Senate
23 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2429

PETITIONS

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 30 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 every pray.

Petition received.

AboriginalLand Rights

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 60 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Honourable Senators in Parliament assembled.

This petition of citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth that

. Australia ‘s Aboriginal and Islander peoples have not been compensated for the loss of their traditional land, social and cultural independence and self-respect.

Australia lags behind other nations with white majorities in providing a Treaty of Commitment to its indigenous peoples giving them

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take urgent steps to concur with the wishes of a majority of electors at every polling booth in Australia at the 1967 referendum by resumption from the States of the major traditional Aboriginal land areas and reserves and former reserves as at 3 1.3.78, to become federal Crown land pending prompt determination of freehold title for Land Trusts and eventually for defined community co-operatives.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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. by Senator Webster.

Petition received.

Education Funding

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

The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents’ Clubs respectfully showeth:-

That as citizens of Victoria and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school 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 Guidlines 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 1979.
  3. Restoration of the $8m 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 Webster.

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Budget 1978-79

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. That we deplore the increased hardships imposed by the terms of the recent budget.
  2. That we believe that the changes to Medibank will cause many to place their health at risk in an attempt to maintain their standard of living.
  3. That the Government’s budgetary actions will sharply increase the economic gap between those who have and those who have not.
  4. That the cutting back in real terms of monies allocated for pensioners will cause extra burdens to those already under great stress.
  5. That the actions of the Government can do nothing but increase the already dangerous level of unemployment.
  6. That we as citizens of Australia with a great love and concern for our country, fear that this budget will bring dishonour and disgrace by increasing poverty and crime and will sow the seeds of violence within our democratic community.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask that the Government move to lift the onerous burden placed upon them. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Mcintosh.

Petition received.

page 2430

NOTICES OF MOTION

Australian National University and Canberra College of Advanced Education

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National University Act 1946.

Also on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1 967.

I indicate that these Bills will be taken to the second reading stage and will then lie on the table.

page 2430

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in my Gallery of a highly respected former member of this place in the person of Mrs Janine Haines. We warmly welcome her presence this morning.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 2430

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2430

QUESTION

SECOND HOBART BRIDGE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and it follows from a question I asked of him yesterday. Again I ask: Can the Minister indicate specifically the Government’s position in respect of Commonwealth funding for the second crossing of the Derwent River in Hobart? Can he also give an assurance that the Tasmanian Government will not be called upon to make any partial contribution to the cost of the construction of the bridge?

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

– I am seeking from the Minister for Transport an answer to the question raised yesterday by Senator Wriedt but as yet I have not received it. Therefore, I am unable to give the assurance that he has requested. However, I must say again, as I said yesterday, that I would not wish that failure to give an assurance to be construed as meaning no because it is simply a matter which is beyond my own ministerial competence. I am seeking information from the Minister for Transport.

page 2430

QUESTION

TASMAN BRIDGE

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question, too, is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and relates to the bridge at Hobart. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that several years ago the Tasman Bridge, which is the only bridge presently crossing the Derwent River, apart from the Bailey bridge, was knocked down by a ship and was subsequently repaired at great expense and that that repair involved replacing three spans of the bridge. Because of the way in which the ship lay on the bottom of the river one span was built at twice the length of the others. Is the Minister aware that the design work for the repairs to the Tasman Bridge was carried out in the offices of a company that had been associated with design problems in the Narrows Bridge in Perth, the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne and the Batman Bridge north of Launceston and also with problems with the design of a punt that crosses the river at Hobart? Has the Minister been advised that a dead load deflection has developed in the long replacement span of the Tasman Bridge, that the dip in that span is already of the order of 75 millimetres to 100 millimetres and that it was certainly not there when the bridge was reopened? If the design for something as simple as the strength of a dead load span has been fouled up, what guarantee have the people of Hobart that the repairs to the rest of the structure are sound? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to start immediately a total check of the design of the repairs to the Tasman Bridge? Will he also ask the Government to look urgently at finding finance for the second bridge in case major additional repairs need to be made to the Tasman Bridge?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Senator Townley has asked a series of questions about the Tasman Bridge at Hobart. Firstly, I am not aware of the matters which he raised about the design work for the repairs to the bridge. Secondly, I have not been advised about the facts which are contained in the third part of his question and I am not familiar with the significance of a foul up in the design of dead load span strength and whether some deficiency there indicates that there may be deficiencies elsewhere. The final part of his question was whether I would ask the Minister for Transport to start a total check of the design of the repairs to the bridge. I certainly will refer to the Minister for Transport the matters that have been raised by Senator Townley with a view to their being checked as soon as possible. I will then take up with the Minister the question of an appropriate course of action if the matters the honourable senator has raised are found to be matters of fact.

page 2431

QUESTION

MINERALS: EXPORT CONTROL POLICY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. I refer the Minister to a question I asked him on 26 October this year relating to the announcement by the Minister for Trade and Resources of a new minerals export control policy. I asked the Minister

Is it the Government’s view that the national interest requires the full implementation of the policy announced by the Minister . . . ?

I was referring to Mr Anthony. I remind Senator Durack that he replied: ‘Yes’. I now ask the Minister: In view of the decision yesterday of the Australian Mining Industry Council specifically rejecting the Government s policy, what is the intention of the Government in relation to the Minister’s answer of 26 October?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have already answered a number of questions on this matter, including one asked yesterday. The Government has said that the detailed guidelines, which it drafted and circulated, for implementation of the policy would be the subject of discussion with the mining industry and the States. Obviously the mining industry now has completed its discussions and has expressed its views. I do not know whether they have been received by the Minister for Trade and Resources. I do not know any more about the matter than what appears in the Press this morning. The Government, of course, in accordance with what it has said already, will take account of the views that are being expressed, as indeed it has already taken account of views expressed by some of the State Premiers with whom it has been discussing this matter.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister. Does he or does he not confirm the answer which he gave on 26 October?

Senator DURACK:

– I already have confirmed on several occasions, and as late as yesterday, that the Government believes that that policy announced by Mr Anthony is a sound policy in the national interest. The Government has said that it would consider the detailed guidelines and application of that policy. The Government, naturally, will be giving consideration to the views that have been expressed to it.

page 2431

QUESTION

HOUSING LOAN INTEREST RATES

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister representing the Treasurer. But first may I join you, Mr President, and the Senate in welcoming Mrs Haines, my predecessor in this place. I refer to housing loan interest rates and I note that today’s newspapers report that building societies in Victoria have decided on a O.S per cent across the board cut in rates. Will the Minister clarify the full perspective of the current situation in regard to housing loan interest rates? Has the Government’s initiatives to reduce interest rates been finally accepted by the banks? To what extent is the decision of the banks still dependent on agreements with permanent building societies? When does the Government expect the lower interest rates for housing loans with both the banks and the building societies to be finally achieved in all States?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is a matter of very considerable interest to all Australians. The history is that on 17 November this year the Chairman of the Australian Bankers Association announced that following discussions with the Reserve Bank of Australia the banks had indicated their willingness to reduce by O.S per cent per annum the interest rates on many housing loans made by both savings and trading banks. I should point out to Senator Teague that, as he well knows, the Federal Government has been taking the lead in this matter in its discussions with the Reserve Bank to get to such a situation. This indication was given in the light of commitments by the Commonwealth and State governments to ensure that permanent building societies made similar interest rate reductions. There had been discussions at Premiers Conferences, again with an initiative from the Commonwealth, of the view that there should be throughout Australia an initiative to arrange for permanent building society interest loan rates to follow downwards. The State governments, of course, have a particular responsibility in this regard. The Government expects that the permanent building societies will indertake to lower their lending rates for housing although, as I have said, the governmental responsibility for rate reductions by building societies rests with the State Premiers. I draw the attention of Senator Teague and the Senate to the words of the Prime Minister in another place several days ago when he said: . . this matter was generally discussed between the Treasurer, the Premiers and me at the Loan Council meeting that was held in Melbourne some little while ago. It was then believed that, in view of the movement downwards in interest rates that had occurred on overdrafts and in deposit rates paid by the trading banks on larger accounts of over $50,000, the next step was a somewhat commensurate movement down in the housing area on loans from savings banks run by the trading banks and loans from building societies.

All honourable senators will realise that a reduction in interest rates of the magnitude indicated for housing loans can mean a saving of as much as $ 10 a month to a person paying off a home. This, in itself, is as good as an increase in real wages and real purchasing power. The Government is enthusiastic in its desire to achieve these goals.

page 2432

QUESTION

OIL INDUSTRY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, concerns a group of trade unionists at the Kurnell oil refinery who are members of the New South Wales registered branch of the Australian Workers Union and who could be likened to a 1978 group of Tolpuddle Martyrs. Although they receive adequate remuneration and are happy with their State officials, including a former Western Australian member, Charlie Oliver, they are being dragooned into being covered by a federal award. I ask Senator Carrick and all the Ministers who talk about the Liberal philosophy of freedom of choice whether they think that those 400 oil refinery operators should have a choice and not have the power of the State dragooning them. It is something like the works of Leon Trotsky.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Usually I do not get into such deep philosophical discussions in the Senate, and certainly not with Senator Mulvihill. This question is one to which I perhaps should give deep reflection. I certainly shall do that and also will refer it to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and ask him to do the same.

page 2432

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and refer to continuing reports from China of a growing wall poster campaign allegedly aimed against Chairman Hua Kuo-feng and supporting Vice Premier Teng Hsiao-ping. Has the Government any information to support reports that a power struggle is developing within the Chinese leadership or reports of growing instability within the leadership?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs I personally do not have that detailed information. I think it is a matter of considerable importance to the whole world, and certainly to Australia that we know what is going on in a country with virtually one-fifth of the world’s population. I will ask my colleague in another place for information and, if it is available, supply it to the honourable senator.

page 2432

QUESTION

TIMORESE REFUGEES

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been advised of concern being felt and expressed by the Timorese refugees in Australia, particularly those in Darwin and Victoria, relating to the delay in the processing of applications for the reuniting of families in Australia and to the discrimination practised by the Government of Indonesia against Timorese people who wish to come to Australia to be reunited with their families? Will the recent guidelines issued by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs be used in the situation of Timorese refugees wishing to come to Australia or will the Government keep to the promises it has given over the last 1 8 months in response to questions and written requests?

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

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and seek the information requested by Senator Robertson. I think it is understood by the honourable senator and many other people that the Australian Government is concerned about the Timorese refugees, and whatever actions are required to be taken to assist them are being taken by the Government. However, I think that the specific questions that the honourable senator has raised need an answer from the Minister and I will refer them to him.

page 2432

QUESTION

ALLEGED RACIAL AND OTHER DISCRIMINATION IN QUEENSLAND

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General as the Minister responsible for the Racial Discrimination Act. As a Minister in touch with today’s trends he will no doubt be familiar with the music of David Bowie, which is loud, if nothing else. I ask him whether he has seen a report in this morning’s Press that David Bowie may be prosecuted under Queensland’s Noise Abatement Act and whether he has seen a comment by that well known civil libertarian and gentleman, Mr Russ Hinze, the Minister for Local Government in Queensland, who said: The fact that he is a Pommie won’t help him’. Does the Attorney-General have any concern that the racial prejudices of Mr Hinze and his Government now appear to be expanding to cover certain migrant groups as well as the indigenous inhabitants of the State of Queensland?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I regret to confess to Senator Puplick that I am not aware of the musician to whom he refers, of that musician ‘s racial origins, or indeed of any comments that have been made about those matters by Mr Hinze. Questions under the Racial Discrimination Act are matters for an independent statutory officer, the Commissioner for Community Relations. If there are any serious complaints about matters of that kind, they are referred to him, and he is enjoined under that legislation to endeavour to conciliate and to negotiate on the matter. In the end, of course, there are sanctions available under that Act.

page 2433

QUESTION

RENOVATIONS TO PRIME MINISTER’S LODGE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I preface it by referring to a previous question which I placed upon notice on 10 October 1978 - Question No. 878- and to which I received a reply in the last day or two. I asked a series of questions about renovations being carried out at the residence of the Prime Minister, the Lodge. In the last question I asked what the cost was. The Prime Minister replied:

The cost of this work was met from funds appropriated by the Parliament in 1977-78 under the ‘Official Establishments. Repairs and maintenance’ and the ‘Capital Works. Buildings, Works, Plant and Equipment. Official establishments’ votes of my Department.

No figure was mentioned. If the details of the actual cost are not covered by a D-notice or otherwise classified, I would like to know in fact in dollars and cents what the cost was.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will refer that question to the Prime Minister.

page 2433

QUESTION

AIR CHARTERS

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Under the Air Navigation Regulations controlling charters, is it necessary for all travellers to be financial members of the charterworthy body both when they book and at the time they travel?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am advised by the Minister for Transport that, under the Government’s charter policy, the charterworthiness of a group must be in accordance with the provisions of the International Air Transport Association resolution 045. That resolution, which forms part of a tariff of charges filed with and approved by the Secretary to the Department of Transport, is in accordance with Air Navigation Regulation 106A. The application form for the operation of a charter under resolution 045 by an affinity group requires, inter aha:

All members participating in the chaner must be members at the date of signing this application and at least six months before the date of departure of the first chaner flight.

The answer to the honourable senator’s question therefore is yes.

page 2433

QUESTION

IWASAKI SANGYO TOURIST COMPLEX

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. It concerns the proposed commencement of the Iwasaki Sangyo tourist complex at Yeppoon in Queensland. Will the Government exert as soon as possible its legal responsibilities to the Australian environment by instituting a public inquiry into the proposition that a 150-metre wide strip of the foreshore of the Iwasaki land be returned to the control of the Crown, so averting the anomalous and virtually unprecedented present situation in which 19 kilometres of the Australian coastline are owned or controlled to high tide mark by a foreign developer?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and seek a reply.

page 2433

QUESTION

OIL INDUSTRY

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It is about the problems of the Victorian country fuel agent, Mr Leo Gorman, and his difficulty with his own union colleagues in collecting fuel from the depot at Spotswood. Is the Minister aware that this man was called to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission headquarters in Melbourne to attend a 9-hour compulsory conference and that towards the end of the conference he was told by the President of the Commission that, although it was not intended as a threat, if he carried on with his Federal Court writs against the Transport Workers Union of Australia and its officers, although he had every chance of winning the case, he probably risked a transport union blackban throughout Australia.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I rise to order. I think the question in fact reflects on the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This dispute has now been settled by agreement between the parties. Although some people might not be in agreement, the dispute has been settled by determination.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Senator LEWIS:

– At this stage I am simply asking whether the Minister is aware of these reports. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether or not there is in fact an agreement between the union involved in that dispute and the fuel companies to wipe out country fuel agents? Will the Government protect these country fuel agents from that agreement.

Senator Bishop:

– I rise to order. I again take objection. The fact is that the matter in question has been determined by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the decision has been given effect to.

The PRESIDENT:

– I cannot sustain the point of order.

Senator LEWIS:

– Will the Government protect these country fuel agents from this agreement between the oil companies and the union?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of the report about which Senator Lewis asked me. It apparently relates to proceedings which occurred last week or the week before at a conference that was held in order to try to settle the oil industry dispute, which now, of course, happily has been settled. The matter to which he further refers is the question of an agreement between the oil companies and the Transport Workers Union of Australia in relation to the delivery of fuel. I have some knowledge in relation to that particular arrangement although I do not really have enough detailed knowledge. I think it would be unwise for me to make any comment in regard to it. The Government certainly stands behind the legal processes that are available both in the courts and in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to the resolution of disputes.

page 2434

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA: APPLICATION OF MARRIAGE ACT

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that in the opinion of his Department the Australian Antarctic territory is not regarded as part of Australia for the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961. Will the Minister now advise the Senate whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to amend the Marriage Act to enable people either on or above the Antarctic to participate in what can be regarded as legal mar riage services?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This matter certainly has not been drawn to my attention. I can see that there has been some demand for provision under the Marriage Act for people even in the Antarctic.

Senator Guilfoyle:

– Especially in the Antarctic.

Senator DURACK:

– Perhaps, especially in the Antarctic, as Senator Guilfoyle says. I will take the matter up and give a considered reply to Senator Coleman.

page 2434

QUESTION

ABORIGINES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he is aware of an article which appeared in the Canberra Times of 18 November 1978 under the headline ‘Ignoring the Aborigines’ and which, in part, stated:

There appears to be some doubt about whether Aborigines exist, or ever have existed, in Western Australia.

This doubt emerges from a bulky publicity kit being put out by the Western Australian Government for the 150th anniversary of the State next year.

A passage from one section in the glossy kit, which is titled WAY ‘79 ‘, says ‘ In the history of civilisation 1 50 years is but a tiny speck in time. Yet it was only 1 50 years ago that man came to stay’, and a bit further on, ‘The land that lay dormant for a million years has changed ‘.

