburse local government bodies when pensioners obtain a concession on their rates. Pensioners have no way of getting a concession. The Minister might say in reply: Well, the State governments can do it anyway’. However, if a pensioner does not have a pensioner medical entitlement card to prove that he is entitled to it, there is no way that the State Government can ascertain whether he has such an entitlement. There is a great anomaly between the payment of pensions in this Budget and what was promised to pensioners during the election campaigns in 1975 and 1977. On 17 July 1 976 Mr Fraser said:

Our Government is a Government of social reform.

The Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, went further in the paper she brought down with the Budget when she said:

The 1978-79 Budget demonstrates that the Liberal National Country Party Government is committed to assisting those in need in our community.

Where are they assisting them? I repeat that Senator Guilfoyle said that the 1978-79 Budget demonstrates that the Government is committed to assisting those in need in our community. She even went so far in a Liberal Party election advertisement last December to say:

We believed it was important to take politics out of pensions and that’s why we altered the legislation … we said that when we came into Government we would have an automatic increase. We’ve done that and while the Act remains as it is there is, every six months, an automatic increase to take account of the cost of living . . . I’ve had lots of people say to me ‘You’ve given us dignity because you don’t argue about our rises every six months’.

The Liberal twice yearly indexation increases lag four months behind consumer price index increases. There will now be a lag of up to 16 months before pensions catch up on cost of living increases, which the Government claims in the Budget will be 7 per cent. Of course we all know that the cost of living increase is much more than that when we go into a shop to buy a commodity. Inflation has not come down to anything near 7 per cent. I would say that the Government is reintroducing politics into pensions with a vengeance- the politics of contempt. Yet the Minister for Social Security and the Prime Minister stated that the Government would bring dignity to pensioners and give them some decent living standard. They promised that during the election campaign, but now when they have two and a half years of government ahead of them they sweep away the benefits of these people. On 2 1 November 1 975 Mr Fraser had this to say:

The real value of pensions will be preserved.

On 1 3 March last year he said:

We are committed to take politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year.

Of course we know that in this year’s Budget he has reneged on that promise. It is now to be only once a year. Who will suffer most? The pensioners will. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 April last year states:

The Fraser Government will continue to exempt pensioners over 70 from any means test’ … Mr Fraser told a questioner that pensioners over 70 were ‘quite happy and secure’ in not being forced to undergo a means test to qualify for a pension . . . ‘I don’t think we can really get back to the situation where the pension is means-tested over 70’.

These promises were made to elderly citizens of our community. These people took the statements in good faith. They thought that both the Minister for Social Security and the Prime Minister were genuine in making the statements, and no doubt many of them were influenced by them in the way they voted at the election last year. They have been very sadly disillusioned. That is evident from the number of pensioners who now come into the offices of members of Federal Parliament with complaints about what the Budget has in store for them. They are very worried people not only because the Government has swept away the twice yearly increases in pensions but also because the Government will now tax many pensions. This is causing pensioners great concern. I will not go into the matter in great detail now because we will deal with it when we discuss the Bill on social security payments. One of the things that stands out like a beacon is the statement by the Minister for Social Security about the special temporary allowance. In paragraph 10 of a summary of pensions, benefits, allowances and programs administered by the Department of Social Security she states:

The payment made to a widow under age pension age will become taxable from 1 November 1978 in line with the taxation treatment of such payments in other cases.

One must interpret the Budget Speech as meaning what the Treasurer (Mr Howard) read, although the Treasurer is now trying to place a different interpretation on it. It states that the Government is to tax blind pensioners too. They have always been exempt from tax. All that was promised to pensioners over the length and breadth of this country has now been swept away. None of the promises that the Government made have been upheld and the pensioners are the ones who will suffer.

Another matter on which I wish to comment- I hope the Minister for Social Security will take notice of me- is the vast distances between regional offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security in country areas, particularly in South Australia. A vast area of South Australia is in a vacuum. People have to travel many miles to talk to an officer of the Department of Social Security. The Department has an office at Elizabeth and the next nearest one is at Kadina. Going east the next office is at Berri and going south east the next one is at Murray Bridge. Anyone who lives, say, half way between Murray Bridge and Mount Gambier has a very long journey to make, because there is no office between Murray Bridge and Mount Gambier. People in the Barossa Valley, where I was last week, have expressed great concern to me about the vacuum they are in. Many people, particularly unemployed people, do not have a vehicle or the wherewithal to go to Kadina, Berri or Elizabeth. I think the Elizabeth office is responsible for the Barossa Valley. People who live in the Barossa Valley have a long way to go to register for unemployment benefit and to hand in their work test form every week or so. This is a grave problem.

People have raised the matter with me and have asked me to bring it to the attention of the Minister. I have taken the first opportunity today to raise this matter with the Minister. I hope that when she reads what I have said she will see fit to open a regional office of her Department in the Barossa Valley so that people who live there will not have so far to travel. It might not be really fair to ask her to open an office between Murray Bridge and Mount Gambier. The population in that area is not so great, but there is a very big population in the Barossa Valley. Very many aged people live there. They have problems in trying to make claims and avail themselves of benefits to which they are justly entitled.

I hope that the Minister will do something about what I have had to say about lifting the ceiling on the means test for fringe pensioners who, because of a small increase in superannuation, will be just over the ceiling and will be disqualified from getting any concession on local government general rates and water and sewerage rates. Local government rates are going up at a very high rate in some areas. Pensioners will not only lose their concessions but will also have to pay extra rates.

I want the Minister also to see whether she can open a regional office of the Department of Social Security in the Barossa Valley and to consult with the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) to see whether he will open a Commonwealth Employment Service office there to give the people who live there a service.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I want to speak only very briefly on the first reading of this Bill tonight as a result of a trip to the Pilbara in the north-west of Western Australia which I and some other members of the Parliamentary Labor Party Resources Committee made last week. The matter I raise concerns the quality of Australian Broadcasting Commission television programs available in that area and particularly the dearth or, as some people would claim, the non-existence of decent films on ABC television. I stress that in this area the quality of ABC television and radio is particularly important because there is no commercial television. So, while the ABC continues a policy of rarely, if ever, showing a decent film, people in areas such as the Pilbara do not have any alternative and do not see any decent films on television. Moreover, their radio coverage is equally restricted. A commercial radio station recently has begun transmitting from Port Hedland. It has a limited effective range and does not reach the adjoining towns of Karratha, Dampier and so on, unless sophisticated radio receiving equipment is used. These people have no television alternative to the ABC and their radio options are very limited.

A significant number of these people are shift workers. An unusually high proportion of them are single men living in single men’s quarters. Those who work on night shifts are home in the day time and, as they put it, all they can see in the day time is Sesame Street or the tenth repeat of some program which is 20 years old and in some instances was not much good at its original viewing. These people- I refer to the shift workers in particular- who have very limited opportunities for any sort of entertainment in the area are faced with the alternatives of drifting off down to the pub or watching ABC television. Most of the time they quickly come to the conclusion that ABC television is not worth watching.

There is nothing new about the complaint concerning the quality and the quantity of films shown on ABC television. I raised this matter at a meeting of the Western Australian ABC Advisory Committee- a body of which I am a member, albeit not a particularly active member because of other commitments- a few months ago. It was acknowledged by the management people present that the complaint about the quality and quantity of films shown on ABC television was justified. I was told that the reason for this was quite simple: It is expensive to procure television rights for films and the ABC budget did not permit the rights for many films to be acquired during the year. That could lead to a couple of questions. Firstly, it could lead to a question about the overall Government priorities and the adequacy or otherwise of funding for the ABC. It could also lead to questions about the priorities within the ABC itself and whether some of its rather esoteric activities ought to be funded to the extent to which they are, at the expense of providing some decent film viewing for people in the remote or more isolated areas of Australia who do not have access to any other type of television. I do not think we need worry too much about people in the cities. They can watch the commercial channels if they want to see a decent film. They can find probably two or three a week. But the people in the more isolated communities do not have that option.

The suggestion has been made that we should investigate the possibility of the ABC procuring or endeavouring to procure rights for films to be shown in country areas only. We know that this is technically feasible. In some years, at least in Western Australia and probably in some other States, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has telecast league football matches live to the country areas but not to the cities. That stipulation, of course, is imposed by the football league authorities which will not allow matches to be telecast live in the metropolitan areas. Obviously, this is technically feasible. There are no great, if any, technical difficulties in the ABC restricting particular programs to country areas.

I am not sure what saving would accrue to the ABC in royalty rights if it purchased the right to show films only in non-metropolitan areas, but I think it is a matter that certainly should be investigated. I intend to raise it myself directly with the West Australian management at the next meeting of the Advisory Committee; but, given that the meeting will not be held for some time and that other commitments may preclude my attending anyway, I have decided to raise the matter tonight in the hope that the ABC management will at least investigate the possibility of securing film rights at lower cost for telecasting in non-metropolitan areas and also will have another look at what I and, I think, most other people on both sides of the House clearly agree is the obligation of the ABC to provide decent television viewing to people in the non-metropolitan areas who do not have the option of switching to another channel.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I will be speaking extremely briefly but relevantly to the motion for the first reading of the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill. I rise tonight to congratulate the industry in Tasmania which has adapted very well to the change from a skim milk based diet to a grain based diet in the production of pig meat. Honourable senators may know that feed costs account for about 75 per cent of production costs in the raising of pigs. Problems have been experienced in Tasmania, as they have right throughout the Australian industry, with the periodic rise in the cost of food and falls in pig prices which obviously drastically affect profitability. Nevertheless, the Tasmanian industry has fared well and is making good progress.

The technology of pig meat production is at a pretty high level. The main problems relate to the alternative sources of energy and protein components needed in the diet to counter the price fluctuations to which I referred previously. The increase in herd sizes with fewer producers has also created some problems with housing and effluent disposal, but considerable progress is being made in overcoming these problems too. Part of the problem is getting housewives to purchase pig meat. In this respect, the program of the Pigmeat Promotion Advisory Committee, towards whose projects some of the levy money goes, has had an impact- particularly its promotion of the super porker concept, whereby a large carcass produces a much wider variety of cuts and so on.

I must agree with those who say that the annual report of the Pigmeat Promotion Advisory Committee is not detailed enough. The industry in general and this Parliament, which is the authority that imposes the levy, ought to be given a far more detailed resume of the activities of that Committee. I will not go into that aspect any further. We look forward to a more detailed report next year. On the other hand, the report of the Pig Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1977 is commendable in its detail and its listing of projects funded. Here again one may be surprised, nevertheless, to find that the sorts of projects which are funded do not touch, for example, one of the major problems encountered by pig producers, namely, the fact that some 2 per cent of pigs slaughtered are rejected for human consumption because they suffer from poly-arthritis. Some $4,000 out of a $500,000 research budget was allocated to the solution of this particular and urgent problem. Although I am no expert, I would say that more funds should have been directed to poly-arthritis in pigs than to some of the more esoteric projects which have found favour with the authorities.

Tasmania had 64,000 pigs of all ages and sexes on 31 March 1978. These included about 10,000 breeding sows. The numbers are currently fairly static. The main breeds are large white, berkshire and landrace. Most commercial production, of course, uses cross-breeding methods. The annual slaughter is about 96,000. So the levy in Tasmania will raise quite a deal of money. Mr President, I had wondered whether in fact we might not discuss this Bill cognately with une Departure Tax Bills which are to be brought on later. There is certainly no more final a departure as far as the pigs are concerned than the trip to the abattoirs. You may say that that would equate pigs to human beings and it probably would have been ruled out of order. However, a most interesting article appeared , in the Queensland University News for September 1978. It shows many similarities between the pig population and the human population. It may say something for our present society.

Senator Harradine:

- 1984.