I further ask: Will the Minister be kind enough to inform the Western Australian Government that learned anthropologists have proven conclusively that we, the Aborigines, have been in Australia for 50,000 years at least and that, considering that Western Australia is part of Australia, it is logical to assume that Aborigines existed in that State for 50,000 years?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-My attention has not previously been drawn to the article in the Canberra Times. I will refer the matter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who undoubtedly would wish to read the article and take note of the other comments that have been made by Senator Bonner. I will seek a response from the Minister for the honourable senator. He may also wish to make some representations on this matter to the Western Australian Government.

page 2434

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to the events of 3 April 1978, in which Commonwealth Police arrested some 175 citizens of Sydney who have since been charged with conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. Did any senior officers or officer of her Department accompany the Commonwealth Police on these raids? If so, who were they, or who was he, and what was the purpose of accompanying the Commonwealth Police?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to answer the question from my present knowledge. I will seek a response from the Department on the matters raised and will advise Senator Grimes accordingly. If I have any information before Question Time concludes I will see that it is conveyed to the Senate.

page 2435

QUESTION

RETRAINING OF ADULT WORK FORCE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whether his attention has been drawn to a pamphlet entitled ‘Adult Training 79’ put out by Mr John Forster, Tasmanian State Secretary of the Society of Engineers? If so, could the Minister say in what regard the Government holds this responsible attempt by a union leader to bring to the attention of both employer and union members the problems Australia faces in the training of its adult work force, particularly in the area of technology?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I can advise the Senate that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has seen the pamphlet and regards it as both educational and informative.

page 2435

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH KAMPUCHEA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and relates to reports that the Government is considering establishing consular or diplomatic relations with Democratic Kampuchea. Bearing in mind the fact that Australia may well find it necessary on many occasions to establish such relations with countries of whose governments, and the practices of whose governments, it does not approve, will the Government, in considering the establishment of any such relations with Democratic Kampuchea bear in mind the quite spectacular deprivation of human rights that appears to be taking place in that country and weigh it carefully in the balance against any gain that may be achieved by Australia in establishing such relations before proceeding further with the course which some have predicted that the Government has now embarked upon.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think that all Australians will be aware of, and gravely concerned about what has been happening in Kampuchea, formerly Cambodia. I think that all would want to express their deepest concern about this matter. Having said that, I am not aware of any particular immediate steps being taken with regard to recognition. I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague in another place, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and see whether he wishes to respond to it.

page 2435

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. During recent public hearings of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources into quarantine matters it was revealed that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet conducted an inquiry into quarantine matters last year. It was revealed also that some State and Commonwealth departments and organisations with a direct responsibility for quarantine in Australia were not consulted or invited to make submissions to that inquiry. Would the Minister inform me, firstly, who was invited to give evidence to that inquiry and, secondly, which departments, organisations and individuals gave evidence to the inquiry?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The matter of quarantine is of considerable importance to Australia at any time and is doubly of importance as the speed of transport increases and emergencies occur, such as the one involving the boat people. Therefore, the question is to be treated with some seriousness. I am aware that such an inquiry was conducted but I am not aware at first hand of the details. I will seek the information and let Senator Thomas have it.

page 2435

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I have no doubt that the Minister will agree, having read the recent speech of Mr Street in which he forecast future unemployment, that the future for young people is not bright. Mr Street cited figures- I think they have since increased slightly- to the effect that about 80 per cent of young people aged between 15 and 19 years are unemployed. I refer also to questions in respect of the intake of apprentices and improvers by some of the statutory corporations which I put to the Minister and to which there has been no response. I ask the Minister: As the various support schemes are adding only a drop in the bucket to the employment prospects for young peoplealthough the number of schemes has increased the fact is that few young people are being employed- will the government consider the extension of those schemes to involve other categories of young workers? I have in mind not just people who are to be trained in skills but people for some semi-skilled training as well. Will he also review the staff ceilings which have been imposed on some statutory corporations in the face of those corporations saying that they could well employ many new young people for training and other positions?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Senator Bishop raises a matter which we debated at some length in the Senate yesterday. Of course the Government is concerned about the level of unemployment of young people. As I tried to point out yesterday in the debate in the the Senate, the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of young people who leave school do obtain work. If not they carry on with a form of education and acquire skills which greatly improve their chances of obtaining work. In fact it emerged yesterday that of more than 250,000 school leavers at the end of last year only 17,500 are now registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service as seeking work.

Of course, that does not mean that there is not a real problem in youth unemployment. The Government has initiated schemes to provide training for young people and under these schemes thousands of young people have been and still are being assisted to obtain skills. So I cannot agree with Senator Bishop that the Government’s measures are just a drop in the bucket. The fact of the matter is that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is keeping these schemes under constant consideration and I am sure that the questions raised by Senator Bishop in relation to these matters will be considered by him. Nevertheless, I will pass on the question to the Minister and certainly ask him to make sure that he has these matters under consideration.

Senator Bishop has asked questions previously with regard to staff ceilings and I have advised him that the Government’s policy on this matter is that the authorities, agencies and departments which are subject to staff ceilings must have regard to the need to take on people for training when applying their staff ceilings. They have to try to live within their ceilings but they are enjoined to take this matter into consideration. As I have not any up-to-date information on the staff ceilings policy, I will refer the question to the appropriate Minister who, I think, in this case is probably not the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations.

page 2436

QUESTION

EQUIPMENT IN SOUTH AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Education whether he has noted the concern expressed by South Australian teachers that there is a considerable surplus of equipment- teaching aids and the like- in South Australian schools which is largely unused from one end of the year to the next because the South Australian Government chooses to order the priorities of its expenditure in favour of departments other than its Education Department, thereby depriving of funds the training of teachers in the utilisation of this material.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the reference in the media to which Senator Messner refers and I invite him to supply me with a copy of it. It is a fact that one of the necessities of any proper funding and planning of education is to equate the equipment that exists with the specialist trained teachers who are available. If that is not done, an inefficient and a needless situation could arise whereby major equipment lies idle. As I have said, I have not seen the reference to this matter but I will look at it and if it so requires I will comment further.

page 2436

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, relates to the misery, devastation and death amongst the refugees fleeing Vietnam in all sorts of vessels. One estimate is that 100,000 of these refugees have perished in their flight. I ask the Minister: Is it proper that this tragedy be regarded as one of just human flotsam on the oceans of the world and what is the Government doing to ensure that this attitude is not continued in this so-called civilised society? More specifically, how many of the 380 Vietnamese who have been issued with letters of authority from the Australian Government to join relatives in this country in fact have come to Australia? How many are still in Vietnam because of the delay and procrastination of the Vietnamese Government? Furthermore, is it not a fact that this delay and procrastination builds up such frustration amongst those people that they will do almost anything to get out of Vietnam and join their relatives?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Harradine has inquired about what is regarded by the Federal Government as a vital matter. The Government has in many ways assisted the settlement of Vietnamese refugees. I am advised that approximately 400 people residing in Vietnam have been approved for entry to Australia on the basis of family reunification. They are all close relatives of residents of Australia. The procedure within the Department is that, in the absence of normal travel documents, Australia issues letters of authority to facilitate travel to Australia.

I understand that the movement of people is dependent on the granting of exit permits by the Vietnamese authorities. There has been a small but steady flow of these people arriving in Australia. I will need to seek from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs information as to just how many of these people are still in Vietnam and what can be done to expedite the processing of these documents, in some cases, through the Vietnamese authorities. I will refer the whole of the question from Senator Harradine to Mr MacKellar and seek whatever information is available.

page 2437

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF CHOICE WITHIN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to page 17 of the Minister’s report entitled ‘Progress in Education Since 1976’ which was tabled in this place on Tuesday. Can the Minister provide to the Senate additional information on the steps that this Government is taking to promote greater freedom of choice within government schools? In particular, can he inform this Senate to what purpose the $200,000 for pilot projects in the States, as mentioned in page 17 of the Minister’s report, will be applied?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have said, I think, recently in the Senate that education, which is a vital service to the community, has been for the most part one of the few services in which virtually no consumer choice has existed in the past. There has been a direct compulsion on those choosing the state system to send their student children to the nearest school. Many people, including this Government and I, feel that that is undesirable and that steps should be taken. The Government is seeking in a number of areas to promote greater freedom of choice within government schools. The Schools Commission special projects program in particular has funded since 1974 a wide range of innovatory projects, mainly at individual school level, which have helped to diversify school programs and activities. Grants made under the disadvantaged schools program and disadvantaged country areas program have also been used for the development of special resources in selected areas.

Specifically in response to Senator Lajovic, the Government has now approved the development of a program in 1979 to assist State education departments in the encouragement of greater choice for parents and pupils within government systems. It is expected that the funds available in 1979 will enable the commencement of two or three projects, in areas to be determined by the Schools Commission in cooperation with the States. It is intended that specific projects will be considered and oversighted by an advisory group which will include representatives of the States. It is also envisaged that teachers, parents and local communities will be fully involved in these pilot projects from the outset. The funds available in 1979 will be used to meet the additional costs in developing these projects, and schools in the selected area will continue to receive from normal sources the resources that would be available to governments elsewhere. The Commonwealth’s activities in respect of the language teaching branch of the Department of Education and the Curriculum Development Centre are also contributing to the opportunity for government schools to develop their most appropriate curriculum and teaching programs.

Finally, I would like to say that the Government believes, as I certainly do, that in the future development of quality in education it is essential that there be a partnership involving the government, the education system, the parents, the community and the school and that, wherever possible, that there be freedom of choice within that situation. It is not for educators to force upon the people their ideas of what ought to be the optimum education system. Desirably, we will move towards the optimum when within the 8,000 schools in Australia we have a yeasting of the minds of the parents and the teachers and a diversity of functions which will enable choice and will enable worthwhile innovations to develop and new horizons to be set.

page 2437

QUESTION

ETHNIC TELEVISION SERVICE

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It relates to the proposed ethnic television service that is planned to start in a pilot form in January 1979. Will all programs on ethnic television be made by the Australian Broadcasting Commission or will private production companies be involved? Will there be any commercial advertising on ethnic television during the pilot period?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will seek an answer to those questions from the Minister for Post and

Telecommunications and let Senator Ryan have the answer.

page 2438

QUESTION

MAIL SERVICES TO COUNTRY AREAS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Many people living in the country and isolated areas of Australia rely on the mail services for the delivery of their local and national newspapers. In addition to newspapers, they also rely on the mail for the delivery of various publications issued by nonprofit making groups, including the Returned Services League, trade unions, rural associations, charity organisations, pensioner organisations, incapacitated persons clubs and various religious groups. These numerous associations facilitate the distribution of their communications through the use of category A registered mail. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that next year Australia Post is proposing to impose an increase of 30 per cent to 40 per cent on the postage rate of these category A articles. Does the Minister appreciate the serious consequences of this action to people living in remote areas? Will he confer with Australia Post before it inflicts this burden upon country dwellers and ensure that these excessive increases are moderated or not even pursued?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I appreciate the importance of the mail service to people who live in country and isolated areas of Australia. Indeed, it is not only in this area but also in the area of actually getting a postal delivery service that people in some remote areas suffer very great inconvenience. That is a matter of considerable concern to the Government as well as to those people. Senator Kilgariff is correct when he says that the postage rates for registered publications are to be increased on 1 January. Those increases, which are only a matter of cents in most cases, still are in the order of the percentage increases which Senator Kilgariff has indicated. I understand that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications has received a number of representations on these matters. I think Senator Kilgariff would expect that to be so because of the wide interest which is held in this matter. I am advised that the Minister is to discuss the matter with Australia Post to see what, if anything, can be done about it.

page 2438

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION: INSURANCE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Firstly, I draw his attention to the annual report of the Insurance Council of Australia in which it is stated that the Ministerthat is, Mr Sinclair- has responded to the ICA’s submission and confirmed that he will initiate action to repeal the reference to insurance in section 14 of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act. I ask: Is that report correct? If so, what is the reason for the proposed amendment? Will the Minister consider making a statement in Parliament on this matter so that we can find out about the situation in that way instead of reading about it in an annual report of the insurance industry.

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

– I am not aware of the report to which the honourable senator referred. I will refer his question to the Minister for Primary Industry and attempt to obtain an answer for him.

page 2438

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AND CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask a question of the Minister for Education. It relates to the brief statement he made immediately before Question Time dealing with legislation in regard to the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. The Minister has indicated that the legislation will lie on the table of the Senate for some time and, presumably, will not be passed until possibly well into the 1979 academic year. Can the Minister indicate whether the matters dealt with in that legislation are, in fact, intended to apply from the beginning of the 1 979 academic year?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I make it quite clear, without qualification, that the Government intends that the institutions concerned should apply the intention of the legislation for the calendar year 1979 and from the commencement of that calendar year. The intention of the Government has been known to both institutions now for many months. The Government has been working with the institutions to draw up the necessary legislation so that there is full understanding by both of them. My own Department and the Government will be in touch with the institutions to ensure that this is so. I hope that we will be able to give very early recognition to this legislation when we resume in February and one would hope that the legislation is passed in February. I certainly hope so.

page 2438

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY DINING ROOM

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, my question is addressed to you. Has your attention been drawn to a report in today’s Sydney Morning Herald, headed ‘Objector’s work ends’, to the effect that a Mr Aper, who was the cause of great disruption in the parliamentary kitchen earlier this year because of his refusal to join the appropriate union, received $1,683 in pay whilst stood down pending the outcome of the Industrial Registrar’s decision on his claim to be a conscientious objector? As this person is reported in the article to have said that he intends to seek employment again at Parliament House when sittings resume in February next year, I ask you, Mr President, this question: In view of the fact that the Federal Court has ruled already that Aper was not a conscientious objector when he sought exemption from joining another union, will you ensure that he is not allowed to cause further disruption here at Parliament House? Finally, if it is a fact that he has been paid $ 1 ,683 for not working for 1 1 weeks, will you endeavour to ensure that the kitchen and dining room staff who lost two days pay over the actions of this man are suitably compensated?

The PRESIDENT:

– In respect of the latter part of your question, Senator, compensation is not possible. In regard to this man’s employment in this place, I point out that he was employed on a casual or sessional basis.

page 2439

QUESTION

GENERAL AVIATION INQUIRY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to a statement made by the Minister for Transport that an inquiry would be carried out into all aspects of general aviation. I would like to know when the inquiry will begin and where it will be carried out. In view of the concern expressed by some general aviation representatives that a closed departmental inquiry would not allow all sectors of the industry adequately to present their views, will the Government ensure that the inquiry will be carried out in public?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do not know the scope of the inquiry referred to by the honourable senator, or the way in which it is intended to carry it out. I will refer the question to the Minister for Transport, along with the expression of concern that is contained in it.

page 2439

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FRUIT INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that for the 1979 fruit export season the formula by which exporting States receive supplementary support over and above stabilisation payments has been altered from previous years? Is it also a fact that Western

Australia’s proportion will be higher than normal because the calculations are based on forecasts of shipments rather than actual shipments? Does this mean that the Tasmanian fruit industry will suffer a significant drop in supplementary support for the 1979 season? Bearing in mind that the Tasmanian fruit industry co-operated fully with the Commonwealth in the restructuring scheme, will the Minister give an assurance that it will not be disadvantaged in any way in the forthcoming season relative to the support it has received over the past four years?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I understand that discussions at official level between the Commonwealth, interested States and the fruit industry are proceeding and that recommendations to Ministers are expected shortly. I am informed that as yet no decision on the apportionment of assistance among the States has been made. That substantially answers the query of the Leader of the Opposition. I am informed that in accordance with the Government’s decision on this matter resolution of the apportionment between States on the manner and usage of the assistance is a question for the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Finance, in consultation with State Ministers, having regard to the views of the industry. I think that the Minister whom I represent and all honourable senators would readily agree with Senator Wriedt that an assurance should be forthcoming that no disadvantage will accrue to producers in the State that Senator Wriedt represents. I will put the proposition to the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 2439

QUESTION

ECONOMY

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to comments passed by Mr David Rockefeller suggesting that fiscal restraint and greater international co-operation is the recipe for economic recovery? Is the Minister also aware that Mr Rockefeller commented on the question of opening up Australia’s banking system a little? Can the Minister advise whether such a proposition is currently under consideration by the Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I noted a number of the comments made by Mr David Rockefeller. I was privileged in informal fashion not only to meet him again but also to hear him express a number of views. Mr David Rockefeller is not only a distinguished American but also, as I think all Australians would agree, a person with very great practical sympathies with and understanding for Australia. He is very welcome here at any time. I heard him say and I also read his comment that the Australian economy was on the correct course, and in my presence he added that Australia was setting something of an example to others. He believes that we should continue on that course because therein lies the way to full recovery and prosperity for the individual Australian and his family. I did not see the comments of Mr Rockefeller regarding a widening of the banking system but I would be interested to see them. He is the senior executive of the ChaseManhattan Bank, a banker of some distinction in the world, and a man with a very great economic understanding. I would be happy if Senator Archer were to furnish me with the comments of Mr Rockefeller on the banking system.

page 2440

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL ACTION BY PUBLIC SERVANTS

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. In view of the fact that the International Labour Organisation has condemned the Australian Government’s industrial legislation which allows for the immediate stand-down, suspension or dismissal of public servants for engaging in industrial action, will the Government give consideration to repealing the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act?

Senator DURACK:
LP

page 2440

QUESTION

OIL RE-REFINING

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development who, on 26 October 1978, stated that statistics recently prepared by his Department ‘emphasised the need for a vigorous approach to petroleum conservation’. In the light of this statement, will the Minister indicate to the Senate what action the Commonwealth Government has taken to assist the oil rerefining industry in Australia, an industry that recycles certain used petroleum products which otherwise would be dumped or burned? Does the Minister agree that the re-refining of lubricating oil is an important aspect of Australia’s effort to conserve its fuel supplies?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister whom I represent.

page 2440

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AND CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Education to a question asked earlier by Senator Knight. The Minister has announced today that he intends to introduce legislation concerning the payment of student fees at two institutions- the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Because both institutions are engaged in discussions which may lead to some self-regulation on the matter, wil the Minister re-consider his answer and not close off his options? Will he also consider the fact that the legislation that he proposes may not be necessary next February?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I remind Senator Georges that some two years or more ago the Government, and I as the Minister, approached all universities and colleges, suggesting to them that the best solution to this vexed matter would have been for them to look independently to the amendment of their own internal ordinances so that they might make the necessary arrangements to overcome what was a very bad situation. The public opinion polls indicated that an overwhelming number of students on campus, and their families, regarded the payment of compulsory fees to student organisations, particularly supra-campus organisations, as an anathema. That was conveyed by me not once but a number of times. I have regretted over those years that most of the institutions did not respond, for whatever reasons, and did not take that opportunity.

Senator Georges will recollect that unhappily in Canberra in recent years there were one or two instances of students appearing to be facing deprivation because of their actions in attempting to opt out of paying their fees. Senator Georges will recollect that, despite the Government’s invitation years before, or a year or so before, students were alleging that they were to be deprived of their examination results and therefore would not be able to enrol the following year. Subsequently, when I had made the position clear, the institution concerned acted, but that action appeared not to be successful in achieving results. The Government, considering all these things and considering the major amount of time that had been allowed to universities and colleges to put their houses in order, and with a full understanding that the community itself wanted them to do so, then announced quite some months ago its intention to legislate. We invited the States to follow our example.

I say to Senator Georges that the discussions on this legislation have extended over many months. I indicate that the Australian National University suggested recently to the Government that it might put aside its legislation and that the ANU might, through subordinate legislation, effect a particular result. The Government gave that full and mature consideration but believes that, with the period of time that has elapsed and the opportunity that institutions have been given, the Australian community expects that the Government will honour its promise to legislate. We are therefore bringing in the legislation. It will lie on the table. Over that period I will, of course, welcome discussion about it.

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister prepared to admit that the discussions to which I referred are taking place and that, despite the length of time, considerable progress has been made? Can he explain why he is taking such a dogmatic attitude to what I consider to be a reasonable request to consider the ongoing discussions before the legislation is proceeded with?

Senator CARRICK:

-What I said was that over a period of two years the opportunities had been provided by personal initiative from me, acting upon my Government’s authority. Very little of any effect had happened at all and what had happened had proven not to be successful. What I said was that the Government therefore made a determination to legislate. The Government made that determination known and it has had discussions regarding that legislation and its nature with the institutions concerned, not in any endeavour to suggest that there should be alternatives but to ensure that the legislation itself met the institutions ‘particular qualities and that it was fully understood.

What I did say was that in more recent times the Australian National University had suggested that we might act through subordinate legislation rather than principal legislation. Upon mature consideration of all things the Government believes that the Australian community expects it to honour its promise to legislate, and we will therefore do so. We will invite the various States to look to their own legislation or their own persuasion to see whether a similar situation can be achieved.

page 2441

ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs provide the Senate with a copy of the financial directives issued by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and also a copy of the ministerial guidelines issued by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in relation to the granting of contracts for Aboriginal housing.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer the question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and see what he is able to do to meet the request of Senator Cavanagh.

page 2441

FISHING

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Senator Thomas raised a query at the end of October about the use of fish traps by fishermen in Western Australia. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has supplied me with the following information: In regard to fisheries such as the schnapper fisheries in Western Australia, placing a control on the use of fish traps in waters under Commonwealth jurisdiction would normally follow a request from the State Government. No request from the Western Australian Government has been made for such control. If a request is made the Minister for Primary Industry will consider it.

page 2441

FISHING RESEARCH

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Senator Walsh asked me whether a statement of consolidated expenditure on fishing research by the Commonwealth Government could be supplied. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has supplied me with the following information:

  1. Commonwealth expenditure during 1977-78 was

    1. a ) $0. 1 43 m by the Department of Primary Industry
    2. $3.32m by the CSIRO
    3. Fishing Industry Research Trust Account (FIRTA)-$0.607m (CSIRO component $0.088m and DPI component $0.05 1 m ).

  2. Commonwealth allocation for 1978-79

    1. $0.1 lm (DPI)
    2. $4.79m (CSIRO)
    3. FIRTA-$0.839m (CSIRO component $0.099m and DPI $0.02 lm).

page 2441

QUESTION

OIL RE-REFINING

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Missen asked me a question today concerning the re-refining of lubricating oils and the attitude of the Governments to the oil re-refining industry. I regret that although I had been supplied with an answerSenator Missen having given notice to the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman)- I did not have it available at the time. The answer, if I may be permitted to give it now, is that Australia has to import a certain volume of crude oil- about 30 per cent- to meet its demand for petroleum products and it is the heavy residue from this imported crude that is used to make lubricants and fuel oil. Thus if used lubricating oil is re-refined as lubricating oil it means that less residue is used for making lubricants and more for fuel oil. Whether used lubricating oil is rerefined or burned as fuel oil it serves the conservation cause equally well. Nevertheless, Senator Missen has raised an interesting issue and the

Minister has informed me that the National Energy Advisory Committee has this subject on its list of topics to be examined.

page 2442

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1978-79.

page 2442

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL 1977-78

The PRESIDENT:

– In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General upon Other Accounts for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2442

VIEWING PLATFORM: CAPITAL HILL

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section5 of the Parliament Act 1974,I present a proposal for the erection of a viewing platform on the summit of Capital Hill, Canberra, within the parliamentary zone. Later this day, I intend to seek leave to give a notice of motion for the Senate’s approval of the proposal in accordance with the Act.

page 2442

NEW AND PERMANENT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

The PRESIDENT:

– I present the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House relating to the proposed erection of a viewing platform on Capital Hill.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That, in accordance with section5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal:

Erection of a viewing platform on the summit of Capital Hill, Canberra.

page 2442

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales-

Minister for Education)- Pursuant to section10 (2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act1977 I present the first report on the operation of Part II of the Act dated 23 November 1978.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2442

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 14(1) of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948 I present the fifth supplement to the twenty-fifth report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board on the operation of the Act for the period 1 July 1972 to 30 September 1972, and pursuant to section 16 (2) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973I present the sixth report of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority, dealing with the general administration and working of that Act and of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948, other than Part III of the Act, for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2442

PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Government’s response to the report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence relating to industrial support for defence needs and allied matters.

page 2442

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH LEGAL AID COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western Australia · LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission Act 1977 I present the report of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission for the period 22 March 1978 to 30 June 1978 with a factual statement that I wish to make in regard thereto. I seek leave to incorporate that statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

The report of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission, tabled today, recommends changes in the procedures relating to family law proceedings. It recommends in family law matters that some undefended divorce cases should be heard without the parties or their legal representatives having to attend the hearing and that in cases of access, custody, maintenance and property parties be obliged to attend counselling or a Registrar’s conference immediately after the commencement of proceedings.

The first of these proposals was being considered by my predecessor when I succeeded him. Soon after I announced that I had decided to defer this question pending a review of the

Family Law Act by a Parliamentary committee. That committee has now been appointed and I believe this may well be considered by it.

In relation to the ancillary matters under the Family Law Act, it is not certain that the matters will be defended until the first pre-trial hearing in court on the first return date. The experience seems to be in maintenance and property proceedings that the Registrar’s conference is more likely to achieve a settlement when both parties become aware of the income and property possessed by the other.

My Department has been examining these matters and will shortly be giving me a detailed submission on the possibility of making wider use of counselling and Registrar’s conferences in proceedings which become defended with a view to achieving a higher rate of settlement between the parties in such cases.

The Legal Aid Commission has also expressed concern about the backlog in legal aid applications and the guidelines governing the provision of legal aid. In relation to backlogs of applications for legal aid, I directed on 26 October that commitment funds be made available to each State to eliminate completely the backlogs. I also informed the Senate last week that the limit of commitment for payment to private legal practitioners in 1978-79 had been increased from $ 12.2m to $12.6m-the same as the limit fixed by the Government in 1 977-78.

The recently announced guidelines for the Australian Legal Aid Office means and needs test will enable more persons in need to obtain legal aid in cases in which legal representation is essential. The new guidelines increase eligibility for assistance by increasing the permissible disposable income from $40 to $52 per week.

page 2443

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 88 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974I present the report of the operations of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2443

ABORIGINAL HOSTELS LIMITED

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report for 1978 of Aboriginal Hostels Limited incorporating the audited accounts for the period ended 20 June 1978.

page 2443

ANGLO-AUSTRALIAN TELESCOPE BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 19(2) of the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970 I present the annual report of the AngloAustralian Telescope Board for the year ended 30 June 1978, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements. This facility is one of the finest scientific facilities in this country. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement relating to the report.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

The huge 3.9 metre optical telescope known as the Anglo-Australian Telescope has now been operating on a regular scheduled basis for over three years on Siding Spring Mountain near Coonabarabran, New South Wales. Yet its achievements and standing in international science are largely unknown to the Australian public. I believe that there is a need to correct this and there is no better place to start than by informing the Senate of some of the facts about this instrument. In terms of its standing relative to large optical telescopes available overseas, the Anglo-Australian Telescope has very strong claims to being considered as the finest scientific facility in this country. Its working aperture of almost 3.9 metres is exceeded by only three other optical telescopes: The Russian 6 metre, the Palmar5 metre, and in Chile, the United States owned Cerro Tololo 4 metre. Even among such large telescopes the AAT is exceptional in that its control system and instrumentation consist of the most advanced technology available at the moment. The optical characteristics of the AAT are similar to those of other large telescopes that have been constructed in recent years. It is firstly, the sophistication and success of the telescope control system and, secondly, the fine instrumentation coupled to the Telescope, that sets the AAT apart from the others. It was the first large telescope constructed to use a computer for all telescope operations. It is the task of the computer control system to correct for the imperfections in the actual telescope structure and present to the astronomer something that closely matches the performance of a perfect telescope. It is the task of the instrumentation to collect as much data as accurately and as quickly as possible from ultra faint objects in the sky.

Honourable senators will appreciate that because of its size, its performance, and its location in the Southern Hemisphere, where studies of the objects both internal and external to our own galaxy offer rich scientific rewards, observing time on the AAT is in great demand by astronomers. Telescope time is apportioned equally between the United Kingdom and Australia and strictly by the assessed scientific merit of the proposed project. The Anglo-Australian Telescope Board is responsible for the management and operation of the telescope. The Board’s authority is based on the Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement which came into effect in 1970. The Telescope Board has also established scientific facilities at Epping in the grounds of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Division of Radiophysics. Of course, as honourable senators will appreciate, the primary purpose of the AAT is to help the astronomers of both countries to obtain observations relating to the frontier areas of current research. Success in this objective may be judged by the scientific papers resulting from AAT data. In the two years ending 30 June 1978, 94 scientific papers were published in the astronomical literature based on results from the AAT and work by Board staff.

Possibly the most dramatic astronomical achievement of the Telescope has been the discovery of pulsating light from a neutron star 1600 light years away in the constellation Vela. Radio waves pulsating 16 times per second from this star were discovered in 1968 but for nearly 10 years astronomers had no success in finding any light from this star due to the smallness of the telescopes then available in the Southern hemisphere. Astronomers using the AngloAustralian Telescope have succeeded in observing faint, repetitive double flashes from the pulsar. Its light is as faint as a flickering candle on the moon. It is a measure of the technical excellence of the AAT that as yet no other optical telescope has been able to detect the Vela pulsar.

The same group has followed up its discovery by obtaining photographs of the pulsar as it flashes, using the remarkable equipment available regularly only at the AAT and known as the Image Photon Counting System, or IPCS. The AAT has the first fully engineered version of this device which was developed at the University College, London. A future version is to form part of the instrumentation of the Large Space Telescope scheduled to go into orbit in the mid-1980s, and experience gained in the use of the IPCS at the AAT is being used in the development of this version.

The IPCS is used in the study of quasars, which are believed by most astronomers to be galaxies with particularly bright centres. These galaxies are so distant that they are considered to be the most distant objects known to astronomy. Astronomers using the AAT and its advanced instrumentation have observed more than half of the two dozen most distant quasars known. One of these has been found by the AAT to be the most powerful quasar known, emitting the power of 7 supernovae per day. This compares with a somewhat meagre output from our own galaxy equivalent to one supernova every 30 years, or so. This quasar is thousands of millions of light years away, which means that the light from the quasar which we now see left there so long ago that astronomers using the AAT can determine conditions relating to the Universe’s early history.

The major use of the AAT is to study faint objects in the visible wavelength region at night, but it is also used during the daytime and twilight when infra-red sensitive equipment is mounted on it. In the infra-red, there is much less difference between the darkness of the night and the brightness of the day than there is in visible light. Thus infra-red astronomers can study some objects in daylight. The excellent performance of the AAT is important to its daytime use, as the astronomers are pointing the telescope blind, without star patterns to tell them where the telescope is really looking. The setting capability of the AAT has been calculated to be the equivalent of pointing at the Queen’s nose on a two cent piece at two kilometres. This very high precision is another measure of the technical excellence of the telescope. Its setting capability in this way is now recognised as a world standard to which new telescopes are compared.

Many of the scientific discoveries that have been made by the AAT have demonstrated the opportunities for astronomers in Australia and United Kingdom to participate in active collaboration with space scientists in the United States of America and United Kingdom. For example, one recent collaboration has centred around an object which appears to consist of two stars circling each other. There are X-ray and radio emissions associated with these objects which are being studied by X-ray telescopes orbiting in British and American satellites and also by groups of radio astronomers in this country and South Africa. In speaking of collaboration, I also draw attention to the co-operative arrangements outlined on page 3 of the annual report. The AAT shares Siding Spring Mountain with observatories operated by two other organisationsthe Australian National University and the United Kingdom’s Science Research Council. In the development of instrumentation for the telescope, there is also strong interaction with the CSIRO ‘s Division of Radiophysics at Epping. I am pleased to be able to recall to honourable senators that the Government’s contribution to the Board’s operations in this current year has risen to $ 1.04m, an increase in funding of 22 per cent which will enable the Telescope to continue to meet the highest scientific standard and to maintain its position in the forefront of world astronomy. This amount, of course, is matched by an equal contribution from the British Government.

I draw attention to the comment in the Auditor-General’s report, at page 22, which refers to a deficiency in relation to procedures for approval of the Board’s estimates of expenditure. I am advised that the procedures which have drawn this comment have now been revised to accord with the new standards adopted by the Auditor-General.

Finally, the Telescope’s success has been accentuated because it has become available at a time when there has been a convergence of the various specialisations within astronomy. For example, the radio-astronomers and optical astronomers no longer stay strictly within the confines of their own fields but use each other’s intruments and actively work together. In this way, the strengths of radio-astronomy in Australia and of X-ray astronomy in Britain have been able to make major contributions to the outstanding success of the AAT. All these factors, together with its optical precision and the advanced technology incorporated in its control system and instrumentation, have combined to put the AAT firmly in place as the foremost optical telescope in the world. We can be very proud of the Australian share in this great achievement.

page 2445

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

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

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 I present the report on the operations of the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2445

CONSUMER AFFAIRS COUNCIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BUREAU

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

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Consumer Affairs Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory I present the report of the operations of the Australian Capital Territory Consumer Affairs Council and the Consumer Affairs Bureau for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2445

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

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

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930 I present a statement of receipts and expenditure by the Commonwealth in the administration and development of the Australian Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2445

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

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

– On behalf of Senator Chaney, pursuant to section 52 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 I present the report by the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service on his operations for the year ended 30 June 1978. This document is a photocopy of the final report and has been circulated to all honourable senators. The printed version will be circulated as soon as it becomes available.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

May I take the opportunity to say that today quite a number of reports have been tabled. Over the past week the list of reports tabled has been as impressive as it is today. That spurs me to comment that these reports should be brought down before the Estimates committees complete their hearings. Each of these reports would have been of considerable interest to us as we investigated the expenditure of the various departments and associated corporations and institutions. So for that reason I again appeal to the Government to appeal to departments to have their reports presented before the Estimates committees begin their hearings. We have put up with this situation year after year.

We have moved that the Senate take note of these reports, so they will go on to the Notice Paper now and it is possible that we will not debate them until well into next year. By that time we should be receiving the reports for the current year. If these reports are to be tabled as late as this, I feel that the Senate should take action in some way to convince the departments that the reports are necessary for the investigation of the Estimates. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2446

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, I present a report on ethics in wine promotion.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-by leave-A longstanding reference from the Senate empowers the Standing Committee on Social Welfare to exercise a continuing oversight of relevant aspects of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse which was presented in 1971. Acting under that reference, the Committee, in October 1977, presented a report entitled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?’, which contained specific recommendations to end the advertising of alcoholic beverages. At the same time the Committee noted the existence of several voluntary codes limiting and controlling such advertising.

The Committee’s attention has since been directed to a film which was used by the Australian Wine Board to promote Australian table wines and which appeared to breach standards contained in several voluntary codes for the advertising of alcoholic beverages. The Board asserts that the film is not an advertisement and therefore is not covered by a voluntary advertising code. The Board also asserts that it is not a feature film subject to normal film censorship.

The Committee found, however, that all films, including documentaries, to be shown in registered public cinemas must be submitted to the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board for registration and classification under a uniform system that applies in all States and Territories. By agreement, the States have delegated to the Chief Censor of the Commonwealth Board the task of registering and classifying all such films.

The Committee was disturbed to discover that the proper procedures had not been complied with and believes that, but for its inquiries, Drink No Longer Water might never have been submitted by the Wine Board for registration and classification as prescribed by law. As a result of our intervention, the Film Censorship Board called for and viewed the film, and has now registered it with the classified ‘NRC- an advisory classification warning that it is not recommended for children.

The Film Censorship Board does not consider Drink No Longer Water to be a documentary. It is composed of a series of acted scenes and, in our view, has been prepared in a way that will appeal most particularly to young audiences. By dictionary definition, a documentary is a film in which natural characters or objects are used for educational or instructional purposes. The only educational or instructional feature of this film is the information that there are five varieties of Australian table wines.

The Committee believes that Drink No Longer Water, in some instances set out in detail in the report, breaches a number of provisions in voluntary codes for the advertising of alcoholic beverages. Our view is that there should be an appropriate code to cover all promotional material, however described.

We express our concern that a Commonwealth statutory corporation has chosen to promote the use of wine by employing material that disparages temperance and abstinence and relies heavily on sexual themes. Our views on the use of such methods in the advertising of alcoholic beverages were made quite clear in our previous report. We seek a change in the attitudes that produce this kind of promotion of alcohol, whether by paid advertising or by other means. Because of our concern over what has happened in this instance we have made recommendations which ask the Commonwealth Government to develop guidelines to cover all promotional material used by its departments and statutory authorities and which ask the Australian Wine Board, as an interim measure and of its own volition, to adopt for future promotional efforts standards laid down in one of the voluntary codes attached to the Committee’s report, and to comply with all relevant laws and regulations. Finally, we have asked the Media Council of Australia to examine the need for promotional material to be better defined and to adopt a comprehensive code to cover all such material, however described.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

In so moving I would like to add a few remarks to what Senator Peter Baume has said. I feel that the Government should take a very close look at the Australian Wine Board’s endeavour in a film to influence people who do not drink alcohol or who do not drink wine to start drinking wine. In view of what was said in the report entitled Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?’, we found that there was a very real problem in the amount of alcohol that is being consumed in Australia today in all areas of society. We felt that the Government and the community should take stock of what is happening and that goals should be set to reduce the amount of alcohol being consumed. We were concerned to find that a statutory authority such as the Wine Board was endeavouring to have non-drinkers begin consuming alcohol.

The industry itself recognises that there is some need for control by a voluntary code. The industry assured the Committee that a voluntary code was applied; that the industry saw a necessity for it; that there was no need for any other sort of compulsion on the industry because it would abide by the voluntary code it had set down itself. But it would appear that the industry pays Up service to the code. It feels that when it prints a code it has done the job, but it does not always make sure that the code applies to what it does. I feel in such circumstances that this Parliament should consider laying down a code by which the industry must abide. We felt that, as long as the industry voluntarily applied codes, in a sense the problem was being looked at; but it would appear that the voluntary codes are merely pieces of paper. I think the Government should seriously consider setting down a code with which the industry must comply. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2447

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE ARTS

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

-I present a report from the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts on its inquiry into the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator DAVIDSON:

– by leave-I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In presenting this report relating to the impact of television on the development and learning behaviour of children, we bring to the Senate an account of one of the most important and challenging inquiries ever undertaken by this Committee. As we moved from State to State, we became aware of a widespread public concern with the influence of television on children and young people. As the inquiry progressed, we became even more aware that this community concern was of long standing and that it was growing rather than abating.