Senator TATE:

– I will quote from Animal Farm before I finish my remarks. This article refers to the fact that the sterile environment in the modern large-scale piggery is causing very antisocial behaviour. We have many instances of ear and tail biting and bullying. This anti-social behaviour unfortunately begins when pigs are only several weeks old after weaning. At best the biting habits produce some discomfort but at worst canibalism has been known with pigs being partly or wholly eaten by other pigs. One finds that this particular anti-social behaviour assumes violent dimensions when a pen of new pigs is sorting itself out into a hierarchy or pecking order. This is not widely known, Mr President, hence my bringing it to the attention of the Senate. The dominant pig attacks others, while the pigs at the bottom seem resigned to their lowly role. Both the top and the lower pigs in any pig population are resigned or happy with their roles and hence do not develop ulcers.

The interesting thing emerging from this study is that middle order pigs are continually attacking each other and challenging each other’s status and as a result they suffer severely from ulcers. That, of course, affects their market price and hence we have the report before us.

Senator Georges:

– Who are you talking about?

Senator TATE:

– I am talking about most of us who are just struggling to the top. The article stated: . . the offending pigs vigorously thrust their snouts into the soft part of the belly of other pigs who were resting quietly on their sides. This thrusting continued until the resting pig moved and the new victim was chosen,

This is sheer bullying. The culprits are large and small, male and female, and nothing sexual motivates these particular attacks. What results is what they call the ‘skinny pig’ syndrome which is the result of the ulcers resulting from this tussel for status within the piggery. We are told by the researcher, Mrs Blackshaw

While research is still far from complete, there is promise-

These are ominous words, I would have thought- of a surprisingly simple solution to the social problem, a wooden box in the otherwise open pig pen.

To me the wooden box is ominously like a final solution. However it does seem to provide some solutions and gives some interest to the otherwise sterile environment. It is worth noting, as Senator Harradine suggested we ought, that there are similarities between pigs and humans. We will all be aware I am sure of the final paragraph of Animal Farm by George Orwell where he records the animals going back to look in the windows of what was Manor Farm and Animal Farm and back to Manor Farm looking at the pigs which had taken control of the destiny of the other animals on the farm. The Senate will recall that the liberators of the oppressed had become the oppressors again. The paragraph reads as follows:

Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were ail alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

It is a frightening prospect which George Orwell brings before every reader of his splendid little book and I think that coupled with Mrs Blackshaw ‘s research it should give us all cause for consideration.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– That is the first time in my experience that the first reading of a money Bill has been relevant to the subject of the Bill itself. I congratulate Senator Evans for that.

Senator Davidson:

- Senator Tate.

Senator GEORGES:

-Senator Tate. I beg the Senate’s pardon. They are both new senators. I do not think I have congratulated them on their maiden speeches as yet; I do so now. I believe that we will hear much from both of them. I am certain that Senator Tate tonight has given some indication of what a Whip really needs in the Senate- someone who can talk with knowledge and with considerable expertise on a variety of subjects. His maiden speech I thought was excellent. He then spoke on the Excise Amendment Bill in a way which attracted the congratulations of Senator Young and now tonight he has spoken on the Pig Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, It is popularly known here as the ‘Pigs Laughter Bill’ because on each occasion that it comes before the Senate we talk of all things irrelevant. But it was for Senator Tate to be relevant. I do believe from listening to him that he was twigging us somewhat towards the end of his speech. I will drift back into irrelevance, possibly because there are other speakers to follow and one finds oneself in the usual position in which a Whip finds himself, of connecting the previous speech with the next speech.

I wish to deal with something which I consider to be a serious matter. I am pleased, Mr President, that you happen to be in the chair at the moment. I want to attract your attention to a section of the Constitution. Of course I am no constitutional expert but recently something occurred to me in Queensland and my attention was attracted to this section by the counsel whom I engaged to defend me on the charge that was brought against me by the Queensland Police. I found on advice that I had to treat the matter very seriously because a member of Parliament when he faces a charge before the courts has to consider carefully what consequences may flow from such a charge. The section of the Constitution to which my attention was drawn is section 44 which reads:

Any person who

Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer: shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

I do not think that has ever been put to the test. Nevertheless the opinion of counsel given to me was that one need not be subject to be sentenced for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State and does not need to be imprisoned for one year or longer. The Constitution merely says that anyone who is convicted of an offence for which the penalty is . . . shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. Let us take for example the possibility that one of the three offences with which I was charged and subsequently acquitted- fortunately- had a penalty of 12 months imprisonment or more. Then, under this section of the Constitution, I would have been incapable of continuing to sit in this place. Fortunately, not any one of those offences carried a penalty of 12 months imprisonment, but they did carry a penalty of 6 months imprisonment. It was brought to my notice that if the charge had been not under the civil code under the Traffic Act but under the Criminal Code, one offence, resisting arrest, would have carried a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. If I had been convicted of that offence, under the Constitution I would have forfeited my seat even though the penalty I received may have been just 24 hours gaol or some other penalty. But, having been convicted for that offence under that Code, I would have forfeited my seat.

I consider this matter to be serious because 1 do not think many members or senators are aware of section 44 (ii), nor do they realise the consequences which may flow. When the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was charged for fishing in a restricted area, I do not think he was aware of the consequences which could have flowed from that charge if he had been convicted in the court. I do not know whether the subsequent action which he took to defend himself was a result of someone attracting his attention to section 44 (ii). If he was advised to have himself suitably protected, he received good advice indeed.

The problem needs to be emphasised because so many offences these days carry a substantial penalty. Several members of Parliament to my knowledge have been caught in a situation in which perhaps they have had one drink too many and have been apprehended and brought before the courts. The penalty in Queensland for driving under the influence is a maximum of nine months imprisonment. The penalty for a second offence is a maximum of 18 months imprisonment. These are State offences. If a member of Parliament is brought before the court a second time, although he may not receive 18 months imprisonment he would still receive a penalty under the State code. Then of course he would forfeit his seat if the provision is interpreted as it was interpreted to me. There are now many offences for which the penalties have been escalated. Perhaps one may be caught committing the simple offence of having possession of a prohibited drug. In the circumstances of which I speak that could lead to a member forfeiting his seat in this Parliament.

I ask you, Mr President, whether at some time someone can pay some attention to the consequences which may flow from this constitutional provision. I want someone on one of our committees, perhaps the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, to take a look at this matter. In view of the circumstances in which I found myself, I consider the matter to be a serious consideration. Perhaps the interpretation of the provision given to me is not the interpretation which is meant. No member should ignore that section and the Senate ought not to ignore that section. Perhaps at an early opportunity we may be able to obtain some ruling for the protection of members in this place. We are coming under considerable pressure in the community as we seek to carry out our responsibilities. Sometimes some of us may be a little overenthusiastic. This may lead to a conviction which may lead to a forfeiture of our place in this Parliament. There may be people who are vindictive who may seek to place us in a position in which we receive such a penalty which may lead to the forfeiture of our positions in the Parliament.

I move from that to a more domestic matter which may be debated in this place but which is not as yet on the Notice Paper. It arises from a statement which you made, Mr President, this morning concerning the employment of a person in the catering section of the Parliament. I do not want to canvass the rights and wrongs of that case at this stage. That may be done at a later stage. Again I take this opportunity to put a case to you, Mr President. I ask: Why does not the House Committee play a more effective role in the running of this Parliament? I may be misjudging the House Committee because I have had no experience on the House Committee.

Recently I was elected to the House Committee. I consider that appointment to be as important as any other election to any other committee. The secretariats of other committees to which I have been appointed immediately on my appointment have given me considerable information as to when meetings are held, the rules under which they are held- the Standing Orders, for instance. Secretaries have given me copies of past minutes and some indication of future programs and sittings. It is some time since I was appointed to the House Committee and I have had no contact whatsoever from anyone who is responsible. At this moment I would not know, although I am listed on the Notice Paper as a member of the House Committee, who is the Secretary of the House Committee or who is the Chairman. This neglect has been brought to my notice because of the incident which occurred, if I can understate it by saying that it was an incident. It is a very serious matter that has developed in the Parliament where the Parliament is without a catering service.

I would have thought that the House Committee would have been consulted in some way concerning this problem and that it could have heard some sort of report and made a judgment on the matter. One of my colleagues on the House Committee said that the House Committee has merely an advisory role; it has no role other than an advisory role. It merely is called to meet when someone believes it is necessary to call that Committee together. I have also been advised that the Committee has no powers, that the powers rest in the Presiding Officers. If that is the case I have been seriously misled. Perhaps I should not have sought membership of the House Committee. I thought that the House Committee would have a far more satisfactory role than that. I appreciate the statutory responsibility for this place rests with the two Presiding Officers. But if the Parliament has considered it necessary to have a House Committee I would have thought that the House Committee would have been used to its best effect by the Presiding Officers and that they would not neglect it, disregard it or not consider it.

Two very important aspects have arisen here. Firstly, the security of Parliament House is involved. I would have thought that the House Committee would have been consulted in some way and that not only the Privileges Committee, not only the Prime Minister but also the House Committee as such would have had some important role to play. In view of the industrial problem that we face at the present time I would have thought that the House Committee would have been called together at the first opportunity to discuss the matter. After all, there would be a considerable number of people on the Committee who would be able to give some sort of advice to those who are responsible for the supervision of our staff. When I say ‘our staff’, I mean the staff who work in co-operation with us to make this place run. I also would have thought that, as has happened on other occasions with other committees of which I have been a member, members of the House Committee would have been in a better position as a group to consult with the person concerned and perhaps to advise him not so much of his responsibility but of the unreasonable attitude that he may be taking when everybody is considered, not just a consideration of himself and himself alone.

I may now appear to be rambling. I do not wish to ramble. All I want to do is to make the point that the House Committee ought not be to disregarded and that at the earliest opportunity it should be called together to consider this very important matter. 1 could go on to another matter, but I believe that Senator Primmer wishes to speak. I am certain that he will speak for at least the eight minutes that remain before the adjournment question is put. I believe that there is another speaker who wishes to follow. I can see by the look in Senator Primmer ‘s eyes that he now has the message. I thank you, Mr President, for listening to me so patiently. I am pleased to have been able to put before you two matters which I consider to be very important indeed.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-One is always glad of the opportunity to speak on a variety of matters on the first reading of a money Bill because on many occasions one is not given the opportunity to raise matters that one deems to be of some importance and worthy of raising in this place. The matter which I wish to raise has been on my desk for the last fortnight because the Parliament has not been sitting. It concerns human rights. In recent months the world Press has been full of the question of human rights. It seems to have been largely concentrated on the problem in the Soviet Union. I think we must all admit that there does appear to be a problem there, but no one seems to raise this matter which affects many other countries.

In fact, I have two matters on my plate on the same subject of human rights. The matter to which I wish to allude tonight is in the form of a letter from Singapore. I am reluctant at this stage to bring on the other matter which deals with human rights in South Africa because I want to do some further checking on the information. I will read a copy of a letter written in Singapore and dated 5 August 1978. It is addressed ‘Dear Friend ‘ and it reads:

We are the families and relatives of political detainees in Singapore, many of whom have been detained without trial for 10 to IS years. They include Said Zahari (a journalist). Drs Poh Soo Kai and Lim Hock Siew (both medical practitioners), Ho Piao (a trade union leader), Lee Tse Tong (a trade union leader and former assemblyman), Chia Thye Po (a former assemblyman). Chue Seh Jui (a student) and many others.

We write to bring to the attention of your organisation the fact that the Lee Kuan Yew government in Singapore has lately intensified its oppression and ill-treatment of political detainees, and to appeal for moral support for the struggle for justice and human rights of political detainees in Singapore.