Television is in 97 per cent of Australian households. Children and young people watch television for about 20 hours a week or nearly three hours a day. Research has established that by the time some children leave school they will have spent more time in front of the home television screen than in the classroom. For the average Australian child television viewing occupies more of his or her time than any other single activity apart from sleep. We were more concerned, however, with an estimated 20 per cent of children who view in excess of 30 and sometimes as high as 80 hours of television a week. Evidence presented to the Committee showed that these children, because of certain social inhibitions, tended to retreat to a world of their own where television became virtually their sole companion and their main source of information and entertainment. These children are particularly vulnerable to the influence of television and the ones for which we have the greatest concern.

Concern about the impact of television on children ranged widely over many issues. The effects of televised violence emerged as the major issue but there was also much concern about the effects of constant exposure of children to programs that portrayed male and female role stereotypes, unreal or foreign life-styles and the gratuitous use of sex. The Committee’s attention was drawn to advertising that sought to exploit the natural credulity of children and encouraged them to pressure their parents for products they saw advertised. Others expressed concern that much of the advertising directed at children encouraged them in dietary habits that could pose long term dental and nutritional health risks.

Educationalists and parents were concerned that television is adversely affecting the learning behaviour of children. It was claimed that escapist material mainly watched by children is stifling the development of creative instincts and imagination. There is also widespread feeling within the community that other problems manifesting themselves in the classroom are attributable to television. These include such things as shortened attention spans, lack of concentration, difficulties in speech and language development and the inability of some children to develop concepts and logical thoughts. The Committee’s attention was also drawn to other effects which flow from the very act of watching television. In particular, the Committee was interested in a theory advanced by two Canberra psychologists. It was argued that by the very nature of the television signal, the medium’s educative ability is limited to familiarising rather than informing. We believing that this evidence raises a number of important and fundamental questions about inherent defects in television.

We believe that we have identified a number of crucially important issues relating to the impact of television on children. It is our view that these issues should be given urgent attention. We have recommended that the Broadcasting Information office be suitably staffed and funded to undertake or commission research into these matters. However, in the case of televised violence, we believe, that on the basis of accumulated research, community concern and measures taken in so many other countries around the world to prohibit or scale down violence, we should take immediate steps to reduce the level of violence on Australian television. We have recommended accordingly.

Other witnesses argued that because television had the ability to monopolise so much of the average child ‘s time we should capitalise on this by offering programs that are informative and imaginative and in which the child has some intellectual involvement. From the available evidence and from our own analysis of programs we concluded that much of the criticism directed at children’s programs offered by both the national and commercial services is well founded. We believe that commercial television by its very nature is not geared to cater adequately for minority audiences including children. The Committee has recommended that children’s programming be taken out of the arena of industry economics and that programs be produced by an independent production unit. We have also recommended that a statutory obligation be placed on commercial television licencees to ensure that these programs are screened at prescribed times between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays under moratorium conditions. We note that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has traditionally tended to follow regulations of this nature.

The concern expressed to us about the possible harmful effects of television and the complaints about the long history of neglect of children’s programming did not seem to be shared by those in the television or advertising industries. Both industries devoted most of their submissions and oral evidence to refuting such criticisms and arguing for the status quo. We would have liked the industry to be more responsive to the concern that has been expressed by so many members of the community. We believe it is important that those who control the medium should also be aware of the consequences of its influence.

Another important issue that I would like to discuss is media education. Television is intrinsically good and has much to offer society. Witnesses repeated to us that it will never be effectively integrated into our culture until we learn how to understand and control its influence. Educationalists told us that television had emerged as a more powerful educative influence than the schools. Their concern was that we continued to spend large sums of money each year on conventional forms of education while showing an almost total disregard for television.

The Committee was also aware that, whilst there was interest in introducing courses in media education among educationalists at the teaching level, this interest was not always shared by those at the decision making levels. Those who advocated the urgent introduction of media educational courses in the schools pointed out that since television is such an important influence in the learning process, children should be taught discrimination in its use. It was suggested that acquiring this skill was just as important in a child’s training as reading, writing and language construction. The basic objective of media education is to train the child to be an appreciative and critical viewer. Since today’s media students become tomorrow’s adult viewing audiences, the long term aim of media education is to produce more discerning audiences that will demand higher standards in broadcasting services.

We have supported the concept of media education and have recommended that State and Commonwealth educationalists confer with the object of formulating a national curriculum for media education to be introduced in all schools throughout Australia. It was also suggested to the Committee that much could be done to improve children’s television if adults had a greater awareness of television’s potential to influence and became critical viewers themselves. Other evidence showed that many parents were concerned with what their children learnt from television but were unsure of how to control effectively their children ‘s viewing habits.

As far as we are aware there is little or no activity in the area of adult media education outside the experimental courses that have been offered at Kilkenny College of Further Education in Adelaide. We believe that in order to maximise the benefit of media education in the schools, we should be fostering a similar effort at the adult level. We have recommended that the appropriate machinery be set up for national discussions by colleges of further education and other interested organisations with a view to formulating guidelines for appropriate courses.

It is of interest to note that as a result of our public hearings and those of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in its inquiry into selfregulation for broadcasters, a great deal of public interest has been generated in children’s television. With 1979 being designated as Year of the Child by the United Nations, we expect this interest to be sustained and develop even further as community attention focuses more sharply on the needs of children. Because of the great amount of interest in this inquiry and likely continued public interest, I inform the Senate that we will be looking at the subject of children’s television again in about eighteen months. We plan to review the whole question again in the light of developments in the intervening period.

It only remains for me to place on record an expression of appreciation to the members of the Committee secretariat, Mr Lipscombe and Mr Barsdell for the efficient manner in which they have discharged their duties. I do this very readily. Finally, I state that this whole study highlights the changing situation applying to those who, in one way or another, are entrusted with the care and management of children. The role of schools and community organisations takes on a new responsibility, in association with homes and parents, so that the wonderful characteristics of television may be used to assist our children to become informed, happy and useful citizens.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I have participated in the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which has been described by Senator Davidson in detail. The recommendations of the Committee have also been described by him in some detail. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish to put the minority view, as I think it is termed in the United States of America, in relation to this report. Its compilation has taken a long time. I personally feel a sense of deep deprivation as a result of serving on this Committee because my wife and I got rid of the family television set after the Committee had been meeting for a few months.

While that may have been in the interests of my children- I firmly believe that to be so- I personally feel deprived as a result of having to make that decision.

Senator Missen:

– Deprived?

Senator BUTTON:

– I miss the opportunity of seeing people like Senator Missen on television. The important point that I seek to make by making that remark is that the findings of the Committee in relation to this matter point to some very serious problems in our society with which, in my view, we as a society or as governments have not been adequately concerned in the past.

Some very nice problems are raised in this report about the role of government and parliaments. For example, one of the Committee’s findings, which were made on the basis of evidence put to it, was that the average viewing time which children spend watching television is of the order of 20 to 22 hours a week but one-fifth of the child population of this country watches television for much longer than that- up to 60 to 70 hours a week. It is important to consider how much we as a parliament should be concerned about those children. As a result of the political debate in this place our society is committed to vast expenditure on education. I believe that this report raises the very important question of whether television is a counterculture in our society which is running quite contrary to the values which the education system may well wish to instil or encourage. I think it is important to question whether our priorities as a society in this regard have been right.

I should indicate that other countries do not have the same sorts of difficulties as Australia in relation to these problems. For example, in some 16 countries very strict regulations are placed on the showing of violent programs on television. Of course, there has been no such meaningful regulation in Australia in the past. The report attempts to grapple with that issue.

One very important point which I think should be made is that this Parliament has had reports of royal commissions and committees of the Parliament placed before it for some 22 years since television first came to Australia. The Vincent Committee and various other committees have reported to this Parliament. This report contains quotations from statements which were made up to 20 years ago and which are as true today as they were when they were made 20 years ago. That is testament to massive inactivity on the part of government- I make no partisan political comment in saying this- in ignoring the reports of this Parliament.

Senator Davidson drew attention to the fact that this Committee wants to review the situation arising from the publication of this report in 18 months time. I think that it is appropriate to do so because the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) indicated to the Committee that the Government would consider the recommendations in this report and take them into account in any amendments which it would make to the Broadcasting and Television Act. I think it is very important that that review process take place so that a committee of this Senate is not treated in 1978 as committees of this Parliament have been treated over many years in dealing with matters relating to television and particularly children’s television.

The Committee was assisted in the preparation of this report by the distilled wisdom of the years which appears on the front page of the report in the form of a quotation from George Bernard Shaw. It reads:

Take care to get what you like or you will be forced to like what you get.

I mention that because in a sense it is a summation of a very important view expressed in this report which goes to another question of the claim by many commercial television operators in Australia that the notion of freedom of the media carries with it the notion that the media should be free to show whatever they like without any prospect of government intervention. I think that the report deals very kindly with them in this regard because in suggesting government intervention it suggests that governments should also make a financial commitment to that intervention in terms of the quality of children’s programs.

There is only one other matter which I wanted to mention and that is, as Senator Davidson has already said, that the Committee will review the matter in 1 8 months time. The report laid a good deal of stress on the question of media education, particularly media education for adults. I must say that I have some scepticism, which was indicated during Committeehearings, about the viability of that sort of proposition. I find difficulty in answering the question of why the average Australian would go to a course on media education when he can stay at home and watch television. That is the sort of inherent problem which we found throughout the Committee’s deliberations on this question. I reiterate that I think we have missed a couple of generations of Australians by our failure to act in this regard in the past and drawn the Senate’s attention to the very rapid rate of technological change in the communications industry. It may be that if we start educating adults or even children now to understand the nature of the electronic media, by the time that process has been implemented and has been under way for a few years the whole nature of the electronic media will have changed. In fact we will have missed again. A generation of Australians will have been educated for a sort of horse-and-buggy era in television when they should have been educated for the opposite to the horseandbuggy era.

Senator Melzer:

– The Space Age.

Senator BUTTON:

– The Space Age is perhaps a bit of a cliche. The appropriate expression temporarily alludes me but a sophisticated audience like the Australian Senate will understand the point which I am seeking to make. I think this is a very important report and I commend its reading to all honourable senators. I commend it to them because there is a lot of community interest in this question, as Senator Davidson has pointed out. It is a growing community interest. I also commend all those groups who took the trouble to put in thoughtful submissions to the Committee. I think honourable senators should read this report because they are going to be asked about it in the course of discharging their functions as senators. I think it is important that they form a view about it. In view of the state of research and so on which is available in Australia at this time I think that the Committee has done a pretty reasonable sort of job in trying to pull the thing together for the purpose of encouraging an on-going debate in Australian society. I commend the report to the Senate and I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2450

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I present two reports from the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on scrutiny of Bills and delegation of parliamentary authority respectively.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator MISSEN:

-by leave-I move:

These two reports are being tabled simultaneously because their central recommendation is the same, namely, that a joint parliamentary committee, to be called the ‘joint committee on scrutiny of Bills’, should be established to maintain a watching brief on all Bills introduced into the Parliament so as to highlight those provisions which have an impact on persons either by interfering with their rights or by subjecting them to undue delegations of power. While the terms of reference of our inquiry into scrutiny of Bills called for us to assess whether or not it was desirable and practicable to establish the kind of parliamentary committee which we have ultimately recommended, it is clear that the problems identified in our delegation of parliamentary authority inquiry would have prompted us to recommend such a committee in any event. In assessing the need for such a committee we noted that many Bills come before the Parliament which contain provisions that: Significantly interfere with personal rights and liberties; delegate powers which, arguably, should not be delegated at all; delegate powers to affect rights, liberties and obligations without providing an opportunity for the exercise of those powers to be reviewed either by the Parliament itself or by an independent body; or delegate powers to impose obligations without any clearly defined guidance as to who is to impose them, upon whom and in which circumstances.

We commented in our scrutiny of Bills report that such provisions may well be the product of conscious and deliberate Government decision and, as a result, may have been extensively debated. But very often these provisions are not necessarily central to the policy objectives of the Government, do not as a result gain especial prominence, and in the rush of legislation tend to slip through the Parliament without full debate or any debate at all. There is, as a consequence, a need to maintain a watching brief in respect of these types of provisions. Whilst the Parliament can never hope to foresee and provide for every contingency, we believe that it can do a good deal to implement procedures to supervise the administrative decision-making process and to strengthen the position of the individual. The establishment of the joint committee on scrutiny of Bills would do just that.

We have recommended that the scrutiny committee be a joint committee to enable consideration of all Bills as soon as they are introduced into the Parliament, regardless of the House into which they are introduced first, and to enable members of both Houses properly to fulfill their obligations in respect of legislative scrutiny. To facilitate its work we recommended that it be a small committee and stated our preference for an eight-member committee, membership of which should be equally divided between the Senate and the House of Representatives. In order to ensure that time will usually be made available for the Committee to perform its task, while not impeding urgent Bills, we recommended a mechanism which would require the Government to suspend Standing Orders on any occasion on which it wished to have a Bill proceed through all stages in both Houses within four sitting days of its introduction into the Parliament without awaiting the report of the joint committee. In the event of such suspension of Standing Orders the committee would be empowered to continue its scrutiny and report to both Houses notwithstanding passage of the Bill, by the Parliament and receipt of the royal assent

In our delegation of parliamentary authority report we noted that for practical purposes there are no legal limits on the power of parliament to delegate its legislative power. Nor is there any legal limit on Parliament’s power to confer administrative authority, and other forms of power short of legislative power, provided that such conferring is otherwise within the Commonwealth’s range of constitutional powers. It is, therefore, important that Parliament exercise its powers carefully and devise its own procedures as to what are proper delegations of power. The Committee, in its report on delegation of parliamentary authority, identified three forms of delegation which merit Parliament’s particular attention. We have described them as:

Inappropriate delegations, which are those delegations which, by virtue of the subject matter involved, should not be delegated at all; uncontrolled delegations, which are those delegations as to which insufficient provision has been made for scrutiny by the Parliament or review by a judicial or quasi-judicial body of the action taken under the delegated power; and insufficiently defined delegations, which are those delegations vesting discretionary authority as to which the extent of the discretionary power or the guidance given as to the manner of its exercise are imprecise.

In addition to these major aspects of delegation the Committee also considered questions of parliamentary control as they relate to special appropriations and to the creation of statutory authorities outside the framework of ministerial departments. While these matters go beyond the compass of the proposed joint committee, the terms of reference which we have formulated for the joint committee cover the major aspects of delegation highlighted in the delegation report. We recommended that the joint committee on scrutiny of Bills should be established with the following terms of reference:

To examine the clauses of all Bills introduced into the Parliament for report as to whether they, by express words or otherwise:

trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties

make rights, liberties and obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently denned administrative powers or non-reviewable administrative decisions; or

inappropriately delegate legislative power or insufficiently subject its exercise to parliamentary scrutiny.

We believe that, if our substantial recommendations are drafted, the new joint committee on scrutiny of Bills will add a valuable facility in ensuring the real control by Parliament over legislation which may endanger the rights and liberties of the subject or create undue delegations of power. The Committee acknowledges the original initiative and continued interest of Senator Chaney in raising the issue of scrutiny of Bills in the Senate.

The completion of these reports and their tabling before the end of this session have been the cause of considerable pressure on the time and energies of the Committee and staff. My Liberal colleagues will support me in making particular reference to the skills and stamina of Senator Evans and Senator Tate, whose valuable contributions to both reports, particularly the legal aspects of them, have been outstanding. Added to their responsibilities in relation to our other current references, the Secretary of this Committee, Mr Malcolm Starr and other members of the Committee’s staff have also given meticulous attention to these most important references and deserve the gratitude of the Senate.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I am indebted to Senator Missen for his kind remarks about the contributions made by Senator Tate and me to these reports. For myself, I regard that contribution as nothing out of the ordinary. These reports, like so many others that emerge from the Senate committee system, are very much the product of a team effort by all members and staff of committees. Here, as elsewhere, I have been very pleased to note that partisan considerations have been quite submerged in the desire of all members to make a constructive contribution to the solution of difficult and important problems. I would not wish Senator Missen ‘s reference to the legal input of Senator Tate and myself- we are both, after all, lawyers and, what is worse, constitutional lawyers and even worse still, former academic lawyers- to mislead anyone into thinking that these reports are just a lawyer’s exercise of the usual exotic, technical and, for the most part, unintelligible kind to which lawyers are prone. They are very much more important than that.

Senator Melzer:

– You said it.

Senator EVANS:

– I acknowledge the force of what Senator Melzer has said. I hope that these reports before us will be counter examples of that phenomenon rather than illustrative of it. As I say, these reports are very much more important. I venture to say that the report concerning the scrutiny of Bills is one of the most important ever to be presented to this chamber. It might seem extravagant to claim that a proposal to create a new committee of this Senate could be very important to anyone given the positive sea of committees in which we are all presently immersed.

We are seeking, as Senator Missen explained, to make a major innovation in our legislative machinery, one which should enormously improve and enhance the quality and in many ways the legitimacy of all the legislation produced by this Parliament, whichever party is in power. The reality, as all of us are only too well aware, is that there is far too little effective scrutiny of the details of Bills that pass through our hands. Perhaps new members such as Senator Tate, Senator Puplick and I are most aware of this because we have not yet had time to be anaesthetised by familiarity against the deficiencies in the system in this respect. The problem is not so much with the major clauses of Bills which are central to the policy of the legislation to which the Government of the day has committed itself. They are announced as such and attract Opposition attention, and they do tend to be fully debated in the chambers. Rather, the problem is with all the rest of the provisions, the subordinate provisions, the machinery provisions and the procedural provisions which are not necessarily at the very heart of the Bills which come before us but which, nonetheless, are very much part of the total legislative package with which the community is presented each time legislation is passed. All too often there are such provisions which, as Senator Missen has said, trespass unduly on individual rights and liberties or which amount to undue delegations of parliamentary authority in one or other of the ways Senator Missen outlined.