The Internal Security Act permits the Singapore government to imprison any political dissident without charge or trial for indefinite periods. Under Singapore ‘s laws, a person sentenced to life imprisonment by a court of law after trial and conviction is required to serve only 13 years and 4 months. But political detainees imprisoned without trail continue to be imprisoned even after 1514 years. The Singapore government’s policy is to imprison a political dissident indefinitely to coerce him to renounce his political convictions and to publicly help the government to justify his own imprisonment. Various oppressive and persecutionary measures are meted out to political detainees to wear down their resistance. The Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, has virtually admitted in public that political detainees in Singapore are being subjected to torture. It was reported in the Straits Times on 20 February 1978 that, to a query by a reporter from the Far Eastern Economic Review on whether security authorities in Singapore use techniques like questioning naked or lightly clothed suspects in very cold airconditioned room for long periods, keeping them in solitary confinement, denying them adequate sleep, and dousing them with cold water, Lee Kuan Yew’s reply was: ‘all interrogations must wear down the resistance of these persons by sustained psychological pressure, including physical fatigue’.

In recent years, the Singapore government has gradually imposed further repressive measures on the living conditions of political detainees. In 1977, the ventilators in the cells in Moon Crescent Centre were closed, thus further aggravating the already poor ventilation of the cells and causing further physical and psychological stress to the detainees and their families. In recent months, severe curtailment has even been imposed on food stuff supplied by families of political detainees. The prison diet for political detainees is inadequate and political detainees are compelled to supplement their diet with foodstuff from their families to ensure their health. Thus the government has not only refused to improve detainees’ prison rations (which are in some respects worse that that for convicted prisoners), it has also seen fit to prevent detainees’ families from adequately supplementing the prison diet. This is an obvious punitive measure to render conditions under detention more oppressive.

Since April this year, the political detainees have been protesting against these persecutionary measures, staging sitdown protests after each visit because prison authorities have refused to discuss the issue of foodstuff brought in by the families. Two one-day hunger strikes were staged in June (6th) and July ( 1 7th) when some detainees were sent to solitary confinement. We have petitioned to the prison authorities, once in early July and once two weeks later. On the second occasion a letter was also handed to the superintendent of Moon Crescent Centre requesting them to stop all punitive measures and to improve prison conditions. The Singapore government has not only ignored our petition, but has now resorted to even more severe measures to suppress this just protest. Almost all detainees have been locked up for 24 hours a day in solitary confinement in special mental torture cells in Changi Maximum Security Prison, which is normally used for convicted criminals. They are also deprived of all reading materials and human contacts. We have been refused the right to see our husband and children for at least two consecutive weeks, presumably the period they are in solitary confinement. In Singapore political detainees are allowed to be visited only by their immediate family (parents, wife/husband, children, brothers and sisters), and for half an hour each week. We can see the detainees through a sound-proof glass window with two wardens sitting behind the detainees in one room and one or two behind us in the other. We converse through telephones closely monitored by the secret police who can arbitrarily terminate the visit should they find the conversation, such as mentioning of prison conditions ‘objectionable’. Furthermore, as a punishment, we are denied the right to see our beloved ones even under such oppressive conditions.

On December 13th 1977, Singapore’s envoy to the United Nations, together with the envoys of New Zealand and Fiji, have jointly written to the UN Secretary General, Dr Kurt Waldheim, to ask that a petition by Amnesty International calling for the release of all prisoners of conscience become an official document of the UN General Assembly. It is incredible that the Lee Kuan Yew government in Singapore has sought to pose as an advocate of human rights before the world body when it has blatantly trampled upon the most elementary concept of human rights in its own country. While on the one hand the Singapore government urges the United

Nations’ support for Amnesty International’s call for the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience such as our beloved ones, on the other hand it not only continues to imprison political detainees in Singapore but has also subjected them to torture and ill-treatment.

We, the families and relatives of all political detainees in Singapore appeal to you and your organisation to take rapid and concrete steps to ensure that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will have meaning and substance in Singapore. World moral pressure is urgently needed to ensure that the Lee Kuan Yew government practises in Singapore what it preaches in the United Nations. We call on all those who genuinely believe in justice and human rights to lend their support to the campaign for the immediate and unconditional release of all political detainees in Singapore.

Thank you

Families and relatives of Political Detainees in Singapore

Debate interrupted.

page 494

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

page 495

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment (Question No. 97)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 23 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) When will the offices to administer the Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment open in Melbourne and Hobart.
  2. When will the first payments under the Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment scheme be made.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my public announcement of 28 June concerning the Government’s decision not to proceed further with the Housing Allowance Experiment.

Oil (Question No. 157)

Senator Keeffe:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the projected figures for: (a) Australia’s oil demand; (b) Australia’s oil production; and (c) Australia’s oil imports for each of the next 1 S years.
  2. Are the following-$1.46 billion, $2.4 billion, $3.8 billion- the projected ‘high’ oil import costs for the periods 1979-80, 1984-85, and 1989-90 respectively.
  3. How is Australia likely to pay these costs without experiencing severe balance of payments problems.
  4. Will the Minister immediately encourage the development of the most encouraging alternative oil production processes in Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) See the report by the Department of National Development ‘ Demand for Primary Fuels Australia, 1 976-77 to 1986-87’, issued in April 1978.

    1. and (c) There are no published official long term projections of Australia ‘s oil production or imports.
  2. Similarly there are no published official long term projections of oil import costs.
  3. See the Government’s statement on ‘National Energy Policy’ of 7 November 1977.
  4. See the press statement 1 issued on the ‘Establishment of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council ‘, of 26 May 1 978.

Adult Migrant Education (Question No. 259)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 15 March 1978:

Has the Government conducted an evaluation of the Adult Migrant Education Program; if so:

what are the results of the evaluation; and

were ethnic communities consulted in relation to it; if so, which communities.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Some appreciation of the general background is provided before answering the specific questions. The Adult Migrant Education Program is developed, funded and co-ordinated by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. State adult migrant education services, some tertiary education institutions and the Commonwealth Department of Education are involved in the development and delivery of a range of diverse services. These services include full and part-time courses, special arrangements such as courses-in-industry the Home Tutor Scheme, correspondence courses and a television series. The program is not static; its components are adjusted and adapted to cater for changes in the needs of migrants and refugees as these vary from group to group and vary over time.

The answers to the specific questions asked are:

The recent Review of Post Arrival Programs and Services for Migrants under the chairmanship of Mr F. E. Galbally, CBE, examined and reported on the Adult Migrant Education Program. It recommended some new initiatives and new emphases: these recommendations are listed in the published report. All of the recommendations were accepted by the Government and the implementation of them has begun.

Various studies of a more technical kind have been undertaken including:

Survey of Abandonments from Migrant Education Classes in Victoria, 1965

Adult Migrant Education, New South Wales 1968-69

Review of English Language Instruction for Migrants, 1 969

Survey of Participation of Migrants in ABC English Language Instruction Programs, 1 970

Survey of Classes-in-Industry, 1973.

Three studies are currently in action:

Evaluation of Intensive English Courses for Migrants. (This study is being undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Education and is expected to be completed before the end of 1 978. )

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Migrant Education Television Program ‘You Say the Word’. (This is being undertaken by Professor King, Wollongong University. The Report of the study is in preparation. )

Effectiveness of a sample of Continuation Classes as perceived by Students and Teachers. (This is being undertaken by Professor King, Wollongong University. The study is presently at a preliminary stage. It is scheduled for completion during 1979.

As part of its overall assessment the Galbally Review Group consulted extensively with migrants and ethnic groups during the course of its work. Those persons and organisations consulted are listed in the Appendix to the Report.

The surveys and studies referred to above have involved and will continue to involve the participation and responses of students themselves, thus covering the range of ethnic communities represented by the students. Ethnic community organisations assist in other studies, for example in the development of samples of respondents for use in the migrant education television study.

The Australian Ethnic Affairs Council which is an advisory body to me has a special committee dealing with education matters.

Section 96 Grants (Question No. 329)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. Has the interdepartmental report on alternative methods of funding programs currently financed through section 96 grants, referred to in House of Representatives Hansard, 19 April 1977, page 975, been withheld from the public. If so, why.
  2. Will the Minister reconsider the decision?
  3. ) How does the Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information?
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The report of the interdepartmental committee established to examine alternative methods of funding programs presently financed through section 96 grants has not previously been released publicly because it contains reference to Cabinet deliberations.
  2. and (3) The decision not to release the interdepartmental committee report is consistent with recommendations contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400 ‘Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation- Report of Interdepartmental Committee- November 1976’ that there should be an exemption from mandatory access for documents that reflect the internal deliberative processes involved in the functions of Departments, and the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest.

Sydney International Airport: Duty Free Shop (Question No. 331)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister refuse, on 2 November 1977, to make public the successful and unsuccessful tenderers for the lease of the duty free shop at Sydney International Airport.
  2. Did the Minister also refuse to disclose the contents of the lease agreement.
  3. If so, will the Minister indicate why he took such action, and whether he is willing to reconsider the decision.
  4. How does the Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Yes. In response to inquiries from Mr J. McMillan, a former Lecturer in Law at the University of New South Wales, I advised Mr McMillan that I was not prepared to allow the inspection of tender, lease and contract documents relating to the duty free shop at the Sydney International Terminal. General terms and conditions applying to the duty free concession are, of course, a matter of public record, as they are incorporated in the documents available to prospective tenders. The present concessionaire, Alders Pty Ltd, submitted the highest offer when tenders were called in 1976.
  2. and (4) It has been longstanding policy to treat as strictly confidential the fees paid by the successful tenderers who are vying for leases in highly competitive business situations. However, in view of the recommendation contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400 ‘Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation- Report of Interdepartmental Committee- November 1976’, and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill introduced into Parliament on 9 June, I have reconsidered my decision and have agreed to release the lease agreement and authority, with mandatory exemption for those details that would be reasonably likely to expose the undertaking unreasonably to disadvantage through the disclosure of particular financial information, as provided for under clause 32 of the Freedom of Information Bill 1978.

If the honourable senator would wish to see the lease agreement and authority, I will arrange for them to be made available through my Department.

Government Transport Undertakings (Question No. 332)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have the McNeill reports on Trans-Australia Airlines, Qantas, the Australian Shipping Commission and the Australian National Railways, referred to in House of Representatives Hansard, 9 December 1976, page 3760 been withheld from the public.
  2. Will the Minister reconsider the decision.
  3. How does the Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The McNeill report on the Government’s transport business undertakings has not been released.
  2. and (3) The report deals with a number of issues of commercial significance. Public release of the report could disadvantage the undertakings in their commercial operations. The recommendation contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400, ‘ Freedom of Information Legislation Policy Proposals- Report of Interdepartmental Committee, dated November 1976’ and the provisions of clause thirty-two of the Freedom of Information Bill introduced into Parliament on 9 June, are to the effect that, where release of documents containing commercial or financial information, the disclosure of which would be reasonably likely to expose a commercial or financial enterprise unreasonably to disadvantage, there should be an exemption from mandatory disclosure.

Against this background, I do not propose to release the reports.

Frequency Modulation Broadcasting (Question No. 338)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has the report of the interdepartmental committee inquiring, into the introduction of frequency modulation broadcasting, referred to in the Australian, 12 August 1977, been withheld from the public, if so, why.
  2. Will the Minister reconsider the decision.
  3. How does the Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The report of the interdepartmental committee on FM broadcasting is an internal working document prepared for the Government’s consideration. In accordance with normal practice that advice furnished to Ministers by public service advisors on current policy issues should remain confidential. The report has been withheld from the public.
  2. and (3) The decision not to release the interdepartmental committee report is consistent with the recommendations contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400, ‘Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation- Report of Interdepartmental Committee- November 1976’ that there should be an exemption from mandatory access for documents that would disclose the deliberations of Cabinet and documents that reflect the internal deliberative processes involved in the functions of departments, and the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest. Effect has been given to those recommendations in the Freedom of Information Bill.

I did, however, refer in some detail to the future of FM in my Ministerial statement on public broadcasting of 5 April 1978. (See House of Representatives Hansard, pages 996-1002).

While the Government does not propose to make available documents of this kind the report will be examined in accordance with the principle that, so far as departmental resources permit, material that is not exempt within the meaning of the parliamentary paper and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill will be segregated and made available.

I shall be in touch with the honourable senator again when I have the results of this examination.