As long ago as 1931 the Parliament and the Senate recognised the necessity for some more effective scrutiny procedure of regulations and ordinances. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which was created in that year and functions effectively to this day, became a model which was praised, emulated and adopted throughout the parliamentary world. It has been adopted in nearly every country and every State within countries where the Westminster system or variants of it have prevailed. It has taken us a very long time to recognise and come to grips with the necessity for creating a similar piece of machinery to deal not just with subordinate legislation but also with principal legislation. With the ever-increasing number of Bills coming before us this has become as big a problem area in practice as subordinate legislation has ever been. It is my hope, and the hope of all the Committee members, that the recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for the establishment of a joint committee on the scrutiny of Bills will be adopted by this Parliament and that in due course, just as with the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, it will become a model that will be equally widely praised and adopted throughout the Westminster parliamentary world. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2453

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-Mr President, I present the report from the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders on Queensland reserves.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MISSEN:

-by leave-I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee was charged with this reference following the passage of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Bill in April 1978. The Bill was subjected to criticism and proposed amendments during its passage and was immediately restricted in its approach by the action of the Queensland Government in abolishing the Aurukun and Mornington Island Reserves.

Our main objective in the course of this inquiry and in preparing this report has been to shed some light on some hitherto obscure aspects of the debate concerning the appropriate means of discharging the Commonwealth’s obligations to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland. Our attention has been focussed on the constitutionality and effectiveness of the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Selfmanagement) Act 1978. But in assessing the effectiveness of that legislation we have reached firm conclusions as to the scope of the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth in respect to Aborigines, the extent and variety of powers in respect to the acquisition of property and the constitutional requirements to provide ‘just terms’. We have widely explored the range of possible options which are open to the Commonwealth in discharging its obligations.

The Committee is of the opinion that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 is within the constitutional competence of the Commonwealth Parliament. However, the Act is, for practical purposes, ineffective as a means of allowing Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland to manage and control their own affairs and would need to be substantially amended if it were to provide such an effective basis for self-management.

Since the amendment of the Constitution in 1967 to give the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws with respect to Aboriginals, attempts have failed to achieve any co-operative arrangement with the Queensland Government regarding management and control of the affairs of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in that State. Furthermore, the current agreement in respect of local government arrangements cannot as yet be seen as an example of successful cooperation. Accordingly, the Committee assumes that co-operation between the Commonwealth and Queensland is not likely to provide a full and sufficient discharge of the Commonwealth ‘s obligations to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland and that some unilateral action by the Commonwealth is likely to be necessary.

The report analyses in some detail the alternative legislation courses of action which are open to the Government and the financial implications of each, to the extent that it involves the compulsory acquisition of property interests. Close attention is paid to the various kinds of arrangements that are possible in respect of mineral rights- an area which has been the subject of much confusion and misunderstanding. The legislative courses open to the Government include: Various modes of control falling short of the acquisition of property interest; acquisition of freehold title with or without mineral right; acquisition of leasehold interest; acquisition of easement or profit a prendre; and acquisition of lesser forms of proprietary right, such as absolute or qualified right of exclusion, right of occupation, and absolute or qualified right of use and enjoyment.

The Committee hopes that its analysis of these questions will clarify the issues and make it possible for the continuing debate on the best means of discharging the Commonwealth’s responsibilities to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to be conducted in future on a better informed basis. The Committee, in compiling this report, has had the valued assistance of relevant Commonwealth departments and a number of other persons, including Dr Michael Crommelin who advised the Committee. We believe that the report will add to the understanding by the Parliament and the people of the powers and specific responsibilities of the Commonwealth towards Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and encourage a surer exercise of such powers and responsibilities.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-The Senate does not need me or the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to tell it what an unhappy chain of backsliding has been involved in the Commonwealth’s dealings with the Aurukun and Mornington Island communities over the last few months. I make that remark in no partisan spirit. The tale is an unhappy one and it has been told many times already in this chamber. What the Senate may need to be told, and what the Committee tries to set out in this report, is that a large number of legislative alternatives are available to the Commonwealth should it be minded to act more positively and effectively than it has in the past to protect the rights, interests, cultures and lifestyles not only of the Aurukun and Mornington Island communities but of all the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reserve communities in Queensland.

I might add that nearly all the Committee’s reasoning is in fact applicable elsewhere, but our terms of reference were such as to direct us specifically to the Queensland situation. It is to that State that the report is accordingly directed. The question of alternatives has been constantly fudged and muddled in ministerial statements, and indeed in the contributions of nearly everyone to this debate. Wildly varying figures, ranging from as low as $500,000 to as extravagantly high as $ 1,000m have been thrown around as the price of Commonwealth intervention in the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander reserves. Indeed, the very existence of the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers to act in this area has been called into question.

In an endeavour to untangle and clarify what has become a very muddled situation, the Committee ‘s report does four things: First of all, it gives a detailed analysis, for really the first time in the legal literature, of the nature, scope and extent of section 51 (xxvi) of the Constitution, which of course empowers the Commonwealth to make laws with respect to the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws. That power was conferred upon the Commonwealth in those terms in the 1967 constitutional referendum. Our conclusion in respect of that particular power is that it is such as to fully enable the Commonwealth to act in any conceivable way that it might wish to in conferring self-management rights on Aborigines and Tones Strait Islanders in Queensland.

The second thing that the report does is to give a full account of the relevance and application of section 5 1 (xxxi) of the Constitution, which sets out the power of the Commonwealth to acquire property on just terms. The third thing that the report does is to make a detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the present Commonwealth legislation in this area- the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-Management) Act 1978. In that respect we make certain suggestions as to how the all too obvious weaknesses of that Act could be remedied so that it might in fact in the future produce a reasonably viable basis for future Commonwealth legislative action in this area. Fourthly, what we do in the report is to list a series of alternative courses of legislative action in which the Commonwealth could constitutionally engage so as to secure effective self-management rights for Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland.

Senator Missen in his remarks has identified in detail what some of those options are and there is no need for me to repeat them, except to say that they cover the whole canvas, from modes of control falling short of proprietary rights, through various kinds of familiar proprietary rights, including freehold and leasehold acquisitions, to various other forms of lesser proprietary rights which can indeed be created by statute should the Commonwealth choose to so do. I hope that one of the major contributions of the report in this respect will be to untangle in people’s minds the almost universal confusion which seems to apply with respect to mineral rights. What the report does is to explain- I hope in such a way that even Senator Melzer will be able to appreciate it- the nature and diversity of these rights, how they are capable of being conferred in various degrees, and how indeed the cost of acquiring them will vary in accordance with just what degree of mineral rights is sought to be secured.

This is not, of course, the time to expound these points further or to debate the respective merits of these various options. I simply urge both the Senate and the Government to study very carefully indeed the range of options which the Committee has identified. I further hope that in all future discussions of what on earth we are to do to alleviate the distress of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of Queensland, to whom we owe so much, we will remain very fully aware of just how flexible and just how wide ranging those options are. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-by leave- It was on a motion that I moved that this matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for investigation and report. I am very happy to note now that the report has been brought down. We will certainly be studying this report very closely. As Senator Evans has already said, what the Queensland Government has done to the people of Mornington Island and Aurukun has been a sorry matter. It now appears that the Committee has been able to spell out for the Commonwealth exactly what powers it has and what it can do in the future when a government of any State attempts to do what the Queensland Government has attempted to do to the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island.

I am quite sure that the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island will be able to rest a little more easily now that they know that the Committee has investigated this matter and brought in a report. We know that the Commonwealth can override the Queensland Government and give the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island and Aboriginal people throughput Australia what they have been seeking for a long time and what I am happy to say is the policy of the present Government, namely, selfdetermination and the self-management of their own affairs in their own communities. This can be done. I hope that the Government will exercise its power as pointed out by the Committee, because I am quite certain that the legislation brought in by the Queensland Government which is supposed to provide self-management of local government will not work because the Queensland Government will not allow it to work. That Queensland Government wants to continue to have control of the people. Therefore I believe that the Government finally will have to exercise its power and acquire the lands and let the people of Aurukun and Mornington Island and the other Aboriginal people in the west of Queensland and other parts of Australia have what they want.

Debate adjourned.

page 2455

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I present the report of the Joint Committee on Publications on the Australian Government Publishing Service and its role in Commonwealth printing and publishing 1964-68 together with the Hansard transcript of the Committee’s proceedings.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MISSEN:

– by leave- I move:

This is the sixth special report presented to the Parliament by the Joint Committee on Publications since investigatory powers were conferred upon it by amendments to the Standing Orders in 1970. The inquiry into the Australian Government Publishing Service was initiated by the Committee since it felt that, after eight years of operation, it was timely for a review of AGPS activities, to take place. The Australian Government Publishing Service was established on the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications 1964, often referred to as the Erwin Committee after its Chairman, the Honourable Dudley Erwin. Since it was anticipated that future oversight of AGPS activities, functions and responsibilities would be undertaken by the Joint Committee on Publications, the Committee determined that it was the appropriate authority to carry out such a review.

Initially, the Committee was content to examine AGPS operations only. However, as the inquiry progressed, it became apparent that there was a need to broaden its scope to cover the part played by departments, statutory authorities and other bodies associated with the Commonwealth’s responsibilities in printing and publishing.

The Role of Publications

The availability of published government material is an essential element to democracy as it exists in Australia. Good communication via the media of print is necessary between the Government and the people to enable the law of the land to be available to each citizen, to be read and understood; to enable the reasons behind government policy and its involvement in the life of each citizen to be publicised; and to provide to the electorate information on the Parliament and government and their respective roles and activities.

The moves towards open government and freedom of information go hand in hand with the need to publish a greater volume of Commonwealth material. Honourable senators are no doubt aware that the number of reports and other published material placed before the Parliament has increased considerably over recent years. Figures available to the Committee reveal that in 1964 the Commonwealth, through the Parliament, departments and statutory authorities published some 2,000 publications. Today AGPS alone publishes over 4,500 publications at an estimated value of $2 4m. There is little doubt that without the establishment of the AGPS, the Commonwealth would not have been equipped to carry out the huge publishing and distribution task facing it during the 1 970s.

Australian Government Publishing Service Achievements

Since its establishment in 1970 the Australian Government Publishing Service primarily has been responsible for the huge improvement in style and production quality of Commonwealth publications. Any person who would care to examine a selection of Commonwealth publications produced in 1968 and compare them with their 1978 counterparts could not fail to be impressed by the design and production standard of the latter. In other instances, AGPS circulars have been responsible for restricting the more lavish departmental publications to an acceptable standard.

The AGPS has achieved a substantial improvement in the availability and distribution of Commonwealth publications to the public since the establishment of AGPS bookshops and the mail order service. AGPS sales of Commonwealth publications have gone from $441,000 in 1970-71 to almost $3m last financial year. The number of tides available through the AGPS has grown from minimal numbers prior to 1970 to 2,000 in 1973 to 17,000 in 1978. The Committee can only conclude from these observations that the concept of the AGPS as originally proposed by the Erwin Committee in 1964 and eventually established by the Government in 1970 is basically sound and has led to vast improvement in the standard of Commonwealth publications and their availability to the public.

Administration

Initially in 1970, the AGPS was established as a semi-autonomous body comprising three branches- the Printing Branch or the Government Printing Office, the Publishing Branch, and the Management Services Branch. Since then, AGPS has undergone substantial administrative and structural variations until today the Printing Branch and the Publishing Branch have been absorbed into the Department of Administrative Services. The Management Services Branch has been abolished and its functions carried out by the the central Management Services Branch of the Department of Administrative Services.

The Committee is concerned to note that, by being a part of the Department of Administrative Services, AGPS as a service agent has been subject to extensive reductions in personnel through the lowering of staff ceilings. This has occurred to such an extent that many of its services have been reduced or are in the process of being decentralised to other departments. In the Committee’s opinion, the benefits to be achieved by the AGPS as a central publishing agency are under threat of being eroded to an unacceptable extent. If the AGPS is to provide an effective service which is capable of reacting to the needs of government and the publications market, it must be free to adjust its services and personnel to meet the current circumstance. Its present position within the Department of Administrative Services does not allow it this flexibility.

The Committee feels that this can only be achieved if the AGPS is re-established as a semiautonomous and commercially independent body and has recommended accordingly. To ensure that its costs of operation are acceptable, the Committee has recommended that the AGPS, within its autonomy, be established as a separate financial entity operating to a total trust account concept. In this way total services can be provided to client departments and the public on a ‘user pays’ principle. The Committee is of the opinion that this approach will encourage client departments to be more responsible in their publishing programs, since they will have to pay a rate for AGPS services which is more in keeping with a commercial charge. So far as the AGPS is concerned, the provision of additional staff would have to be carefully weighed against its cost to the trust account. Wherever the employment of additional staff can be justified by increased sales or revenue, the Committee can see no reason why they should not be so employed. The Committee feels that staff ceilings should not apply if the AGPS is able to operate without unduly draining Consolidated Revenue.

Consistent with its recommendations which seek to place AGPS operations more on a commercial footing, the Committee has recommended that an outside commercial publishing expert be appointed to act as controller of the AGPS for a limited contracted period. In addition, the Committee seeks to expand the activities of AGPS in the commercial field by recommending the establishment of more retail outlets in conjunction with commercial booksellers. To ensure the success of the expanded sales activities of the AGPS, its sales promotion campaigns must be drastically revised and improved.

Role of the AGPS

Essentially the Committee has not recommended any major changes to the present role of the AGPS. Rather, it has attempted to establish firmly its existing role as the primary publisher of government publications. Wherever there are functions being performed by departments which could be more efficiently and economically carried out by centralising the function, the Committee has recommended that these be transferred from departments to the AGPS. In other areas, the Committee has recommended that AGPS adopt a more flexible attitude in the application of its guidelines, and return a degree of responsibility to departments. In a number of areas, the Committee is concerned to note that the existence of the AGPS has encouraged an abdication of responsibility by departments. Wherever possible the Committee has recommended steps to reverse this tendency.

Sitting suspended from 1.1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator MISSEN:

– I continue my statement on the report of the Publications Committee.

The Government Printing Office

Throughout its inquiry, the Committee devoted a great deal of attention to the operations of the Government Printing Office. Currently the Government Printer has little control over the amount of work which passes through his factory, nor has he direct control over matters of staffing, industrial relations, and general financial and accounts administration. These are all the responsibility of either the Publishing Branch of the AGPS, or the Management Services Branch of the Department of Administrative Services. The Committee believes that the lack of administrative control by the Government Printer is a key element in the significant losses recorded by the Government Printing Office over recent years. For these reasons, the Committee has recommended that the Government Printing Office be removed from the AGPS structure and be established as a separate and self-contained unit. It sees the Government Printing Office running to a total trust account with full responsibility for its operations being vested in the Government Printer. The Committee has recommended that, for administrative purposes, he be directly responsible to the Secretary of the Department of Administrative Services.

The Role of the Government Printer

The role of the Government Printer has never clearly been established. The functions which his Office perform have accumulated gradually as a result of past practice. There are certain conflicts between these functions which should be clarified, for example, his responsibility to the Parliament through its Presiding Officers for the production of, Hansard, Notice Papers, Bills, etc., and his duties associated with the provision of printing services to the Government. Whilst it has been understood that parliamentary work shall always attract priority, such priorities have never been clearly established.

The Committee has recommended that at the commencement of each session of Parliament a resolution be passed by both Houses of Parliament declaring the Government Printer’s responsibility to the Presiding Officers for the printing of all Parliamentary publications; that he be provided with all necessary resources to meet this responsibility; and that at all times the Government Printer give priority to Parliamentary work. In addition to these responsibilities, the Committee has added that the Government Printer, wherever possible, should carry out urgent and confidential work for the Government as may be required from time to time. Much of the other printing associated with the Government’s publishing program would be undertaken by commercial firms.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to a number of other matters referred to in the report which, due to considerations of time, I mention here only briefly. The Committee has recommended that greater responsibilities be given the the Government Printer to check and rationalise the purchase of departmental inhouse reproduction and printing equipment A grave situation still exists concerning the inadequate salary paid to the Government Printer in comparison with that paid to his State counterparts. This is exampled by the fact that the salary proposed for the Northern Territory Government Printer will be substantially higher than that of our own Printer. The Committee fails to see why the Commonwealth Government Printer on any comparison of responsibilities, should have the lowest remuneration of all Australian Government printers.

Over past years the Government Printing Office has not been provided with sufficient work to enable its plant to be worked to an economic capacity, and consequently significant losses have occurred. The Committee has recommended that a review of its plant and equipment be undertaken to ensure that it is the most appropriate to carry out the role as prescribed by the Committee in this report. Once this equipment has been installed and made operational, the Committee is firmly of the view that it should be worked to full and economic capacity, wherever possible. It has made recommendations to ensure that the Government Printing Office be provided with sufficient work to keep its plant running to an economic capacity.

The need for a clarification of responsibilities

A major overall deficiency of the Commonwealth’s publishing program lies in the fact that nowhere have the respective printing and publishing roles and powers of the Government Printer, the AGPS, departments and statutory authorities been clearly established iri a formalised document. Rather, these have been developed by intermittent Cabinet decisions of the years. The lack of clarity in government decisions in this area is such that confusion of responsibility between the various Commonwealth publishing agents has become a significant problem. As a consequence, there has developed a considerable amount of inter-departmental bickering and the establishment of jealousies over each other’s functions. Often departments and statutory authorities ignore or resist AGPS circulars. In other areas, client departments consider that the AGPS has overly asserted its role to a degree where it has been labelled as a policeman and regulatory authority rather than a service agent. In chapter 1 8 of the report, the Committee has laid down in the form of a charter of responsibilities what it believes to be the role of the various Commonwealth printing and publishing agents. The clarification of roles given by the charter, if adopted, should remove many of the difficulties which are currently being experienced by the publishing agents of the Commonwealth.