Broadcasting: Report (Question No. 342)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. Did the Minister refuse, on 14 September 1977, to make public the report prepared by an interdepartmental committee on the implementation of the Green report into the Australian broadcasting system; if so, why.
  2. Will the Minister reconsider the decision.
  3. How does the Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I am informed that my predecessor, in response to a request from Mr J. McMillan, Lecturer in Law at the University of New South Wales, on 14 September 1977 advised Mr McMillan that the interdepartmental committee report had been prepared under a confidential classification and access was refused in line with the established practice that reports of this nature, as with all policy advice from officials to Ministers, should remain confidential.
  2. and (3) The decision not to release the interdepartmental report is consistent with the recommendations contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400, ‘Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation- Report of Interdepartmental Committee- November 1976’ that there should be an exemption from mandatory access for documents that reflect the internal deliberative processes involved in the functions of departments, and the disclosure of which would be contrary to public interest. Effect has been given to those recommendations in the Freedom of Information Bill. I have, however, reconsidered the decision and while the Government does not propose to make available documents of this kind, the report will be examined in accordance with the principle that, so far as departmental resources permit, material that is not exempt within the meaning of the parliamentary paper and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill will be segregated and made available. I shall be in touch with the honourable senator again when I have the results of this study.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: Chairman (Question No. 343)

Senator Missen:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Attorney-General refuse, on 2 1 September 1977, to make public a statement made by the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal regarding pecuniary interests.
  2. Was a similar request, made on 20 October 1977, not even replied to.
  3. If so, will the Attorney-General indicate why he took such action, and whether he is willing to reconsider the decision.
  4. How does the Attorney-General reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. I) to (4) I assume that the honourable senator is referring to correspondence with me by Mr J. McMillan, then lecturer in law at the University of New South Wales, to which 1 am replying on the lines of this answer, and which raised the question of inspecting departmental records concerning private interests of the person referred to in the question.

I would point out to the honourable senator that the matters referred to by Mr McMillan were the subject of my answer to Question No. 434 of 5 May 1977 (Hansard, page 1205) and of the answer to House of Representatives Question No. 257 on 24 March 1 977 (Hansard, page 634). 1 have considered whether, in addition to the answers already supplied in Parliament, the Department’s records should be made available to the public, bearing in mind the implications this step could have for other cases where information concerning the private affairs of a person is made available to the government. In my consideration I have had regard to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill 1978 and in particular to clause 30 of the Bill which provides that documents the disclosure of which would constitute an unreasonable disclosure of the personal affairs of a person are to be exempt from mandatory disclosure. In the absence of any general requirement for the disclosure of the pecuniary interests of officials, I have decided that the proper course is to refuse the request.

Australian Capital Territory: Companies (Question No. 349)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs refuse, on S September 1977 to make public a report prepared by Mr Justice Brennan on six companies incorporated or registered in the Australian Capital Territory; if so, why.
  2. ) Will the Minister reconsider the decision.
  3. How does the Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr J. McMillan, Lecturer at Law at the University of New South Wales, asked to inspect the interim report made by Mr Justice Brennan to which the question refers. To have made the interim report available for inspection by Mr MacMillan would not have been authorised by section 1 69 of the A.C.T. Companies Ordinance. In a letter dated 5 September 1977 to Mr McMillan, the Secretary of the Department of Business and Sonsumer Affairs said:

It is not appropriate for us to provide you with a copy of the interim report by Mr Justice Brennan into certain A.C.T. companies as this report has not been tabled in Parliament.

  1. and (3) Whatever might be the legal position with respect to the disclosure of a document such as that referred to in the question to a member of the public upon request made by him if the Freedom of Information Bill in its present form became law, the question whether a member of the Public may be allowed to inspect the report must be considered in the light of the law as it now stands.

The report referred to in the question was an interim report by Mr Justice Brennan (then Mr F. G. Brennan, Q.C.) following an investigation into the affairs of the six companies. This investigation was one of several separate investigations into related A.C.T. and N.S.W. companies and transactions. To avoid unnecessary duplication, His Honour recommended that a decision whether to pursue the separate A.C.T. investigation should be deferred until one of the N.S.W. Inspector’s reports had been examined.

His Honour also recommended that no part of his interim report should be published ‘which might affect the interests of any persons who might have been called as a witness and exclaimed with respect to the matter dealt with in that part of the report’.

The then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs decided, in the light of His Honour’s recommendations, that publication of the whole report would be inappropriate. I am also of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, publication of the whole report would be inappropriate.

Under the A.C.T. Companies Ordinance I do not have power to publish part only of a report.

If Mr McMillan had been permitted to inspect the report, neither I nor any officer who handed the report to Mr McMillan would have had the legal protection against action that can be obtained by publishing the report in a manner authorised by section 169 of the Companies Ordinance. I have reconsidered the decision not to permit Mr McMillan to inspect the report and I have decided, for the reasons outlined above, to confirm that decision. What I have said makes it clear that I do not consider my confirmation of that decision as being inconsistent with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.

Trade Practices Act: Government Activities (Question No. 350)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1978:

  1. Has the interdepartmental committee report on the application of the Trade Practices Act 1 974 to governmental activities referred to in House of Representatives Hansard, 24 May 1977, p. 1786, been withheld from the public; if so, why.
  2. ) Will the Minister reconsider the decision.
  3. How does the Minister reconcile this apparent failure to provide information with the Government’s public commitment to freedom of information.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. to (3) Yes, in answer to House of Representatives Question No. 613, asked on 19 April 1977 (House of Representatives Hansard, 24 May 1977, p. 1784), the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs indicated that it was not proposed to table the report of the interdepartmental committee which had been considering applications of the Trade Practices Act to government activities, as the report comprised confidential policy advice to the Government. The report was prepared as an attachment to a Cabinet Submission. The Minister’s decision was consistent with the recommendation contained in Parliamentary Paper No. 400, ‘Policy Proposals for Freedom of Information Legislation- Report of Interdepartmental CommitteeNovember 1976’, that documents that disclose the deliberations of Cabinet should be exempt from mandatory disclosure. Effect has been given to that recommendation in the Freedom of Information Bill. Against this background, I have reconsidered the decision and have agreed that the report should not be disclosed.

Christmas Island Phosphate Commission (Question No. 404)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the present freight charge per tonne paid by the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission on rock phosphate shipped to major Australian ports in Australian flag vessels.
  2. What is the freight charge on rock phosphate shipped to the same ports in non-Australian vessels.
  3. ) In the most recent year for which figures are available, how many tonnes were shipped to Australian destinations in: (a) Australian flag vessels: and (b) other vessels.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question, according to information supplied by the British Phosphate Commissioners, is as follows:

  1. A$20.58 per tonne
  2. A$1 1.13 per tonne.
  3. (a) 1,036,350 tonnes in 1976-77; (b) 285,806 tonnes in 1976-77.

Lady Small Haven Home for the Aged (Question No. 414)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What subsidy did the Commonwealth provide to the Lady Small Haven, a home for the aged at Benowa, on the Gold Coast of Queensland.
  2. What was the purchase price of the land; and what was the valuation of the land by the Queensland ValuerGeneral.
  3. 3 ) Was the land on which the premises were built sold by a company to the charity at a price above its normal market figure and many times higher than the Queensland ValuerGeneral ‘s figure.
  4. What was the name of the vendor company.
  5. Did another company which holds common directorships with the vendor company then make a donation to the charity, upon which the amount of the Commonwealth subsidy was based.
  6. ) What was the name of that company and what was the amount involved.
  7. Will the Minister investigate fully all aspects of the funding of this project and the basis on which Commonwealth subsidy was paid.
  8. If, after investigation, it is found that Commonwealth subsidy is based on this type of donation arrangement, will the Minister ascertain whether the construction of other homes or institutions has been subsidised by the Commonwealth on a similar basis.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) the grant which was approved in January 1977 under the provisions then applying of the Aged Persons Hostels Act was $912,117, made up as follows:
  1. The land used for the purposes of the project (0.908 Ha) comprised portion of a larger area of 4.047 Ha obtained by the organisation. The market value of this portion, as assessed in December 1976 by a Commonwealth Valuer from the Taxation Office, was $45,000. The Queensland Valuer-General ‘s valuation of the total area of the land, as at 31 March 1976, was $40,450.
  2. As indicated in (2) above, a Commonwealth Valuer assessed the market value of the portion used for the purposes of the project as $45,000. An assessment of the market value of the total area was not provided.
  3. , (5) and (6) The information sought is not within my Ministerial and Statutory responsibilities.
  4. The details of the gram have been reviewed and I am advised that the project was financed in accordance with the legislation and procedural instructions laid down by my department.
  5. The Commonwealth subsidy was not based on the donation.

Commonwealth Grants Commission: State Relativity Reviews (Question No. 490)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) What are the guidelines for the proposed review of relativities to be conducted before 1981 by a specially constituted Division of the Grants Commission.
  2. What additional staff resources will be made available for the conduct of this review.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Guidelines for the proposed State Relativity Reviews to be conducted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission are contained in section 5 of the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Act 1978 which was passed by the Parliament on 9 June 1978. In presenting the Bill, the Treasurer outlined the details (Hansard, 4 May 1978, pages 1806-8).
  2. The possible need for additional staff resources for the Commonwealth Grants Commission is currently being investigated with a view to the early submission of appropriate recommendations to the Public Service Board.

Australian Overseas Posts: Purchase of Property (Question No. 518)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) In what countries in which Australia has overseas posts is Australia not permitted to purchase property for office or residential accommodation.
  2. ) What are the reasons in each case.
  3. Which of these countries is represented in Australia, and where is that representation located in each case.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Algeria- property ownership is subject to host country approval pending allocation of land in a diplomatic enclave for construction.

Peoples Republic of China- property currently allocated on a reciprocal basis.

Poland- property is normally allocated on a reciprocal basis, as a rule on a 99 year lease.

Socialist Republic of Vietnam- property is allocated by the host government for lease.

USSR- Soviet practice is to lease (but not sell) property to foreign diplomatic missions for up to 99 years.

  1. Peoples Republic of China- Canberra; PolandCanberra, Sydney; Socialist Republic of VietnamCanberra; USSR- Canberra, Sydney.

Australian Overseas Post: Purchase of Property (Question No. 519)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 3 1 May 1 978:

  1. 1 ) In what countries in which Australia has overseas posts is it permissable for Australia to purchase property for office or residential accommodation.
  2. In which of these countries has Australia not yet purchased such property for (a) residential purposes and (b) office accommodation.
  3. 3 ) What are the reasons in each case.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Column 1 of the following schedule indicates those countries where Australia can purchase accommodation at its overseas posts. Columns 2 and 3 indicate where purchase has been undertaken.
  2. Current policy is that the Commonwealth should seek to attain a high proportion of ownership of property overseas where appropriate by construction. The level of owned accommodation at each post depends upon the adequacy of existing accommodation, security of tenure, economic feasibility and availability of purchase proposals, political stability and policy of host country and legal and social factors.

The percentage of property owned overseas by the Commonwealth has increased from approximately 1 7 per cent in 1 974 to approximately 30 per cent in June 1978.

Commonwealth Employment Service, Winton (Question No. 546)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 6 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Why was the agency of the Commonwealth Employment Service at Winton discontinued.
  2. Has there been an investigation since 30 April 1977 to determine whether an agency of the Commonwealth Employment Service will be re-established at Winton.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Prior to 1973 the CES Agency system in Queensland operated differently from other States. In Queensland country areas, State Government officials, mainly Clerks of Courts or Police Officers, were CES Agents and remuneration was paid in a lump sum to the State Government. This arrangement was not entirely satisfactory to either the Commonwealth or Queensland Governments, and it was reviewed, in 1972, at the request of the Premier of Queensland. As a result of this review the then Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland agreed early in 1973 that the arrangement should be terminated. Winton was one of the Agencies which closed down as a result of this agreement as it did not at that time satisfy the workload criteria for a normal CES Agency. However, the Clerk of Courts at Winton retained a minor role of issuing forms to clients on behalf of the CES.
  2. Yes, a review of the requirements for CES Agencies in Queensland was completed on5 April 1 978, and Winton is one of the several Agencies which, subject to funds being available, will be opened in the current financial year.