Supervisory Role

During its inquiry, the Committee became aware of the need for the government to establish a policy body with sufficient authority to direct and supervise departments and statutory authorities when undertaking their publishing programs. The Committee has suggested that the body which it has called the board of review be established and be comprised of senior officers from a number of departments. Its establishment is an essential element of the Committee’s overall design to establish a commonsense and flexible approach within the field of Commonwealth printing and publishing. The AGPS, as a service agent, cannot and should not be placed in a situation where it is in conflict with the publishing aims of its clients. The Committee believes that the AGPS should not have an oversighting responsibility and that, consistent with overseas practice, much can be gained by the establishment of a board of review which would undertake this responsibility. It would also look to the board of review to ensure that the proposed charter of responsibilities, if adopted, would be carried out by the various publishing agents. In the event that the Board is unable to resolve differences of interpretation or responsibilities, it is suggested that it be given ready access to the Committee to enable further investigation to be carried out. Then, where appropriate, recommendations would be placed before the Government.

Joint Committee on Publications

In the years to come, the Committee will be undertaking a more active role in the oversighting of the Commonwealth’s publishing program. Whilst its investigatory powers are complete and to the satisfaction of the Committee, it feels that the Standing Orders are deficient in that power to travel and to form itself into a sub-committee are not provided. To assist in its supervisory role the Committee feels that such powers should be available, and has recommended that the Standing Orders be amended accordingly.

Other matters

In this report, the Committee has taken the opportunity to recommend a strengthening of the bibliographical control of Commonwealth publications, and the establishment of set procedures to govern Australia ‘s overseas exchange commitments. It also draws attention to the need for the introduction of a computer-generated information retrieval system for members of Parliament within the parliamentary building.

Conclusion

Whilst in many respects, the recommendations contained in the report are far reaching and in some areas will attract opposition from many of the parties involved, the Committee firmly believes that a positive attitude should be taken to ensure their adoption. It considers that they are in the best interests of the Commonwealth’s publishing program and that ways to achieve their implementation should be investigated rather than reasons sought as to why they should not.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the officers of the AGPS who, throughout the inquiry, offered a great deal of assistance and thoughtful advice to the Committee. In particular, I must also thank the members of the Committee, both past and present, who have taken part in this inquiry. It has been a long inquiry and one which has made great demands on its members. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Chairman of the Joint Committee, Mr John Hodges, M.P., who has pursued the inquiry with skill and unflagging zeal and has, with the Committee’s able secretary, Mr Tom Wharton, played the major part in producing a report which I believe will be of considerable assistance to the Parliament. Since 1970 this Committee has made three detailed inquiries and has presented reports on subjects of significance. All three of those inquiries were conducted by the Committee under Mr Hodges ‘$ excellent chairmanship. I commend the report to the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Before seeking leave to continue my remarks later so that the proceedings of the Senate may carry on, I would like to say that this report is the most significant report that has come from the Joint Committee on Publications. If there are some of us who think that Senator Missen spoke far too long, we must appreciate that everything he said was worthy of note. I trust that the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), who was in the chamber to listen to the comments accompanying the presentation of the report, will accept the criticisms set out in it. Of course, we cannot hold the Minister responsible because he has been in charge of the Department only for a short time. Out of this report emerges the fact that the Australian Government Publishing Service has had problems for a long time. They emerge in this report and if it were not for the recommendations we would be seriously concerned about the situation. However, the recommendations are of such a definitive nature that if they are carried out possibly the problems of the Service will be at an end.

I would like to take just faint credit for the report, from looking at the membership of the Joint Committee on Publications, I notice that I am a member. I was appointed on 17 August 1978. I must apologise for the fact that because of other duties I was not able to attend meetings. Therefore I cannot take the fullest credit for the nature of the report. Nevertheless I take some reflected credit and I trust that the report will come before the Senate, as I have suggested other reports should come before the Senate, at an early opportunity so that we can see whether or not the Minister is prepared to respond to the recommendations. If he is not, if the Government is not, all this worthy effort will have been of little avail. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2459

DEVELOPMENT OF ARMY SITE, BONEGILLA, VICTORIA

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present a report relating to the development of Army Site Stage 1, Bonegilla, Victoria.

page 2459

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-by leave-I have pleasure in presenting the report of the Twenty-fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference which was held in Jamaica in September and October of this year. As is stated in the body of the report, the participants were most grateful for the opportunity to represent this Parliament at that Conference. We were all most impressed with the beauty of the island of Jamaica and we were most warmed by the friendliness, generosity and hospitality of the people of Jamaica. May I say that, as usual, the Secretariat was most efficient and the Conference worked efficiently. The Australian delegates made many worthwhile contributions to discussions at the Conference and were all grateful for the opportunity to listen to the views of people from many environments different from our own. We found their arguments and the discussions interesting and challenging.

There are opportunities for free discussion at these conferences but I feel that steps should be taken to have wider and more meaningful discussion rather than just speechifying from delegates. For instance, one matter which a discussion panel dealt with was the fight against international terrorism. That is a large and complex subject. To give some 100 delegates only two hours to discuss it means that in many instances a lot of speechifying goes on rather than information being given. Some delegations want to grandstand and take up large slabs of time in making speeches. They seem to depend more on the length of a speech rather than the quality of the information given. Another interesting topic that was discussed was the need to update medical legislation in the Commonwealth on abortion. Delegates from many different countries asked, for instance, for recognition of the United Nations Declaration of Rights to SelfDetermination, larger and more comprehensive programs of education on contraception and more committal to the allocation of resources to overcome the overwhelming social and economic problems that lead to abortion. Of all the delegates who were present and who spoke, only one spoke out in favour of legislation declaring abortion illegal.

As has happened before at other conferences, the Australian delegation was not of one mind in regard to every matter. The Senate is aware of the matters on which we were most divided. It has happened at other conferences and is a matter of some amazement to delegations from other Commonwealth countries. There are still many Commonwealth countries who do not send mixed delegations; they send delegations made up of members of the parties who are in power at the time. But even among mixed delegations there was a feeling that we should settle our differences at home and speak with one voice. I hope that we never do. I hope also that we never fall into the trap of sending only a delegation of members from the party that forms the government of the day or insist that the delegation speaks with one voice. I maintain the right of members of delegation to express their own views and, of course, the right of other delegates to put forward views which may be the views of a majority of the people of Australia. Of course, the delegates who put forward ideas that are not of this country or not favoured by the majority of delegates at the conference have to run the gauntlet of those other delegations.

Opportunity was given during the time we were there for us to have discussions with the Jamaican people and the Jamaican Government on some of their problems. I for one was most impressed with the program for adult education that the Jamaican Government is carrying on and I was pleased to learn that the Australian Government contributed to it. It is true that it was only a matter of some $2,000- a small amount of money- but we found that it was exceedingly well used. The people running the program were imaginative and inspired in the way they used the facilities available to them and in the way they made that small amount of money stretch. From my observation, the people and the Government of Jamaica are firmly committed to raising the level of education in that country and to giving the entire population basic skills. In fact, I felt that our country, which is much wealthier and much more fortunate, could follow their lead. But it was pleasing to know that the Australian people had contributed in this small way to this program.

In conclusion, I feel that the Australian Government could take advantage of conferences such as this. As I have said before in this House, it could use them as a means of acquainting other countries with our produce- our fine wines, our fine cheeses and our fine fruits. I do not feel that this would be very expensive or hard to organise. At these conferences we could have one function with splendid Australian food and wine and splendid Australian hospitality so that delegates from other countries could go home wishing that such delights could be available in their own countries. In that way we could build our reputation. I would like to see Australian governments take such initiatives.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

- Mr President, I seek leave to make an explanatory statement on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s report.

Leave granted.

Senator SHEIL:

- Mr President, perhaps I could presume on the Senate just a little more to express my congratulations to Senator MacGibbon on his maiden speech last night. I thought that it was a very forthright and well thought out maiden speech. I also was interested to hear his exposition on the scientific method. I use it myself but I think that one has to be careful when using it because sometimes one can stumble upon the truth, and the truth can be a very dangerous weapon when used.

I welcome the report and extend my thanks to the parliamentary officers who organised it for us, particularly Mr Alan Browning who was the secretary of the delegation and who made our stay so much easier. I suppose that if it had not been for me, very few people would have known that there was a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Jamaica. I became involved in another of those incidents which raised world headlines and I think that the Senate deserves some explanation.

The debate in which it occurred was on the first day at a plenary session and the subject to be covered was ‘The World Situation and Threats to Peace’. Delegate after delegate got up and did not dwell very long on the world situation but concentrated on threats to peace. They ignored the split that had occurred between Russia and the United States, the split which occurred at that time between Russia and China and the split between Russia and Vietnam. They ignored the Middle East, the slaughter that is going on in Cambodia and the actual war that was taking place in Nicaragua and concentrated their whole attack on Rhodesia and South Africa. Speaker after speaker mixed up the issues of slavery, colonialism and neo-colonialism, imperialism, hegemony, racism, discrimination and freedom, and heaped all these charges onto South Africa and Rhodesia. I eventually got the call and, I thought, in a most moderate way suggested that perhaps they should reassess their attitudes to these countries in the light of the facts. I have here a transcript of the speech that I made that day. It includes all the interjections and the comments made by other delegates from Australia, as well as the first sentence of the following speaker. Mr President, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard so that people will know exactly what I said.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Chairman: The Chair will now recognise the Delegate from Australia, Mr Sheil.

Mr Sheil, Australia: Mr Chairman, we settled our differences by the toss of a coin and I won or lost depending on how you look at it.

Mr President, we have canvassed many areas of threat to peace this afternoon and I think that the Camp David Conference has given us a reprieve in the Middle East for some time. Now there are splits between Russia and the United States, Russia and China and Russia and Viet Nam and these do not appear to be any immediate threat to our peace. However, there is a Russian thrust into Africa using Cuban troops and that is a definite threat to peace. Indeed, more than that those surrogate Russian troops are actually fighting. I do not think we need ever fear the presence of a Russian Army in any area because they would defect, so they have to use other troops and that is what is happening in Africa.

I have noted this afternoon the almost universal hostility towards South Africa and Rhodesia and that is the area to which I would like turn my attention now.

It was that universal hostility that just a year ago caused me to go and visit those countries because I found it hard to believe everything I heard was true particularly, say, in the case of Rhodesia where there are only a quarter of a million whites and some six-and-a-half million blacks. I thought that if there was a huge upsurge of black consciousness, then the white problem would be very quickly solved for them. When I got there I found the situation to be vastly different.

I must say that if I express any opinion on the subject this afternoon, it is my opinion alone as a mere Parliamentarian attending this Conference. The opinions are not representative, as you can hear, of the Australian Delegation, certainly not. (APPLAUSE) I have not expressed an opinion yet, and certainly not the opinion of the Australian Government.

As a matter of fact, after I visited there, I went back and said to the Australian Government that we should re-assess our attitude towards South Africa and Rhodesia and I got fired from the Ministry for it. So the Australian Government is vehemently opposed to the regimes in South Africa and Rhodesia. However, I find that most of the criticisms that are heaped against those countries come from people who have not Deen there and people who do not know really what is happening in those countries.

Now, in Rhodesia, I found a tremendous amount of goodwill between the blacks and the whites. I found the blacks divided into two main tribes, the Matabele in the west and the Mashona in the east and the Mashona outnumber the Matabele by something like 14 to 1 . It is the blacks there who cannot agree on majority right because there is hostility between the two groups of blacks. In Rhodesia I have spoken to many people. I have spoken to Mr Ian Smith himself and he said, ‘You tell me the answer, let anybody tell mc the answer, I will do it’. All the whites are doing now is keeping the peace.

The goodwill that exists there has to be seen to be believed, ladies and gentlemen. Similarly, when I went to South Africa I found that the situation had been misreported.

I studied the Apartheid Policy there. All those people are immigrants to the country and they all arrived at about the same time except the Indians. The whites and the blacks did not meet for over 100 years and when they did meet, they largely avoided each other but their policy is called apartheid or separate development and it is the only policy of all parties in South Africa that promised those people selfgovernment and self-management. It is a multi-national and multi-racial problem that they are facing up to. They have a whole nation of Indians mainly at Durban, they have another nation of whites, they have nine nations of blacks. The blacks to a large extent are hostile to each other, the Zulus form the largest number of the black nations and many of the other black nations are frightened of majority rule there.

The policy, of apartheid I found out has the four pillars of human development in it to help these people. It has human development, it has economic development, it has administrative development and it has political development.

Voices: Shame! Shame!

Chairman: Order.

Mr Sheil: I am merely reporting what I found there, ladies and gentlemen. The ridicule that we heap on these people I think is ill-deserved and you are not giving the black people in those countries sufficient credit for having helped bring themselves to a standard of living that is far better than that seen in many other countries.

There are nations of black people in South Africa who are economically far better off than some 30 nations who are already members of the United Nations. Any one of those nations can be independent tomorrow if they so choose; many don’t choose. The ones that have chosen have had their elections among themselves, all free elections, and in every case they have voted for the party that supports the apartheid policy. Bophutotswana became independent a year ago and it voted for the party which supports, despite what you have heard here today, apartheid.

Voice: No, no, it never supported apartheid.

President: Order.

Mr Sheil: Mr President, I am merely reporting, and I may be reporting badly, but these are facts that I found there. South Africa represents a microcosm of the world ‘s peoples, a whole spectrum from the remnants of the Hotentots and the Bushmen who have been largely exterminated like the

Arawaks here, but there are a few of them left, up to and including the highest technical Society. It is a multi-racial and multi-national problem. A huge problem that all these people are struggling with together.

In Rhodesia around 80 per cent of the armed forces are blacks and they are volunteers; the whites are all conscripted. The police have more blacks than whites and they are armed, so if they wanted to throw off the Smith regime, they could. If they do feel this upsurge of support for the Patriotic Front, why don’t they join the Patriotic Front. Not only do they not join the Patriotic Front they fight for themselves, they are fighting for their country. There is no great call from within Rhodesia for one man, one vote, neither is there a call in South Africa for one man, one vote. The policy is to have no one people dominating any other people, no black nation dominating any other black nation in Africa and I think they are going to teach us, if we would only listen and learn, a lesson in ethnic democracy where each people run their own affairs and are not intimidated or dominated by any other people. We have alot we can learn from what has happened over there and I hope we can open our minds and listen.

President: Is there a point of order?

Mr Burns: Pardon me while I make the point that the delegate spoke on his own behalf, he did not represent the majority views of the Australian delegation, neither myself or the State and Territory Delegations support him.

Mr Birney: I completely disassociate myself from the remarks made by Senator Sheil. I want to make it quite clear to you and to all the delegates here, lest there be any doubt, that this is not the policy of the Australian Government; or the Opposition and it completely condemns the policy of apartheid.

Applause

President: I am sure we need somebody like the Falkland Islands to bring some tranquility and peace. I now call upon Mr Monk from the Falkland Islands.

Mr Monk: I must say that I couldn’t agree more with the speech Senator Sheil has just made.

Senator SHEIL:

– I thank honourable senators. I told the conference that I had been to Rhodesia and South Africa and proceeded with an account of just what I found there. The conference appeared to be listening with some interest until I was attacked by my own delegation. Following that attack, the rest of the conference appeared to reject what I was saying. Australia had 12 delegates to the conferenceeight from the Australian Labor Party, two from the National Country Party, one Independent from the Northern Territory and one delegate from the Liberal Party. All except the other National Country Party member rejected my statements, despite the fact that I had dissociated any opinions I might have put forward from those held by the delegation and the Australian Government. I was pleased to hear Senator Melzer say that she was quite happy to have different views put at Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences because it is a vital part of such conferences. However, that was not quite what happened at this conference.

The rejection of my statements was made even in spite of the fact that it was the Labor members of the Australian delegation who, at a meeting before the conference, had insisted that everybody should have the right to put their own point of view. I do not think that I put a point of view at all; I merely recited facts. Nevertheless, it was the Labor Party that insisted on that right. I think that the ability of people to speak as parliamentarians and to put their own points of view at these conferences is basic to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. If that right were ever taken away, the CPA might as well be disbanded.

The news of what I think was really a storm in a teacup, quickly went round the world and reached Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) rapidly condemned me, as did the then Acting Foreign Minister. The Prime Minister wrote a letter of apology and condemnation of me to Mr Manley, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, and gave him authority to publish the letter, which Mr Manley did. Mr Manley had to leave Jamaica shortly after that becausehe was going to the United Nations to receive a prize for being the world’s champion antiapartheid fighter.

All but one of the Labor members of the delegation, including the independent member from the Northern Territory, then circulated a document saying that my credentials as a delegate should be revoked. It included some other nonsense to the effect that I was using a security man as a waiter and a coat-carrier. On top of all this, the Palestine Liberation Organisation threatened my life, which was not the most pleasant experience I have ever had. Fortunately when that telephone call came in at 12.35 a.m., it was monitored throught the switchboard in the hotel. There already was quite strict security because the law of the gun rules the streets in Jamaica, but that security was strengthened and, of course, I was placed under the strictest security. I was not allowed to leave my room unless I was accompanied by a security guard. I got on quite well with those chaps. Indeed, I found out quite a few things about the sharp end of maintaining a democratic socialist state in Jamaica. I stuck the conference out and spoke in other debates without incident. I left on an undisclosed but scheduled flight which hedge-hopped round the Caribbean from Jamaica to the Bahamas to Barbados and then over to London. One point I want to make is that the day after I made my speech at least 50 black people from Third World nations came up and shook my hand. Their message to me was that I had been very brave and courageous to say what I had said and that there was a lot of hypocrisy in the world. I am inclined to agree with them.

As Senator Melzer said, other important subjects were brought up at the conference and the one that I would like to mention here is the advent of the new international economic order. It was first promulgated in the United Nations in 1974 but is now gathering a real head of steam, and Australia seems to be stoking the furnace. It appears that under this new order, the Third World considers that the battle between East and West is over and that now there has to be a re-arrangement between North and South, the rich and the poor. The Third World considers that the West has virtually saturated all its markets by using, in part, the cheap labour and the cheap resources of the Third World. It believes that if the West persists in this, the gap between the rich and the poor will get wider and wider. To redress, the imbalance, the Third World is using all its muscle to effect a transfer of wealth from North to South, a transfer of technology, favourable trade arrangements, favourable tariff arrangements, a restructuring of debts and a wiping out of debts. It wants funded from a common fund an international pool of various commodities to be supplied by the richer countries.

A new twist was added to this new order at the Commonwealth Conference and that was that we must have a new international communications order. Its proponents are talking not only about railways, roads and telephones but also about satellites and colour television. All this transferring has to be effected on terms and conditions that are acceptable to the Third World and must not be regarded as reparations, charity or settlements for past injustices, real or imagined. I welcome the report and I thank the Senate for its indulgence in letting me make this explanation.

page 2463

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

The PRESIDENT:

-Is motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Thomas and relating to the reference of a matter to the Standing Committee on National Resources formal or not formal?