Ministerial Staff (Question No. 559)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the total number of personal and ministerial staff attached to each of the following Ministers in the Fraser Government: (a) Minister for Trade and Resources; (b) Treasurer; (c) Minister for Education; (d) Minister for Health; (e) Minister for Primary Industry; (0 Minister for Immigration; (g) Minister for Home Affairs; and (h) Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.
  2. What were the names, designations and positions of members of the personal and ministerial staffs of the Ministers listed above on 1 June 1978.
  3. Where were those staff members based, who were not based in Canberra at 1 June 1 978, in respect of each Minister listed above.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: ( 1), (2) and (3). The numbers, names, positions occupied and home bases of the Ministerial and electorate staff of the Ministers mentioned, as at 1 June 1978, are set out in the table below which has been prepared by the Department of Administrative Services:

MINISTER FOR TRADE AND RESOURCES

The Rt Hon. J. D. Anthony, M.P.

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 4- Mr B. Virtue, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr P. Flanagan, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 -Miss A. P. Daly, Canberra.

Press Secretary- Mr R. B. Dodd, Sydney.

Personal Secretary- Mrs J. H. Wein (a), Murwillumbah.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss K. A. Bourke, Canberra.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss S. L. Wurfel, Canberra.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Vacant.

Secretary/Typist- Miss C. M. Stronach, Canberra.

Electorate Assistant- Ms W. Tuck (b), Murwillumbah.

a ) Electorate Secretary.

Ms Tuck is paid as Typist Grade 2.

Total Number of Positions = 10.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 9.

TREASURER

The Hon. John Howard, M.P.

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Consultant to the Treasurer (Part-time position)Professor J. Hewson, Sydney.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr G. R. Hodgkinson, Sydney.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr J. A. Hanks, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 1 -Mr J. A. Robertson, Canberra.

Press Secretary- Vacant.

Personal Secretary- Mrs A. May (a), Sydney.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss B. A. Williams, Sydney.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss S. Dal Santo, Canberra.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss L. H. Brewer, Sydney.

Secretary /Typist- Miss J. P. Harwood, Sydney.

Electorate Assistant- Mrs P. M. Housden, Sydney.

Electorate Secretary.

Total Number of Positions = 11.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 10.

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION

Senator the Hon. J. L. Carrick

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr W. L. Daniels, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2-Dr T. A. Metherell, Sydney.

Press Secretary- Vacant.

Personal Secretary- Miss H. M. Hughan, Sydney.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss J. Billington, Canberra.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 - Mrs B. M. Carroll, Canberra.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 -Vacant.

Secretary /Typist (a)- Mrs A. N. Dean, Sydney.

Electorate Assistant- Mr D. J. Booth, Sydney.

Electorate Secretary.

Total Number of Positions = 9.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 7.

MINISTER FOR HEALTH

The Hon. Ralph J. Hunt, M.P.

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr P. Knox, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr F. W. Jennings, Canberra.

Personal Secretary- Miss M. Girle, Canberra.

Assistant Private Secretary- Mr R. L. Lawrence, Canberra.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss A. Lonergan, Canberra.

Secretary/Typist (a)- Mrs S. A. Watts, Sydney.

Electorate Assistant- Mrs C. T. Adamek, Canberra.

Electorate Secretary.

Total Number of Positions = 7.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 7.

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

The Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, M.P.

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr I. E. Worrall, Sydney.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr S. J. Carney, Canberra.

Press Secretary- Mr N. E. McDonald, Sydney.

Personal Secretary- Miss D. A. Wilson, Sydney.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss S. E. Hodgkinson, Canberra.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 -Mrs M. Hamilton, Sydney.

Steno-Secretary, Grade1 -Miss C. T. Dunn, Canberra.

Secretary/Typist (a)- Miss B. Shelton, Sydney.

Electorate Assistant- Miss S. Whittaker, Sydney.

Electorate Secretary.

Total Number of Positions = 9.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 9.

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

The Hon. M. J. R. MacKellar, M.P.

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr N. A. McCann, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2-Mrs M. M. J. Weatherstone, Canberra.

Personal Secretary- Miss L. Melnikoff, Sydney.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss H. Ovens (a), Sydney.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss P. A. Farmer, Canberra.

Secretary/Typist- Mrs V. P. Lewis, Canberra.

Electorate Assistant- Miss W. Moore, Sydney.

Electorate Secretary.

Total Number of Positions = 7.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 7.

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

The Hon. R. J. Ellicott, Q.C., M.P.

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3- Mr G. D. Holmes, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2-Miss C. E. Wilson, Sydney.

Personal Secretary- Miss J. B. Allen, Sydney.

Assistant Private Secretary- Mrs I. Hendry, Sydney.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1 -Miss A. Cafeill, Canberra.

Secretary/Typist (a)- Mrs P. Baker, Sydney.

Electorate Assistant- Vacant.

a ) Electorate Secretary.

Total Number of Positions = 7.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 6.

MINISTER FOR BUSINESS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

The Hon. Wal Fife, M.P.

Position, Occupant and Home Base:

Ministerial Officer, Grade 3-Mr W. R. Clark, Canberra.

Ministerial Officer, Grade 2- Mr S. J. Whyment, Canberra.

Personal Secretary- Miss K. A. Lewis, Canberra.

Assistant Private Secretary- Miss E. I. Strath, Canberra.

Steno-Secretary, Grade 1- Miss L. M. Lowes, Canberra.

Secretary /Typist (a)- Mrs J. Nugent, Albury.

Electorate Assistant- Miss M. Smith, Canberra.

Electorate Secretary.

Total Number of Positions = 7.

Positions Filled at 1.6.78 = 7.

Medical Profession: Peer Review System (Question No. 562)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) How much time has elapsed since the Minister asked the Australian Medical Association to conduct an inquiry into the introduction of a peer review system to medical and hospital practice in Australia designed partly to contain doctor-initiated health costs.
  2. On how many occasions has the Minister, or officers of his Department, met the AMA since the inquiry began, to discuss progress of the inquiry.
  3. What were the results of those discussions.
  4. Did the Minister indicate that the Government itself would introduce a mandatory peer review scheme if the AMA did not initiate a voluntary one of its own design.
  5. When does the Minister now anticipate that the AMA will present its peer review proposals to the Government.
  6. Will the Minister expedite the introduction of this scheme in the event of the failure of the AMA to respond quickly and effectively to the Minister’s request.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I announced on 20 May 1976 the Government’s invitation to the medical profession to institute systems of peer reviewof professional standards.

  1. At the time of announcing the Government’s invitation to the medical profession, I noted that review arrangements should be established ‘in close consultation with the Department of Health’. Since then a number of meetings have been held with the Australian Medical Association to discuss particular aspects of the Association’s investigation of systems of peer review.
  2. 3 ) The discussions led to the Commonwealth ‘s support of the following activities by the Australian Medical Association:

1976- 77

  1. an overseas study tour to examine systems of peer review;
  2. a national seminar involving the participation of a broad representation of both medical and nonmedical viewpoints;

1977- 78

  1. production of a pamphlet for distribution throughout the medical profession as part of an educational program relating to peer review and quality assurance mechanisms.
  2. production of a working manual ‘Clinical Criteria Auditing’ to help interested persons establish systems of peer review;

1978- 79

  1. a pilot study of peer review at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, New South Wales, involving criteria audit of carcinoma of the cervix;
  2. a pilot study of peer review at St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne concerning surgical audit based on patient outcome.

    1. I indicated in May 1976 that: ‘Failure to have workable systems in operation within 3 years could result in the introduction of mandatory systems’.
    2. In May 1978 the Federal Assembly of the Australian Medical Association endorsed the concept of the introduction of peer review systems, embraced the principle of the profession being responsible for overseeing such systems and that systems be introduced progressively. On 28 August 1 978 the AMA forwarded to the Commonwealth Department of Health a list of initiatives it proposes taking and also sought Commonwealth financial support for some of these. Some of the initiatives proposed by the AMA include the further development of pilot projects, training workshops and the linking of peer review activities to hospital accreditation and to medical education. The AMA request is currently being considered.
    3. There is no reason to anticipate that the AMA will fail to introduce a workable system of peer review of professional standards. Indeed, in its approach to my Department of 28 August 1978 the AMA states that ‘If the present momentum is maintained, it is likely that all but the smallest hospitals in Australia will have ongoing peer review activities as part of their normal operations within the foreseeable future ‘.

Aboriginal Teachers (Question No. 565)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 June 1978:

  1. Did the Northern Territory Teachers’ Federation claim, in a press statement of 30 May 1978, that, despite the announcement in May 1977 of the National Strategy on Aboriginal Employment and the introduction of a Community Development Employment Projects scheme, interested communities have had difficulty in receiving funds.
  2. Will the Government expedite the creation of needed Aboriginal teaching and ancillary positions to assist in overcoming the high incidence of unemployment among Aboriginal school leavers.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. ) As you are aware my Department has for a number of years recognised the value in the Northern Territory of employing Aboriginals in work associated with the teaching of Aboriginal students. In harmony with the Government’s National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals it has identified positions which should befilled by Aboriginals and has provided an employment structure and training opportunities for its Aboriginal employees. I believe there is scope to extend existing opportunities for the employment of Aboriginals in the Northern Territory education system, and I will continue to pursue this aim.

Aboriginal: Definition (Question No. 566)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 9 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) What action is taken to investigate applicants to ensure they are deemed Aboriginal in each of the following areas in accordance with the relevant Act: (a) Aboriginal housing; (b) Aboriginal housing loans with 2 per cent interest rate; (c) Aboriginal Loans Commission loans for private and business purposes; (d) Land Rights claims under the Federal Act; (e) Federal Act; (e) medical treatment in regard to fares, aircharter, etc.; (g) Aboriginal sporting grants; (h) Aboriginal cultural grants; (i) entry on to Aboriginal lands and permit to remain there; (j ) authority to remain on pastoral leases; (k) authority to hunt game, fish and gather eggs and to remove them from Wildlife Reserves; (1) Aboriginal Legal Aid assistance; (m) medical and dental treatment; (n) employment in special circumstances; (o) Aboriginal Benefit Fund; and (p) any other areas not mentioned but where people who are part-Aboriginal but not identifying as Aboriginal people may be applicants for special Aboriginal assistance.
  2. Has any application under the headings in (1) been refused on the grounds that the person concerned did not identify as an Aboriginal.
  3. What is considered to be a reasonable time period before Government or a funding organisation recognises a person who wishes to identify as an Aboriginal.
  4. Has the definition of Aboriginal under the relevant Acts been disregarded as a basis for financial support.
  5. Do all applicants receive financial assistance without query; if not, what, for example, is the position of an applicant who lives to all intents and purposes as a suburbanite employed in an urban industry.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) For the administration of Commonwealth Government assistance programs for Aboriginals since 1968, an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander has been defined as a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community with which he/she is associated.

Assistance through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is usually provided to groups and communities rather than to individuals. Traditional land claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act are made by or on behalf of groups of Aboriginals in accordance with the provisions of the Act which does not establish any racial qualifications but requires that a particular relationship in accordance with Aboriginal tradition be established. Commonwealth legislation provides for individual Aboriginals to apply for assistance in relation to-

  1. housing loans, where the Aboriginal Loans Commission requires the applicant to show that he/she complies with the definition given above by providing certification from a recognised Aboriginal organisation before an application is considered;
  2. enterprise loans, where the Aboriginal Loans Commission requires that applicants satisfy the officers responsible for investigation of applications that they meet the definition and the investigating officer either makes his own inquiries or requires certification from a recognised Aboriginal organisation; and
  3. grants from the Northern Territory Aborigines Benefit Trust Fund (now the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account) where the advisory committee satisfies itself as to the eligibility of any individual applicants on the basis of reports from staff or certification by an Aboriginal organisation.

No legislation applies in the case of-

  1. Aboriginal Secondary and Study Grants (but applicants have to declare their Aboriginality and where there is any doubt, following interview by Department of Education officers, enquiries are pursued with recognised Aboriginal organisations); and
  2. grants made on the recommendation of the National Aboriginal Sports Foundation (but the committee of the Foundation must similarly be satisfied as to the eligibility of any individual applicant).

State Government Departments and authorities and Aboriginal organisations, such as the Legal and Medical Services, and housing associations, also provide services to Aboriginals and each has its own methods of determining the eligibility of applicants.

  1. The Aboriginal Loans Commission has refused one housing and two business loan applications on the grounds that the applicants were unable to demonstrate eligibility. Some applications for assistance for Aboriginal students administered by the Department of Education have been rejected on the grounds of non-Aboriginal descent.

Some people who have made inquiries about assistance from the Aborigines Benefit Trust Fund have not proceeded with applications after discussing their eligibility with staff.

  1. Government authorities and other organisations seek to deal with applications as expenditiously as possible but no definite time periods are set down for handling applications.
  2. No.
  3. 5 ) No; see answer to ( 1 ) above.

Aborigines: Health Care (Question No. 567)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

  1. Will the Government’s abolition of bulk or direct billing have immediate and catastrophic effects on the availability of specialist medical care to Aboriginals, especially those living in outback parts of Australia.
  2. Did Dr John Ward, of the New South Wales Aboriginal Medical Service and a spokesman for the Doctors’ Reform Society, suggest that ten pediatrician and ear, nose and throat specialists, now working amongst Aboriginals in outback parts of New South Wales and paid by the bulk billing method, will have to abandon their work in three weeks’ time.
  3. Did Dr Ward also comment that specialist medical care has been available to Aboriginals in isolated areas only since Medibank was introduced and that the loss of these specialists will seriously affect the health and welfare of Aboriginals.
  4. Did Dr Ward claim that the work done by these specialists in outback New South Wales alone is saving the Government $3m a year in hospitalisation costs.
  5. Will the Minister ensure that Aboriginals, many of whom live in sub-standard housing and with chronic health problems requiring specialist attention, will not lose access to specialist medical care now funded by bulk billing, as a result of the Government’s proposed changes to the health insurance scheme.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Those in need will continue to have access to general medical and specialist services.
  2. to (4) I am aware of the comments made by Dr Ward but I am not in a position to comment on their accuracy.
  3. ) The Government has decided that bulk billing should continue to be available to any practitioner for any uninsured patient identified by the practitioner as genuinely socially disadvantaged. The availability of this facility is conditional upon the practitioner accepting a rate of benefit of 75 per cent of the Schedule Fee in full satisfaction of fees for patients who are bulk billed under these arrangements.

Until such time as the necessary amendments can be made the existing bulk billing system will continue. The above decision does not affect the previously announced arrangements for people with Pensioner Health Benefits entitlements and their dependants. Doctors may continue to bulk bill for these patients and the rate of medical benefits payable remains at 85 per cent of the Schedule Fee with a maximum payment by the patient of $5 for each service where the Schedule Fee is charged.

Special Youth Employment Training Program (Question No. 572)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 8 June 1978:

Will the Minister give consideration to lengthening the period of subsidy to employers, under the Special Youth Employment Training Program, from six months to one year for semi-skilled occupations, in view of the inadequacy of six months’ training in these areas.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The subsidy available under the Special Youth Employment Training Program (SYETP) is aimed at encouraging employers to provide work experience and skills for unemployed young persons which will enhance the trainees’ prospects of obtaining stable employment. In contrast to the normal on-the-job training under the National Employment and Training System (NEAT) the emphasis of the programme has been on the acquisition of more basic skills. As a result of a recent review of SYETP it was considered that the period of subsidised training and work experience should be reduced from sui months to four months, with the maximum subsidy payable per week to employers reduced from $67.00 to $45.00. These changes were announced in conjunction with the recent Budget. The period of training and work experience remain slightly longer than the average on-the-job training period for adult workers under NEAT and in excess of training periods for the majority of semi-skilled occupations under NEAT.

Mr Robert Orbinski (Question No. 575)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 June 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was Mr Robert Orbinski arrested and convicted in Melbourne on 19 May 1978, entitled to Legal Aid from the Australian Legal Aid Office.
  2. Was Mr Orbinski seen by an Australian Legal Aid officer when charged in Melbourne on Friday, 1 9 May 1 978.
  3. Did that officer consider whether he was fit to plead; if not, why not.
  4. Has the Commonwealth Government provided sufficient funds for the Legal Aid Office in Melbourne to operate effectively.
  5. 5 ) What experience has the duty Legal Aid officer at the Melbourne City Court had, and what case load does he have to carry.
  6. Is the Legal Aid officer instructed to act for people on contested matters on the day.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not known whether Mr Robert Orbinski was entitled to legal aid from the Australian Legal Aid Office.
  2. No.
  3. Does not arise.
  4. Yes.
  5. I am informed that two lawyers of the Australian Legal Aid Office attend at the Melbourne City Court as duty lawyers each week on an alternative basis. I understand that one of the lawyers has practised as a solicitor for six years and the other for five years and both lawyers have specialised for about two years in the functions of a duty lawyer.

The case load varies from day to day but I am informed that during a 3 month period between March 1978 and June 1978 the duty lawyer advised an average of 2.8 persons per day and also appeared in court for an average of 3.5 persons per day.

  1. It is not the function of a duty lawyer of the Australian Legal Aid Office to act for people on contested matters.

Medibank Properties Pty Ltd (Question No. 586)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 June 1978:

  1. Has Medibank Private formed a subsidiary called Medibank Properties Pty Ltd to build new Medibank headquarters in Canberra.
  2. Will this building be occupied by Medibank, Medibank Private, and/or any other tenants.
  3. Has Medibank Private repaid the $10m interest-free loan borrowed from the Commonwealth Government in 1976.
  4. Does Medibank currently occupy any free space in premises owned or leased by the Commonwealth Government.
  5. Has any other private health fund an interest-free loan from the Commonwealth Government.
  6. Has any other private health fund been provided with free space in buildings owned or leased by the Commonwealth Government.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, but in the light of the Budget changes to Medibank there should now be a larger amount of space available for other tenants.
  3. and (4) No.
  4. I am advised that Medibank Private is the only private health fund to have received such a loan. Medibank Private commenced operations from 1 October 1 976 and was given a loan to establish itself. All other private funds had been operating for many years and the question of a loan to any of them does not arise.
  5. The Army Health Benefits Society and the Naval Health Benefits Society are provided with free office space owned or leased by the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth Bank Health Society and the Reserve Bank Health Society are provided with free office space by the respective statutory authorities in their own building. I am advised that no other private health fund is provided with free office space owned or leased by the Commonwealth. I also point out that from 1 July 1977 the Health Insurance Commission pays rent, or owns, all accommodation which it occupies.

Department of Social Security: Staff (Question No. 589)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) In which cities or towns were the additional staff, indicated in the Minister’s answer to Question 501 (Hansard, 9-10 June 1978, page 2825), provided to the Department of Social Security in Queensland.
  2. How many staff were provided in each of those cities or towns.
  3. What were the positions to which the staff were appointed in each city or town.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

page 506

HMAS’OTWAY

(Question No. 594)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

What is the established strength of the crew of HMAS Otway in terms of (a) officers; (b) senior sailors, and (c) junior sailors.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Officers-7
  2. b ) Senior sailors- 1 8
  3. Junior sailors- 38

Total-63

Handicapped Persons (Question No. 600)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1978:

What action has been taken, or is proposed, concerning the recommendations in the Second Report of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped that:

some seeding funds be made available to assist in the development of at least one Independent Living Centre for the handicapped in each State and Territory; and

that the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled National Committee on Aids and Appliances give particular attention to means of achieving a high degree of standardisation and uniformity in cataloguing and retrieval of information so that the best possible level of service is available throughout Australia.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. To date an Independent Living Centre has been established in each mainland State capital by organizations affiliated with the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled and interested in-
  2. the provision of a central body of knowledge concerning type and availability of aids and appliances for the disabled and

    1. the display of a selection of these items.

No Commonwealth funds are currently available to assist with the activities of Independent Living Centres, nevertheless, in Brisbane and Adelaide the Department of Social Security has assisted with the establishment of the centres by providing accommodation within the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service Centre located in each of these cities.

  1. It is understood that the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of Disabled has adopted a standard form of cataloguing for the Independent Living Centres in all States and that it is also proposed to include one-off aids and appliances, such as those made by Technical Aid for Disabled and other voluntary organisations.

Mr John Ceskovic (Question No. 606)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1978:

What was the Minister’s final decision relating to the proposed deportation of Mr John Ceskovic.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

It has been decided that Mr Ceskovic is to be deponed to Yugoslavia. However it has been indicated that an application will be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the decision. In the event that such an application is accepted out of time action to deport Mr Ceskovic will be withheld pending the hearing and consideration of the Tribunal ‘s findings.

Education: Adult Secondary Allowance Scheme (Question No. 612)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total cost of the Adult Secondary Allowance Scheme in each financial year since its inception.
  2. How many students have received, and have been receiving, benefits under the Scheme in each year since its inception.
  3. When does the Government propose introducing legislation to govern the operation of the Scheme.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1974-75, actual $759,047*: 1975-76. actual $3,228,222; 1976-77, actual $4,595,786; 1977-78, actual $4,934,664; 1978-79, estimate $6,008,400
  1. 1975-1,400; 1976-2,489; 1977-2,537:1 978-2,463

at August 2, 1978.

  1. It is intended that the scheme will be brought within the coverage of the Student Assistance Act in due course by an appropriate amendment to that Act. In the meantime, it might be noted that the levels of benefit and means-testing requirements under the scheme are aligned to those which are applicable under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and which are thus provided for under existing legislation.

Education: Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 613)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total cost of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) in each financial year since its inception.
  2. ) How many students have received, and are receiving, benefits under the Scheme in each year since its inception.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1973-74 actual $34,866,664;* 1974-75 actual $77,336,117; 1975-76, actual $109,624,632; 1 976-77, actual $135,774,586; 1977-78, actual $146,133,127; 1978-79, estimate $ 1 66,399,000

*The Scheme was introduced in 1 974; expenditure is for the period January- June 1974.

  1. 1974-56,975 at 30 June (no end of year figure available); 1975-81,000; 1976-96,000; 1977-99,000; 1978-97,779 at 2 August.

Commonwealth Electoral Act: Revision (Question No. 618)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What reviews, if any, is the Commonwealth Electoral Office currently undertaking in relation to the revision of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
  2. Is any review taking place which will particularly give attention to the provisions of sections 145- 15 1 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act; if not, when is it anticipated that such a review or reviews will take place.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) A review is currently being undertaken of all aspects of the Commonwealth Electoral Electoral Act 1 9 1 8.I can give no indication as yet as to when the results of that review are likely to come forward for Government consideration.

Sydney Harbour National Park (Question No. 620)

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1978:

How many times during the past twelve months have Ministers from the Australian and New South Wales governments conferred on the release of Sydney Harbour foreshore land for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park concept.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Commonwealth and State Ministers have not conferred during the past twelve months on the release of Sydney Harbour foreshore land for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park concept however further discussions are expected to take place in the near future.

Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd (Question No. 622)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited operate any duty free shops in Brisbane; if so: (a) which shops; and (b) does Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Limited have a policy of preference towards Australian goods.
  2. Was Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd known by another name; if so, what name.
  3. Who are the current Directors of Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes; (a) In the International Airport Building at Brisbane Airport and at 297 Adelaide Street, Brisbane, (b) No. Duty Free shops mainly trade in imported goods which attract an import duty, hence their name. However, a range of Australian goods such as opals, Australiana souvenirs, some electrical appliances and leather goods which incur high sales tax are carried tax free in both shops.
  2. Yes, Commonwealth Hostels Limited.
  3. Chairman of Directors- Mr J. J. Maunsell, Managing Director, Century Storage Batteries, Company of Sydney.

Directors-Mr G. N. Crawford-Fish, Partner of Irish, Young and Outhwaite, Chartered Accountants; Mr J. P. Devereaux, Former National President of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union and Former Executive member of the ACTU; Mr S. J. Dempsey, Deputy Secretary, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Canberra; Mr J. M. Wark, O.B.E., First Assistant Secretary, Department of Finance, Canberra.

Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme (Question No. 623)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

How much reinsurance has been received by each State under the reinsurance cover of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme in each year since reinsurance cover had been taken out.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

No reinsurance claims have been made since cover was first taken out in 1975.

Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme (Question No. 624)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) In what years since 19S6 has there been an excess of payments over premiums paid in Queensland under the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme.
  2. What major event or events contributed to the loss in these years and which were the principle cities and towns affected.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. In each of the financial years 1966-67 to 1974-75 (inclusive).
  2. ) The major events which contributed to the loss and the areas affected are as follows: 1 966- 67- Hail storm: Brisbane; 1967- 68, 1 968-69 - Hail storms: Brisbane, Maryborough and Bundaberg; 1969-70, 1 970-71 -Hail storms: Brisbane and Redcliffe; 1971-72, 1972-73-Cyclone ‘Althea’ at Townsville and Brisbane tornado; 1973-74, 1974-75-Cyclone ‘Wanda’: Brisbane, Ipswich, Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast.

Bluetongue Control (Question No. 625)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What restrictions have been placed on the movement of stock within Australia, particularly the Northern Territory, because of the Bluetongue disease.
  2. Has there been any change in restrictions on the movement of livestock to other countries, and what is the present attitude to overseas client countries which import livestock from Australia.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) Bluetongue control areas were introduced following the discovery of a bluetongue virus (serotype 20) in northern Australia in October 1977. The Australian Agricultural Council has continually reviewed the original restrictions and the present movement controls are as follows: cattle from properties with no evidence of active or recent infection can move out of the bluetongue control areas without further testing. This applies to slaughter, breeding and store cattle. cattle from properties with evidence of recent or active infection are required to satisfy further conditions before movement. Slaughter cattle may be consigned for slaughter within 1 4 days of leaving the control area either to a sale or direct to an abattoir without further testing. Breeders and store cattle must be further blood tested before movement and only cattle negative to this test will be allowed to move to a suitable location in the control area for a further retest after 14 days. Cattle positive to this second test must be removed for direct slaughter or returned to the property of origin. Cattle negative to the second test may move out of control areas.

Insecticide treatment before movement is no longer required for bluetongue control.

These modifications minimise the risk to the sheep and cattle industry in the remainder of the country and reduce restrictions on northern cattle producers. Tasmania and Western Australia in reference to its south-western areas, have reaffirmed that the testing and certification of all ruminants entering these areas will remain in force for the time being.

  1. Yes. The present bluetongue certification requirements of overseas client countries are:

Total Bans

Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Fiji, the German Democratic Republic, New Zealand, People’s Republic of China, Romania, United Kingdom/Northern Ireland, Western Samoa.

Total Bans on Control Areas or Areas North of 18°S Latitude with Certification and Testing for the Remaining Areas

Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran (sheep from Queensland), Kuwait, West Malaysia (breeding cattle only), Philippines, Republic of Korea (north of 22°S latitude).

Certification and Testing Only

Iran, Japan, West Malaysia (slaughter cattle only), Mauritius, Papua New Guinea, Taiwan, Brunei, Sabah, Sarawak.

The only recent change is by the Republic of Korea which has lifted its total ban on the importation of ruminants, and by Papua New Guinea which lifted its total ban on ruminants.

Social Security Frauds (Question No. 629)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 7 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many members of the Greek community in Sydney have been charged in connection with alleged social security frauds.
  2. How many people have been charged and have later had the charges withdrawn.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Nil.

Education: Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 631)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Edu cation, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1 978:

  1. 1) Are single students who claim the full independent allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) because of ‘difficult conditions at home ‘ required to provide a detailed floor plan of the family home; if so, why.
  2. 2 ) What other information must students in this situation provide in order to receive the full independent allowance under TEAS.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Students are not granted independent status under TEAS because of Difficult conditions at home ‘.

However, students may qualify for the living away from home rate of allowance if they live away from home because home conditions are considered to be unsuitable for study. The means test is still applied to the parents’ as well as the students’ income.

Students who base their claim of difficult home circumstances on the grounds that the home is too small and crowded to allow sufficient quiet and privacy for study are required to provide a sketch showing the layout and size of the home in support of their claim.

  1. To obtain independent status under TEAS a student must meet one of the following criteria:

    1. be at least 25 years of age;
    2. b ) be married, have been married or have been living in a de facto relationship continuously for two years (one year with children);
    3. be an orphan or ward of the State;
    4. d ) have been full time in the workforce for two years out of the previous five years

Appropriate documentary evidence (e.g. birth certificate, statements from employers) is required to support these claims.

Where independent status is granted only the income of the student and his or her spouse ‘s income is means tested.

Education: Central Australia (Question No. 633)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) Was a recent survey conducted into educational needs in Central Australia by the Alice Springs Community College; if so, does this show strong demand for a wide range of post-compulsory education facilities almost totally lacking in Central Australia.
  2. Does the Five Year Development Program proposed by the College represent a significant attempt to remedy the educational disadvantages suffered by people in isolated areas of Central Australia in Aboriginal Education, Vocational Training, Continuing Education and Community Development.
  3. Will the Minister support the establishment of an independent Community College of Central Australia as recommended by the Northern Territory Further Education Council.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The Alice Springs College undertook an educational needs survey recently as pan of its development of a submission to the Northern Territory Further Education Council on the future of the Alice Springs College. While the survey provides useful basic data on the range of additional programs which might be organised, there is no detailed evidence of strength of demand over the range at this stage.
  2. and (3) As the Alice Springs College is an annexe of the Darwin Community College, the Council of the Darwin Community College will be providing advice on the issues raised in the survey for the consideration of the Further Education Council. The Council will then report to me on the appropriate future role, status and activities of the Alice Springs College.

I am most concerned that the people of Central Australia should have access to as wide a range of courses and training opportunities as is feasible.

Sickness Benefit (Question No. 640)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the cost of providing supplementary benefit to long term sickness beneficiaries.
  2. What would be the cost of providing supplementary benefit to unemployed and special beneficiaries under the same conditions as those applying to long term sickness beneficiaries.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Expenditure on supplementary allowance for sickness beneficiaries is not recorded separately from the payment of the basic sickness benefit. However, at 30 June 1978, there were some 7,300 sickness beneficiaries receiving supplementary allowance, at an estimated annual cost of $ 1.8m.
  2. Since the proportion of unemployment beneficiaries and special beneficiaries who pay rent is not known, it is not possible to estimate the cost of extending supplementary allowance to such beneficiaries.

Primary Industry Bank (Question No. 649)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

What are the criteria which, according to recent statements by the Minister, the Government expects the Primary Industry Bank to achieve.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The purpose of the Bank is to increase the availability of loan funds for primary production by facilitating the provision of longer term loans to primary producers.

In terms of the Primary Industry Act 1977 the Government may make grants or loans to the Bank on terms and conditions determined by the Treasurer and agreed by the Bank. This provision may be used to enable loans to primary producers to be made on terms more favourable than would otherwise be practicable. As announced in the 1978-79 Budget the Government has decided to offer to assist the Bank by investing with it funds from the Income Equalisation Deposit Trust Account.

Australian Ambassadors and Heads of Missions: Motor Vehicles (Question No. 654)

Senator Hamer:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 August 1978:

  1. What was the (a) make; and (b) country of manufacture, of each car supplied to Australian Ambassadors and Heads of Missions in the 6 months ended 30 June 1 978.
  2. In cases where the cars were not of Australian manufacture, what were the reasons for the non-supply of an Australian car.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

(1)-

  1. In replies to previous questions on this subject it has been indicated that Australian vehicles are provided to posts overseas where the price (including freight), location and suitability of the vehicle, availability of spare parts and effective after-sale service make it reasonable for such a vehicle to be supplied. This policy has been followed in relation to the supply of vehicles mentioned in the answer to Part 1 of the question.

Prime Minister’s Lodge Staff (Question No. 675)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What position is held by the new full-time employee at The Lodge, for whom $6,700 has been allocated in the Estimates of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  2. What are his or her duties at The Lodge.
  3. What, if any, staff ceilings at present applied to Government Departments were waived to accommodate this new appointment.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Housemaid.
  2. General domestic assistance.
  3. None.

Education: Unemployed Youth (Question No. 685)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

Was a control group used in a survey evaluating the success of an education program in its first six months, which, according to the Minister’s statement in the Australian, 18 August 1 978 ‘indicated that about 38 per cent of respondents had succeeded in gaining employment’; if so, what are the relevant details of the control group.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:. No. A rela tively small scale internal evaluation project designed to monitor early experiences with the Education Program for Unemployed Youth (EPUY) was carried out by my Department. The use of a control group was beyond the scope of the evaluation.

Since completing the internal evaluation, my Department has commissioned the Australian Council of Educational Research to conduct an in-depth evaluation of EPUY, to be completed in mid- 1979. It is anticipated that some use will be made of control groups in this research study. In particular, it is proposed to investigate the educational background, attitudes and socio-economic attributes of persons considered eligible for EPUY courses, and to make comparisons between those offered enrolment and those not offered enrolment, and between those accepting enrolment and those rejecting enrolment. It is hoped that such analyses will identify urban/rural and state variations, discrepant proportions of disadvantaged group members, and provide a description of the actual client group which may or may not reflect the intended client group. In addition to information gethered prior to and during the EPUY courses, it is proposed to follow up those who accept enrolment and those who reject enrolment to ascertain their success in gaining and retaining employment.

Queensland Government: Blackbirding in Papua New Guinea (Question No. 691)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic

Affairs, upon notice, on 24 August 1 978: . Has the

Government noted the comments by Papua New Guinea ‘s former Governor-General, Sir John Guise, concerning blackbirding’; if so, have any investigations been carried out concerning the allegation that illegal immigrants from Papua New Guinea are entering Australia in search of better pay and conditions.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The comments of Sir John Guise, made in the Papua New Guinea Parliament on 7 August 1978 in a question to the Papua New Guinea Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade the Hon. E. Ebia Olewale, and in a statement on 1 5 August 1978, were noted as was the statement in reply made in the Papua New Guinea Parliament by Mr Olewale on 1 5 August 1978.

Visits to study the movement of Papua New Guineans into the Torres Strait area and mainland Australia have been carried out in recent months by a task force from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The findings of the task force have been considered by an interdepartmental committee which has made recommendations to Ministers on courses of action to be taken.

Government Departments: Payment of Accounts (Question No. 265)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice,on 14 March 1978:

What action has been taken by the Government to ensure that departments pay all accounts promptly, as undertaken by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senate Hansard 13 October 1977, page 1374).

Sen.for Guilfoyle- The Minister for Finance has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As the Minister for Industry and Commerce said on the occasion to which the honourable senator refers, all Ministers are required, by the Government, to ensure that their departments take action to pay all accounts promptly.

That requirement has been laid down not only by Government decision but also in letters to Ministers and, from the Department of Finance, to all Permanent Heads.

It is also laid down in the Finance Directions- where a supplier lodges a claim it must be, under those Directions, dealt with expeditiously.

The Department of Finance takes a serious view of unwarranted delays in payment of accounts and pursues delays which come to its notice with the department concerned.