Senator Thomas:

– Formal.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- Without in any way lodging any objection to this proposed reference to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources, of which I am a member, I wanted to place on record that on 10 October I moved that there be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources the following matter:

The Commonwealth’s responsibility for the development of the Australian fishing industry following the declaration of ‘200-mile off-shore sovereignty’.

In the Senate we have eight standing committees, which are commonly known as legislative and general purpose standing committees, and on each of those committees, with the exception of one, both the Opposition and the Government have equal representation. Of course, the chairman of each committee, being a Government member, has a casting vote. When I moved the motion on 10 October after consultation with fishermen, I was convinced that an inquiry into the fishing industry was an urgent matter because from the information I could gather after making inquiries I find that there has never been a full, in-depth inquiry in the Australian fishing industry. With the advent of the 200-mile zone of sovereignty, I thought and the fishermen thought that it was very important that we have an inquiry as quickly as possible. I will not go into the matter in depth, but as I have pointed out, as happens when a committee has equal representation from both sides, in this instance, my motion was lost.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What was the voting?

Senator McLAREN:

– I think it is quite obvious, without my detailing what the voting was. I will not go into that. Senator Mulvihill will recall that once before I was treading on dangerous ground when I spoke about what happened on a Senate standing committee. I had better not transgress on this occasion. However, our Committee at present is inquiring into quarantine matters as they affect primary industry. We have not yet got into full operation on that reference, although we have heard public evidence. I think it will take another six months to complete the inquiry on the reference we now have, and my understanding is that the inquiry with regard to fuel that is to be referred to us by Senator Thomas- I am not going to go into the actual reference because it is already recorded in Hansard- will take at least 18 months to complete. That means that we will not be able to have an immediate inquiry by this Committee into the Australian fishing industry. I think that this is the appropriate Committee to carry out that inquiry. It will be at least two years before we can have such an inquiry.

I want to place on record my view that it is most important that we go ahead with the inquiry. However, as we know, in this place if one has not got the numbers one cannot get anywhere. I hope that the next reference to the Committee will be into the Commonwealth role into the Australian fishing industry. I hope that it will not take 18 months to complete this other inquiry, although I think that it is a very important inquiry. It will have to be conducted in some depth and it will be very difficult to complete inside 18 months. I am sure that the fishermen to whom I have spoken are going to be most disappointed that the Committee has not been able to proceed in the immediate future with an inquiry into the fishing industry.

Motion (by Senator Thomas) agreed to:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources: The replacement of petroleum-based fuels by alternative sources of energy, with regard to-

research into alternative fuels;

development and demonstration of practical alternatives; and

fiscal and other measures required to encourage their adoption

page 2464

NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That Standing Order 68 be suspended for the remainder of the period of sittings to enable new business to be commenced after half past ten o ‘clock at night.

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT (Nos 1 to 9) AMENDMENT BILLS 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Sales Tax Assessment (Nos 1 to 9) Amendment Bills 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

These Bills to amend the sales tax law contain several measures directed against schemes and arrangements that have been entered into and have the purpose, or the effect, of avoiding sales tax. These measures, when placed alongside those that have been introduced or have been announced to counter income tax avoidance schemes, demonstrate the Government’s resolve to act resolutely to prevent avoidance of tax. They will also introduce greater equity into the sales tax system. Apart from the substantial losses of revenue they cause, sales tax avoidance schemes enable those who enter into them to gain an unfair advantage in the market place over those who do not, either because they are not aware of the schemes or because they choose not to participate in them.

The legislation is aimed at overcoming five different types of sales tax avoidance. The amendments needed to achieve this are somewhat voluminous but this is mainly due to the constitutional requirement that an Act imposing taxation shall deal with only one subject of taxation. For this reason, nine Sales Tax Assessment Acts exist and each has, on this occasion, to be amended. The legislation contained in (No. 1) amending Bill is largely repeated in Bills Nos 2 to 4 and 6 to 8. Amending Bills Nos 5 and 9 deal generally with purely formal amendments. Three of the five main matters dealt with by the legislation were covered by an announcement made by the Treasurer on 20 September and, as the Treasurer indicated at that time, the legislation in respect of them will be effective from that date.

The first involves schemes under which goods are sold for a price substantially below their true wholesale value, ostensibly under an option granted to purchase them at that price. The amount paid for the option is normally the difference between the deflated sale price and the full wholesale price. The purpose of the scheme is to avoid sales tax on the part of the real purchase price represented by the amount paid for the option. Honourable senators will recall that in the Treasurer’s statement of 20 September he mentioned that new motor vehicles were being sold for as little as $20 under options to acquire them at that price for which several thousand dollars were paid. The amendments proposed by these Bills will provide that the sale value for sales tax purposes is to be what might reasonably be expected to be the wholesale value of the same or identical goods if no option agreement had been entered into.

The second of the schemes mentioned in the Treasurer’s statement of 20 September is one devised to circumvent an anti-avoidance provision contained in the existing law. The present law provides that, where goods are sold between associated companies, and it appears to the Commissioner of Taxation that the goods were sold for less than their fair and reasonable wholesale value, the Commissioner is empowered to alter the sale value for sales tax purposes to equate with a fair and reasonable wholesale value. The application of this provision is being avoided by interposing an unrelated company between associated companies. For example, an unrelated wholesale company may be interposed between associated manufacturing and retail companies. The interposed company sells the goods for much the same deflated price as it pays for them. The legislation to counter this type of scheme provides that, where goods are sold for less than an arm’s length price, the sale value is to be the arm’s length wholesale price of such goods or, where that cannot be determined, the arm’s length wholesale price of identical goods.

The third amendment foreshadowed in the statement by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) of 20 September relates to the manufacture of goods from materials supplied by a customer to a manufacturer. Where goods are manufactured on this basis sales tax is payable only on the making-up charge and not on the materials used in the manufacture. This led to arrangements in which, instead of buying a completed product from a manufacturer, a customer would enter into two contracts, one covering materials that the customer technically ‘supplies’ to the manufacturer and the other covering the making-up charge. Without such an arrangement, sales tax would be payable on a sale value equal to the full wholesale value of the completed product. The legislation proposed in relation to this taxavoiding arrangement will mean that, where goods are manufacturer for a customer wholly or in part out of exempt materials supplied by the customer, tax will be payable on the manufactured goods on a sale value that includes not only the making-up charge but also the value of any exempt materials supplied by the customer, other than secondhand materials. The sale value will, however, not exceed an amount on which tax would have been payable if the manufacturer had obtained the materials from his usual sources of supply and the manufacture had been carried out in the normal way.

These three situations were specifically covered by the Treasurer in his statement of 20 September and, accordingly, the amendments in respect of sales between associated taxpayers and option schemes will apply to sales of goods after that date. The amendments in respect of the manufacture of goods from materials supplied by a customer will apply to goods manufactured under an agreement entered into after 20 September 1978.

There are two other schemes covered by the Bills that were not specifically identified in the Treasurer’s statement of 20 September. Accordingly, the amendments proposed in respect of these will have effect only after 16 November 1978 being the date of introduction of the Bills into the Parliament. The first of the two schemes is an extension of the one I have already mentioned for a customer to supply materials to a manufacturer under a two-contract arrangement. This particular scheme is a highly artificial one under which a customer avoids sales tax not only on the exempt materials used in manufacture but also on the cost of manufacture. In other words, under this scheme goods are acquired almost completely free of sales tax. This result is achieved by a customer formally taking over manufacturing premises or a part of them and hiring the manufacturer’s staff to manufacture a particular item required for the customer’s own use- usually a most expensive item. As the customer becomes, in law, the manufacturer of the goods and, as usually a ‘one-off transaction only is involved, the customer cannot, for the purposes of the sales tax law, be regarded as manufacturing goods in the course of carrying on a business. As a result no sales tax is payable.

The amendments directed against this type of scheme make the customer, who legally becomes the manufacturer, subject to sales tax on the sale value on which tax would have been payable had the customer manufactured the goods in the course of carrying on a business- that is, the sale value will be the usual wholesale price of the goods. As I have said, these amendments will apply to goods the manufacture of which commences after 16 November 1978 on premises made available under an agreement entered into after that date.

The final scheme that the amending legislation is designed to render ineffective involves avoidance of tax by the sale of goods at a price below a true wholesale value. This is achieved by separately billing the purchaser, in commercially unrealistic terms, for an additional amount ostensibly for the provision of services in connection with the goods, but which would ordinarily form part of the wholesale price. As amounts paid for services are not subject to sales tax, the tax may be avoided by inflating the service charge and reducing the nominal price of the goods. Amendments contained in the Bills provide that, where such schemes are entered into for the tax avoidance purpose of reducing the sale value of goods, the sale value is to be the usual wholesale selling price of the goods. These amendments will apply to goods sold after 16 November 1978.

I wish to make it quite clear that this provision only strikes at arrangements which involve the reduction of sale value for the purpose of avoiding sales tax. The Government is aware that there are a number of industries in which it has been the practice for some time to enter into separate agreements, one covering the supply of goods and one covering services related to the goods. Sometimes, instead of separate agreements one company in a group acts as the sales company and another company as the service company, thus obtaining the same result.

Where these arrangements are commercially justifiable- for example, where, as is common with some nationally marketed products, the separate billing is made at a commercially realistic level for services that are associated with the retail sale rather than the wholesale sale- the proposed amendments will not apply. Details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2466

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1978. The Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1978 was enacted to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee overseas borrowings by Qantas Airways Limited to the extent of $US80m or its equivalent to finance the purchase of two Boeing 747 series aircraft.

Qantas sought the Treasurer’s guarantee for a borrowing of $US80m under the provisions of the Act. Negotiations for a proposed borrowing were not sufficiently advanced, however, for Qantas to be enabled to finalise the terms of a borrowing before taking delivery of the aircraft. Qantas had funds earmarked for other purposes, but which were temporarily available, to make the payments owing on the aircraft in anticipation of these funds being recouped in due course from the proceeds of the $US80m loan for which a guarantee was being sought.

Doubt has arisen as to whether section 4 ( 1 ) ( a) of the Act as originally drafted provides for the giving of the guarantee in the circumstances outlined above. The amendment to the original Act provided for in this Bill is intended to put the question beyond doubt. Qantas has very heavy financial commitments to meet before the end of 1978 and is relying on the loan proceeds. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2466

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the valuation provisions of the Customs Act 1901, to clarify the rules under which the value of outside packaging is included within the dutiable value of imported goods. On 1 July 1976 the Government adopted a revised customs valuation system based on the Convention on the Valuation of Goods for Customs Purposes, commonly known as the Brussels Definition of Value. A feature of this system is that the cost of containers and of any packing, other than containers or pallets covered by certain international conventions, is included in the value of imported goods for the purposes of levying ad valorem duties of customs.The Government, when adopting the Brussels Definition of Value as from 1 July 1976, stated that the cost of containers and of packing would be included in the value of imported goods for customs valuation purposes. Doubt has now been expressed as to the clarity of the law giving effect to this rule. Accordingly, the Government has decided to amend the legislation and thereby place the matter beyond doubt.

The amending Act will apply from 10 July 1978, the date upon which the Government announced its intention to place this matter beyond doubt. In so far as importations prior to that date are concerned, the Bill makes provision to preserve the rights which importers may have had as at that date to seek in the courts or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal recovery of duty ‘paid under protest’ pursuant to section 167 of the principal Act or to seek a refund of duty pursuant to regulations made for the purposes of section 163 of the Act. This preservation of rights is contained in clause 4 of the Bill. That clause effectively provides that the period between 10 July 1978 and a date 14 days from the date upon which the present amendments come into force is to be disregarded in determining the time limits for commencement of procedures for the recovery of duty alleged to be overpaid. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2467

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in the Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

In a comprehensive statement to the House on 13 April the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) announced that the Government had decided to take a number of export development initiatives to encourage Australian firms to more actively seek out and pursue export opportunities and to increase their export sales. One of these initiatives was the re-introduction of a twopronged system of export incentives. The Export Expansion Grants Act will provide export incentives grants based on increased export performance. This Bill is now being introduced to bring into effect certain measures aimed at improving the effectiveness of the export market development grants scheme and to extend the coverage of the scheme to encourage the development of certain services. These services include valueadded services performed in Australia on foreign-owned items and certain travel and tourist services that are concerned with the encouragement of tourism to Australia.

The export market development grants scheme was introduced in 1974 and is based on the same principles as the export market development allowance scheme which had been operating since 1961. The scheme aims to encourage Australian exporters to seek out and develop overseas markets for products, services, industrial property rights and know-how which are substantially of Australian origin. It provides financial incentives for eligible expenditure incurred on overseas market research and development such as advertising, the costs of participating in overseas fairs and exhibitions, the costs incurred in travel overseas and the costs of bringing agents or buyers to Australia. The amendments to the Act contained in this Bill have been framed following consultations with the Trade Development Council, the Australian Manufacturing Council and other industry organisations and inputs from individuals and companies. The Government has also decided to accept recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission whose report on export incentives was received earlier this year. The amended Act will be effective from 1 July 1978 and will remain in force until 30 June 1982.

I will now draw the attention of honourable senators to the main changes that are being introduced. A single rate of grant of 70 per cent of eligible expenditure for all claimants and all classes of expenditure will be adopted in place of the present dual rates of 85 per cent and 60 per cent. This will simplify administration of the scheme and will have a net effect of increasing the benefits to claimants by an estimated amount of $500,000 per year. With the adoption of this single grant rate, the concept of ‘new markets’ will lapse. The ceiling on grants payable to a group of wholly-owned subsidiaries and their parent corporation will be removed, thereby allowing each separately incorporated subsidiary to receive a grant up to the absolute grant ceiling. The effects of this particular decision are extimated to result in an extra $2m flowing to exporters.

In addition, the ‘ 10 per cent of eligible export earnings’ requirement will be removed. This will result in the ‘new claimant’ status lapsing. An export earnings test will, however, be applied. After receiving grants for three years a claimant will be able to continue receiving grants only if he receives, or is entitled to receive, export earnings in excess of $25,000 in the particular grant year. In the case of earnings derived from eligible industrial property rights or know-how, a lesser amount of $10,000 has been determined. In the case of certain organisations which provide umbrella publicity for certain products but do not export in their own right, such as national commodity marketing boards, a dispensation from the export earnings requirement will be afforded.

Under the present provisions of the Act, persons supplying certain services overseas, such as consultancy services to overseas projects, are eligible to claim grants. To clarify which services should be included initially under the amended Act, it has been decided to list those particular services by way of regulation. Essentially, they are services which involve consulting and construction and would include the following: Architectural; engineering; agricultural and forestry; economic evaluation; geological and geophysical; surveying; construction; urban and regional planning; and international transport services.

Other amendments are provided in the Bill to remove anomalies and improve the administration of the scheme. For example, the Board will be given a discretionary power to decide on eligibility of permanent overseas sales representation by company directors. The Board will be increased by two members, meaning that it will consist of a chairman and four industry members. A system of appeal will be introduced to allow appeals to go to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This provision will operate at a date to be proclaimed. The date of 28 February 1979 will be inserted in the Act as the closing date for receipt of claims under the existing provisions of the Act. The Bill provides for the scheme to be extended to cover value-added services performed on foreign-owned goods imported and subsequently re-exported. Examples of these kinds of services are repairs on foreign-owned ships or aircraft. It is estimated that the inclusion of these internal value-added services will provide benefits estimated at Sim a year.

In recognition of the importance of the travel and tourist industry as an earner of foreign exchange and its potential to increase employment opportunities, the Government has decided to extend the scheme to cover that industry. This is in line with the announcement made on 13 April and follows consideration by the Government of a report prepared by relevant departments which examined the legislative and administrative issues involved. The measures contained in the Bill are along the lines suggested in discussions with representatives of the travel and tourist industry. These discussions covered a number of options aimed at providing incentives to as large an area of the industry as practicable but which, at the same time, would minimise the administrative burden that could be associated with a large number of potential claimants in this industry. For the purposes of the scheme, the travel and tourist industry providing services for overseas visitors to Australia would be defined under the following categories: Accommodation; passenger transport; tourist attractions; interpreter services; convention centres; tour guide services; and package tour operators.

In order to contain the number of potential claimants to a manageable level, a minimum amount of $5,000 eligible expenditure, other than fares but including expenditure on government-sponsored tourist promotions, is to be incurred to establish eligibility under the. scheme. However, expenditure incurred by claimants on government-sponsored promotions will be eligible without any minimum limit being imposed. Regional tourist associations carrying out promotional activities in governmentsponsored promotions would also be eligible for grants. There will be a review of the operation of these provisions of the scheme before the end of 1980 so that a decision can be made by the Government on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a suitable export performance test.

The extension of the scheme to the travel and tourist industry is to operate as from 1 July 1978 with the first grants being payable in 1979-80. Consistent with the other export incentives! the new arrangements will run to 30 June 1982. This will provide the travel and tourist industry with a firm basis for forward planning. It is estimated that the extension of the scheme to the travel and tourist industry will benefit that industry by about $3. 25m in relation to the first grant year. The total effects of all of the changes and additions to the scheme, as outlined above, are expected to provide additional benefits amounting to some $7.25m in relation to the first grant year of operation.

This Bill expands the degree and scope of the assistance now available to exporters under the export market development grants scheme while, at the same time, streamlining a good deal of the administrative procedures from both the claimant’s point of view and that of the Export Development Grants Board. The Bill is an important element of the series of measures and actions taken by the Government in stimulating more effort in opening up and securing market opportunities overseas. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2469

TRADE PRACTICES AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bills received from House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978 and the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Trade Practices Amendment Bill 1978

This Bill embodies amendments to the Trade Practices Act which arise as part of a continuing program of study and monitoring of the effect of that Act on conduct in the Australian market place. The Government has always made it clear that it will keep the Trade Practices Act under close study. We will not rest on the results of the important and intensive examination of the law by the Swanson review committee which reported to the Government in 1976. The Bill also introduces provisions dealing with manufacturers warranties which were recommended by the Swanson committee and which were foreshadowed by the Government last year. It is the policy of the Government that the Trade Practices Act operate even-handedly and be conducive to the sensible regulation of business activity, fair trading and freedom in Australian trade and commerce. The Government is determined, however, that trade and commerce in this country is not hindered by over-regulation.