The Department of Finance has also arranged with all departments that they nominate a central office senior officer and senior officer in each capital city (where relevant) as contact points to deal with in cases where delays in payment of accounts are drawn to the Department of Finance’s notice.

There are, of course, occasions where an account is in dispute and this may lead to unavoidable delays- Finance Directions provide that where an account is in dispute but a substantial amount is in order for payment, the amount in order shall be paid.

In brief, the action the Government has taken is to lay down firm and explicit guidelines to departments on the prompt payment of accounts and to provide for a mechanism for follow-up, via the Department of Finance, where any unreasonable delays by a particular department are brought to its notice.

Wool: Export to India (Question No. 507)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 26 May 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has India imposed a tariff duty or import quota, or both, on the import of greasy wool into that country.
  2. If a duty or import quota has been imposed: (a) what is the rate of duty or the size of the quota or both; and (b) from what date did the tariff or quota, or both, apply.
  3. On what date was the Australian Government informed of the decision, and from whom was the information received.
  4. What were the reasons for the introduction of the quota or the tariff.
  5. Does it apply to both greasy and processed wool; if not, to which wool does it apply.
  6. What action has the Australian Government taken, or does it propose to take, to have the tariff duty or the quota removed or reduced.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) India has imposed a tariff duty on wool. There are no quantitative limitations on the import of wool.
  2. (a) The rate of duty was raised initially from free to 27½ per cent in 1969, to 40 per cent in 1971 and to 60 per cent in 1977. On the last occasion an additional auxiliary duty (for which India originally obtained a GATT waiver in November 1973) was raised from 5 per cent to 15 per cent, resulting in a total effective duty of 75 percent.

    1. The latest increase applied with effect from 17 June 1977.
  3. The proposal to increase the duty on wool was included in the Indian Budget presented to the Parliament on 1 7 June. Advice of the duty increase was relayed to Australia on 20 June 1977 by the Australian Trade Commissioner in New Delhi.
  4. At the Australia-India Joint Trade Committee discussions held in November 1977, the Indian officials explained this increase as a purely fiscal measure.
  5. The duty applies to both raw wool, including slipe, washed, scoured and carbonised, and wool tops.
  6. The Government has been endeavouring to persuade the Indian Government to reduce the level of duty through consultations under GATT Article XXVIII and during discussions in bilateral and multilateral trade fora.

Consultations with the Indian Government on the question of a reduction of the present tariff on wool are continuing.

Department of Social Security: Regional Offices (Question No. 627)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 August 1978:

How many new regional offices of the Department of Social Security were established:

between January and June 1 976; and ( b) between June 1 976 and July 1978.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. One(Redfern, NSW).
  2. Five (Bathurst, Port Macquarie and Manly, NSW, Salisbury and Kadina, SA). In addition to new offices, between the period June 1976 and July 1978, existing offices at the following locations were upgraded: NSW- Bondi Junction, Griffith, Hornsby, Hurstville, Maitland and Mt Druitt; Vic- Box Hill, Moonee Ponds, Richmond and Shepparton; Qld- Ipswich, Mackay and Rockhampton; SA- Berri, Elizabeth, Glenelg and Murray Bridge; WA- Fremantle and Midland; Tas.- Bellerive, Devonport and Launceston.

Electoral: Aborigines (Question No. 611)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. What action has the Department of Administrative Services, or the Government as a whole, taken to: (a) ensure that Australian Aboriginals are made aware of their rights and obligation to vote at elections; and (b) to encourage Aboriginals to register as voters.
  2. What sums have been set aside in the Departmental budgets for the financial years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, for publicity, advertising or other communications methods to encourage Aboriginals to register as voters.
  3. How many Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders currently resident in Australia, are eligible to vote, but have not registered to do so.
  4. How many reside in each State.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Section 42 (5) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 gives Aboriginal people the right to choose whether or not they enrol as electors. This right is one which is to be exercised freely and indeed it is an offence against the electoral law to interfere or attempt to interfere with the free exercise by an Aboriginal of his or her choice whether or not to enrol.

Against this background, the Australian Electoral Office in consultation with other appropriate authorities, is developing programs of electoral education aimed at ensuring that Aboriginal people are better equipped to meet their electoral responsibilities should they choose to enrol. This approach was adopted in connection with the 1977 Northern Territory Legislative Assembly elections and the last Federal general election. In more detail this approach included:

  1. special instructions were issued to Presiding Officers to ensure that assistance to non-literate voters was properly given. These instructions covered the marking of ballot papers, the use of How-to- Vote cards and the secrecy of the vote in respect of non-literate voters;
  2. Poll Clerks fluent in Aboriginal languages were employed at specified polling places;
  3. posters aimed at assisting those Aboriginal voters having some degree of literacy to fill in their ballot papers were printed in Aboriginal languages for display at polling places at which Aboriginal electors were expected to vote and copies were distributed to Aboriginal communities. Additionally, similar information was prepared in leaflet form for general distribution. Both the posters and the leaflets were made available to officers of the Aboriginal Adult Education Section of the Department of Education in the Northern Territory to assist them in the electoral education of Aboriginals; and
  4. a cassette tape, a 16mm film and video tape were made on electoral procedures. These were distributed to radio and television stations and to Aboriginal communities.

In early 1979 the Australian Electoral Office expects to begin a continuing program of electoral education for Aboriginal people living in non-urban areas. The aim is to establish this program first in Western Australia and South Australia, extending later to the Northern Territory and Queensland. A sum of $ 100,000 has been provided in the 1 978-79 budget to fund the initial stage of this program.

Expenditure details for Aboriginal electoral education for the financial years 1975-76. 1976-77 and 1977-78 are not available in the form requested. That expenditure was part of the Australian Electoral Office’s overall initiative in the areas of information and electoral education for which the following financial provisions were made in the three years.

  1. and (4) The Australian Electoral Office does not have this information.

Minerals: Processing

Senator Durack:
LP

- Senator Gietzelt asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development the following question, without notice, on 9 May 1 978:

Is the Minister aware of the many suggestions that processing of our mineral resources could be a valuable addition to Australian industry? What progress has been made to encourage the development of such secondary industries? Will the Government take the initiative in convening a conference of interested parties to plan for the success of such indigenous enterprises?

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

It is a major objective of the Government to develop further processing of basic raw materials in Australia where this is economically feasible.

The whole range of assistance measures adopted by the Government to foster soundly based development in the manufacturing sector in general is relevant in this regard.

To further this aim the Government has initiated discussions with the State Governments and relevant industry bodies, notably the Australian Manufacturing Council and the Trade Development Council.

In addition agreement has been reached in principle with the Japanese Government for the establishment of a Joint Study Group to examine matters of mutual interest in this field.

Multilateral Trade Negotiations

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 3 1 May 1 978 (Hansard, pages 2111-2) Senator Wriedt asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question, without notice, concerning Australia’s position in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government has decided to adopt the formula approach to the reduction of industrial tariffs as a contribution to trade liberalisation within the MTN. Details of the approach were contained in a statement made in Parliament by the Minister for Trade and Resources on 8 June (House of Representatives Hansard, pages 330 1-3304).

The Government’s view is that for Australia to benefit from the MTN there must be a liberalisation of trade in agricultural products. In this respect there is a need for the leading participants to improve their own offers in the MTN. Our decision on industrial tariffs is evidence that we are ready to make significant contributions to achieving greater trade liberalisation. In adopting this approach, Australia aims to ensure that the MTN result in a reduction in trade barriers, both tariff and non-tariff, leading to continued growth of international trade which is vital to the improvement of the standard of living of people in both developed and developing countries.

Moreover, as the statement made clear, implementation of Australia’s offer on industrial tariffs would, of course, depend on Australia receiving full reciprocity from other participants and on the negotiation of adequate safeguards for domestic industry.

This course of action by Australia is evidence of the Government’s concern that the negotiations reach a successful conclusion, with consequent benefits to Australian producers of both manufactured and non-manufactured goods.

Defence of Papua New Guinea

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 17 August 1978 Senator Sibraa asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to two statements made by Mr Michael Somare, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. The first statement was made in the Papua New Guinea Parliament by Mr Somare on 8 August. He said: . . the time will come when we may in this country have to say we need a kind of treaty so that in the event of invasion we could call upon other nations for aid. ‘

The second statement was made by Mr Somare the next day, 9 August, also in the Papua New Guinea Parliament. In reply to a question from Mr John Noel, who asked whether or not Papua New Guinea should seek to enter into a defence treaty relationship with Australia before it is too late, Mr Somare said that he would rather not have Papua New Guinea enter into a treaty relationship with Australia, given the special understanding between the two nations. What would be the present Government’s attitude if the Government of Papua New Guinea approached Australia with the request for a formal defence pact? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Australian Government had any communication with Mr Somare in the period between the making of the two statements?

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

My information is that what is referred to as the second statement by Mr Somare was in fact part of the first statement mentioned, that there was only one statement by Mr Somare in Parliament which was on 8 August in reply to a question from Mr John Noel. There is therefore no question of any communication having taken place between Mr Somare and the Australian Government between two separate statements.

The Prime Ministers of Australia and Papua New Guinea made a joint statement on defence in Port Moresby on 1 1 February 1977. In that joint statement both Prime Ministers expressed their satisfaction and confidence that it appropriately reflected the desire of their Governments to maintain and develop the close and co-operative defence relationship between their two countries. There has been no request to Australia from the Government of Papua New Guinea for a formal defence pact and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the hypothetical question concerning this matter which has been put. The position remains as set out in the joint statement on defence of 1 1 February 1977.

China’s Attitude Towards Taiwan

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 22 August 1978 Senator Sim asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

I refer to a recent report that the members of a Congressional Delegation from the United States of America which visited the People ‘s Republic of China in July were informed that China now recognised the existing realities in regard to Taiwan. Has the Minister any information that will confirm this report?

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

A delegation from the United States Congress, led by Representative Lester Wolff, visited China 3 July to 13 July. On the delegation ‘s return to Hong Kong Mr Wolff gave a press conference at which he is reported to have said that Chinese Vice Premier Teng Hsiao-Ping had told the delegation that China ‘recognised the realities’ of United States involvement in Taiwan. Mr Wolff is also reported to have said that Teng referred to the historical fact that the Chinese Communist Party had co-operated with the Kuomintang on two occasions when it was in their common interest. Mr Wolff is reported to have interpreted this as meaning that the Chinese did not rule out the possibility of negotiating with the authorities on Taiwan and of co-operating, especially in regard to the Soviet Union.

Other members of the delegation are reported to have emphasised, however, that China had not altered the main conditions for the normalisation of the United States relations with China. These conditions are the withdrawal of US military forces from Taiwan, the abrogation of the USTaiwan Defence Treaty and the withdrawal of the US Embassy from Taipei.

Queensland Government: Blackbirding in Papua New Guinea

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

- Senator Mcintosh asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, without notice, on 24 August 1 978:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of claims made in the Parliament of Papua New Guinea by the Papua New Guinea Deputy Opposition Leader, Sir John Guise, that the Queensland Government is directly involved in the blackbirding of Papua New Guineans for cheap labour, and that ships operated by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in the Torres Strait are luring Papua New Guineans on board with promises of wages and conditions which do not materialise? Has the Minister any information on this matter? If not, will he cause an immediate investigation to be made by the Australian Government?

Senator Durack passed the question for my attention as Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The comments of Sir John Guise made in the Papua New Guinea Parliament on 7 August 1978 in a question to the Papua New Guinea Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Honourable E. Ebia Olewale, and in a statement on 1 5 August 1978 were noted as was the statement in reply made in the Papua New Guinea Parliament by Mr Olewale on 15 August 1978.

Information on the movement, and residence without proper authority of Papua New Guineans in the Torres Strait area and mainland Australia has been obtained by a task force from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, in the course of visits to the area in recent months.

The findings of the task force have been considered by an interdepartmental committee which has made recommendations to Ministers on courses of action to be taken.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 12 September 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780912_senate_31_s78/>.