This Bill deals with three main matters: An extension of the present exception from the prohibition in section 45a of the Act of price fixing for joint ventures relating to services- to correspond with that relating to goods; the introduction of a specific prohibition of false or misleading job advertisements; and the inclusion in the Act of provisions relating to manufacturers warranties. The Bill also makes a number of more minor amendments, the need for which has come to light since the passage of the Trade Practices Amendment Acts of 1977. These amendments include the widening of the scope of the unsafe product provisions of the Act to include the protection of members of the public. Further, the Bill provides that members of the Trade Practices Commission may, with the consent of the Minister, engage in paid employment outside the duties of office. This would ensure that members may serve, for example, with the Defence Reserve. The Bill also enables the Minister to make acting appointments to the positions of Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Trade Practices Tribunal- to facilitate the administration of the Tribunal. The Bill also contains a number of amendments moved by the Government during the passage of the Bill through the House of Representatives. These amendments relate principally to the provisions of the Bill dealing with the liability of manufacturers and importers for their goods.

I deal now with the amendment relating to joint ventures for services. It was the intention of the Government that the 1977 amendments to the Trade Practices Act provide for joint ventures, in relation to price fixing arrangements, equality of treatment between joint ventures for goods and joint ventures for services. After enactment of the Trade Practices Amendment Act 1977 it came to the attention of the Government that there was a possible problem that the law discriminated unfavourably in respect of joint ventures for services. The problem was brought to attention particularly in relation to joint venture financing agreements. It would clearly be anomalous for the Trade Practices Act to encourage joint ventures for the production of goods and, at the same time, discourage creative joint ventures in respect of services. The amendment to section 45a of the Act, by clause 8 of this Bill, is designed to remove any unintended discrimination between goods and services. This amendment has also been made retrospective to 1 July 1977 to ensure that no joint venture for services is disadvantaged by a possible adverse interpretation of the present law. With respect to the amendments relating to false or misleading job advertisements, the Government is concerned that job-seekers should receive accurate information in relation to employment opportunities. The Act already applies, in limited respect, to misleading or deceptive job advertisements by employment agencies. It does not apply at all to such advertisements by employers. The Bill seeks to provide a strong prohibition of such undesirable conduct.

I turn now to manufacturers warranties. In my second reading speech introducing the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1977 in November last year, I indicated that the Government would be proceeding with legislation in relation to manufacturers warranties early this year. This legislation is regarded by the Government as an important innovation. The proposal for the inclusion in the Act of provisions dealing with the liability of manufacturers was one of the recommendations of the Swanson committee’s report. It was also recommended, with respect to the Australian Capital Territory, in a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. Those reports considered that it is the manufacturer placing goods on the market in the first place who is largely responsible for the quality of the goods. Accordingly, it is sensible for the law to require manufacturers to be directly responsible for statutorily imposed standards in respect of the quality of those goods.

South Australia already has manufacturers warranties legislation, as has the Australian Capital Territory. Early last year the Government circulated for public comment draft amendments to the Trade Practices Act dealing with this subject. Many submissions were received from industry, consumer organisations and individuals. Further submissions were received after the Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives during the autumn sittings. The submissions greatly assisted the drafting of the Bill I now place before the Senate. However, I would like to take this opportunity to correct some misunderstandings which have been expressed about this legislation. First, there is a misunderstanding that the retailer would be made liable under the legislation. This is incorrect. The retailer is, as a general rule, already liable under current law. There is no change to the legal liability of retailers under the Bill. The amendments will make manufacturers or importers generally concurrently liable with retailers. Secondly, there is a misunderstanding, apparently based on and influenced by reports of United States developments, that the liability of manufacturers or importers will be considerably greater than that which already applies to retailers. This would not be so. In general, liability arises only where there is a breach of certain statutory obligations, such as fitness for purpose or merchantable quality of relevant goods. However, a wider liability arises in two respects: One in relation to the reasonable availability of repair facilities and spare parts and the other in relation to express warranties- provisions appropriate to the manufacturer or importer of goods. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend section 45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974. The amendments the Government is putting forward are designed to prohibit persons from engaging in certain conduct for the purpose and having the effect of preventing or substantially hindering overseas and interstate trade or commerce. Conduct of the kind to be prohibited strikes at the heart of the prosperity of Australia, and affects us all. As a trading nation we are dependent upon our sea and air links. It is vital that these links remain open so that we can export and import our goods at times most favourable to our seasons, to our economy and to our balance of trade. The disruption of overseas trade adds to the cost burdens borne by all of us. Similarly, the costs to business and to the Australian community of a hindering or prevention of interstate trade or commerce are enormous.

The Government is determined to legislate in the most effective way it can to deal with conduct which prevents or substantially hinders Australia’s legitimate trading and commercial activities. Since July last year provision has existed in the Trade Practices Act, under section 45D, for dealing with certain types of boycotts. The changes to section 45D proposed by this Bill will enable more effective action to be taken in respect of boycotts. When the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs introduced into this Parliament in May 1977 the Trade Practices Amendment Bill which inserted section 45D into the Act he stated that the Government’s views regarding the problems of boycotts were based on two fundamental principles. First, that the Government considered that boycotting the commercial activities of particular persons is generally undesirable conduct, on which the Trade Practices Act should take a firm line. Secondly, the then Minister said that the Government believed that it is essential that the Trade Practices Act should take an evenhanded approach to boycotts and apply, so far as possible, to both business and employees alike.

This Bill embodies those two fundamental principles.

Firstly, experience in dealing with boycotts since the enactment of section 45D has shown that more effective provisions are needed to enable persons and, if necessary, governments to take prompt and firm action to stop boycotts disrupting trade and commerce. The measure being introduced will complement the firm line already taken in the Trade Practices Act. Secondly, the measure is, so far as possible, evenhanded. It will apply to business and to employee conduct. Purely consumer boycotts will, however, remain exempted. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the fact that employee boycotts of the kind dealt with in the Bill, the dominant purpose of which is substantially related to such things as remuneration and conditions of employment, remain not prohibited by the Act. The provisions deeming trade unions to have engaged in the boycott also remain applicable and individuals remain not subject to the pecuniary penalties of the Act for a contravention of the amended section.

Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the new prohibited conduct. That clause also provides that it is a defence if the conduct is authorised by the Trade Practices Commission or is the subject of a notification to the Trade Practices Commission which has not been revoked. It is also a defence if the defendant proves that the dominant purpose for which he engaged in the conduct was to preserve or further a business carried on by him. Clause 5 of the Bill prevents the imposition of more than one pecuniary penalty provided under the Act. Clause 6 redrafts the current provision in the Act which permits the Trade Practices Commission to grant authorisation for section 45D conduct. The Government believes that this legislation will be widely endorsed as being a positive and proper step to enable persons and governments to deal quickly and decisively with crippling boycotts. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2471

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– To avoid delaying honourable senators after 11 o’clock tonight, I exercise my right to speak at the first reading stage of this Bill. I use the opportunity to refer to several matters that I ventilated several weeks ago. The first matter I wish to raise, as honourable senators will know, received considerable Press coverage. It deals with an initial decision by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Mackellar) to deport a Chilean national, Roberto Arroy-Reyes. In conjunction with Senator Douglas McClelland, I took the opportunity when we were dealing with the estimates of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to state that I had reservations about the case inasmuch as it was alleged to me that Five Dock Travel Agency had enticed this man’s aunt to purchase a return ticket to Australia on the understanding that the agency would ensure he obtained permanent residence in Australia. I state, in fairness to the Minister, that last week he released from detention the individual concerned. In the meantime, the proprietor of the Five Dock Travel Agency, Alderman Ross Maniaci, thought it appropriate to appear on a Channel 10 program on Sunday night in a sort of self-righteous role and to claim that he had been smeared in respect of the whole general situation.

I seek the co-operation of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) with regard to the incorporation of some documents in Hansard. I hand a number of documents to him for his perusal. If the documents are incorporated in Hansard it will shorten the discussion. The substance of the matter is this: On Monday, the New South Wales branch office of the Australian Workers Union raised with me the role of this travel agency in regard to Latin American migrants. The interesting development is that, independent of the firm of Five Dock Travel Agency, Alderman Ross Maniaci has a firm called Five Dock Excavations Pty Ltd, which largely recruits to its work force Latin

Americans, mainly Uruguayans. The documents that the Minister is perusing comprise a report of proceedings before and comments by Conciliation Commissioner Shortall, a summary of the union’s history of industrial ‘misunderstandings’ and a lengthy letter from the State Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Oliver, which details the unfinished business.

I make the point that anybody who reads the comments of Conciliation Commissioner Shortall will note that he places grave doubts on the truthfulness of the joint owner proprietor of Five Dock Excavations Proprietary Limited and the Five Dock Travel Agency. At a time when the Government is endeavouring to get better relations with ethnic communities and when we face economic hardship we do not want snide tricks like the ones this gentleman has been playing. The tragedy is, as the Minister will see from the documents, that whilst these Uruguayans went to the union for advice, they were extremely reluctant to testify in a court. Despite that, the decision of Mr Shortall indicated, amongst other things, that Alderman Ross Maniaci quickly joined the Employers Federation, used its advocate to put his point of view against the union and then abdicated his responsibility and refused to appear at the court hearings. I am trying to get the point across to Mr MacKellar that if the special reports branch of his Department examines the position of Latin American migrants, particularly Chileans and Uruguayans, in the central western suburbs of Sydney the branch should have a good hard look at the operations of Five Dock Travel Agency and the dual role of Mr Maniaci as an employer of migrant labour and a travel agent.

The Attorney-General has given me the green light about the documents I wish to incorporate in Hansard. I repeat that the documents comprise a statement prepared by an official of the union on the union’s history with Uruguayans, a two-page copy of the decision by Conciliation Commissioner Shortall, and a lengthy letter signed by Mr Oliver, the State Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, indicating how the union has tried for some months without avail to get satisfactory wage adjustments. I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Letter from Mr W. Sinclair

Monday, 20 November 1978

Re; Mr R. MANIACI

A considerable number of employees of Five Dock Excavations Pty Ltd (Managing Director R. Maniaci) are

Uraguyans who can speak little or no English. They are handicapped by being immigrants from an impoverished country and even by the standards of their own country they would have received little or no education and no job training.

With this handicap they find themselves in a country in which they cannot even understand the language let alone the industrial laws and their legal rights as employees. They are a minority group amongst the ethnic groups and nobody seems to bother about them. They don’t know where to turn for protection. They do not even have a Uraguyan Consulate Office. They are represented by the Argentinian Consulate and one gets the impression that they are treated as the “poor relations” of the Argentinians.

Two groups of them have attended this office and they revealed themselves as an ‘afraid people’. The first group attended unannounced and pleaded with the Union not to proceed with the claim for underpaid wages. (It was not known by the Union at the time that a great number of them were working under assumed names).

The second group were encouraged (through a contact) to attend the office. Hardly any of them could speak English to any great degree. They readily confirmed (in conversation) all of the information we had gathered against their employer but not one of them was prepared to stand up as a witness or put their name to anything. They were encouraged to go away and think about it and to return to the office again at a later date. They promised to do so but they never returned.

It would appear that the Uraguyan people are handicapped in such a way that they would be wide open to exploitation by any unscrupulous employer who would be prepared to take advantage of their misfortune. Job opportunities in Australia would be very limited for them and if they can find a job anywhere they will cling to it and will put up with anything in order to keep it.

There are 2 Uraguyan newspapers in Sydney of limited circulation. One is only a sporting paper. It would seem that the Uraguyan Club in Sydney is the only rallying place for the Uraguyan community.

It would seem that a full investigation into the occupational position of the Uraguyan immigrants would be in order and everything should be done to assist these people in every way possible.

(W.SINCLAIR)

Compulsory Conference Proceedings

page 2472

COMPULSORY CONFERENCE

Before Mr Conciliation Commissioner Shortall

Thursday, 2nd March, 1978

No. 577 of 1977

IN THE MATTER of a dispute between Fivedock Excavations Proprietary Limited and The Australian Workers’ Union, Re: Non-payment of sick leave to employees.

page 2472

RECOMMENDATION

On a previous occasion on the 12th December, 1977, I made a recommendation which called for the parties to confer together to separate the matters which are matters which might be dealt with by the Chief Industrial Magistrate. During the course of that recommendation I referred to the fact that Mr Maniaci claimed that his Board of Directors instructs him. We now hear from Mr Harridge that that Board of Directors has instructed Mr Maniaci not to accept my recommendation.

There is no way in which the matters raised by Mr Sinclair can be dealt with in this jurisdiction, however, I recommend to the Union that they seek legal advice, which is their right in any case, but I recommend to them that they seek legal advice on the matters still outstanding. The matter of the working and being paid in the hand be referred to the Department of Labour and Industry Inspectorate through the Under Secretary of the Department of Labour and Industry.

As the parties are entitled to a copy of the recommendation, that the Union may seek to clarify their position in relation to the Taxation Department by forwarding a copy of my recommendation to that department and they may find the matter of that might evince further information.

I can do no more other than to point to the fact that it is regrettable that if what Mr Sinclair says is correct, that is the reason that it is so difficult to prosecute the claim is because of the language difficulty that will be no bar to the Department of Labour and Industry investigating it because they have, along with the other departments, competent interpreters who will guide the parties when they are investigating.

Finally, I can only say that it is very regrettable that Mr Harridge has been put in a position where quite serious allegations have been made and the Company has not seen fit to have their representative present in order to provide him with the appropriate instructions once the allegations have been made. That is a reason for great regret by this Tribunal and further indicates the feeling that I have, at any rate, that Mr Maniaci ‘s approach to this whole problem of industrial matters is one of prevarication leading to a situation which I say is one of contempt by Mr Maniaci in a very personal way by himself. I would ask that Mr Harridge pass my comments to Mr Maniaci, but in the meantime the matter is adjourned.

I adjourn the matter on that basis and might I say that the Union is to be congratulated on the patience they have shown so far and hopefully their patience will not expire.

The matter stands adjourned. Thank you.

Letter from Mr C. T. Oliver to Mr R. Maniaci 8th March, 1978

Mr R. Maniaci Director Five Dock Excavations Pty Ltd 163 Great North Road Five Dock NSW 2046

Dear Sir,

You will find enclosed the details so far compiled in regards to the correction of wages which we are of the opinion were due to your employees employed on various jobsites.

These details were available to be presented to you at the Conference before Commissioner Shortall in December 1 977 but you failed to attend the Conference.

The details were again available to be presented to you at the conference before Commissioner Shortall on March 2, 1978 but again you failed to attend the conference.

The details are not yet complete because our investigation of your wage records is by no means complete. It is still necessary for us to re-examine the wage records of your Wollongong job. We requested to make such a reexamination through your representative from the Employers Federation Mr Barry Harridge in a letter to Mr Harridge dated Jan. 9 1978 but you ignored the request. In the same letter we also requested to examine wage records for the month of June 1976, but you also ignored that request.

We also have reason to believe that there are other wage records that exist but which we have not had the opportunity to examine. There seems to be no relationship between the first set of wage records that were examined up to June 1976 and the second set of wage records that commenced in July 1976. It would appear at face value that those wage records are for two different job sites and we are not convinced that the first job ended in June and the second job commenced in July, unless we are shown some proof of this from your wage records. Hence the necessity to examine all wage records for the month of June 1 976. We ha ve made repeated requests to examine those records.

Although you insist that your employees are only entitled to be paid trench labourers rates, we are of the opinion that many of them (if not all) would be entitled to a mixed functions rate, if the information coming to hand in recent times can be proven to be correct.

We have also been informed by ex-employee named Abadie that he worked for your company for approximately 5 months. Despite the numerous wage records that we have so far examined we have only been able to find records relating to several weeks of employment of Mr Abadie. This leads us to suspect that we have not examined all of your records despite that on numerous occasions you have been requested to produce ‘ all wage records of all employees on all job sites employed under the terms of the General Maintenance Construction etc Award and etc Plant Operators (State) Award ‘.

The same situation applies to an employee called ‘Nestor’. We notice that a Union ticket was issued from your office to an employee called ‘Nestor’ but to date we have not sighted any wage records applicable to a person called ‘Nestor’. Again this leads us to suspect that there are still wage records existing and which our Organiser Mr Young has not had the opportunity to examine.

There are also many other matters still to be investigated and clarified and which we have been unable to complete because of the attitudes which you have adopted from time to time during the duration of this dispute and there are new matters coming to our notice and which demand to be investigated.

Our most recent complaint is from ex-employee Mr Favaloro who was in your employ for approximately 6 years. Recently Mr Favaloro was compelled to abandon his employment on your Wyong job because (he alleges) that he was required to work in a trench 14 feet deep and 32 inches wide (and working under muddy and wet conditions at times) he claims that the timbering on the trenches was rotten and extremely unsafe. It is alleged that your Company refused his request to rectify this serious matter and as a consequence he was compelled to leave his employment. It is alleged that when Mr Favaloro left his employment he was not paid pro-rata annual holiday pay and when his last annual holidays were due he was paid a round sum of $500. We are of the opinion that Mr Favaloro is entitled to be paid pro-rata annual holiday pay and it is requested that you provide an explanation as to how the round sum of $500 was calculated for his previous annual holiday pay. We are also of the opinion that Mr Favaloro is entitled to pro-rata long service leave.

We refer to the employment of ex-employee Mr Gomez who was in your employ the early part of 1976. Mr Gomez has only recently informed us that he never received a group certificate for his period of employment with your company.

Keeping in mind that in the latter half of 1977 another exemployee (Mr Martinez) only received his group certificate months after it was due and then only when an official from this union attended your office for the specific purpose of picking the group certificate up, we are left to wonder what is the over-all position regarding your issuing of group certificates.

We now refer to your allegation that you issued cheques to rectify certain wage matters which we brought to your notice and you claimed that you had made adjustments totalling $1,571.28. The statement setting out details of the adjustment were dated 19 October, 1977. Our later investigations revealed that out of a total of 25 cheques that were issued you had only delivered or posted 6 of them. The remaining 1 9 cheques were still in your possession and your excuse was that you did not know the current whereabouts of the employees concerned. We were not able to see any evidence at the time that you posted 25 cheques and that 19 of them had been returned from the post office marked ‘address unknown ‘ and we were therefore left to wonder ho’w it was that the last known address of each employee as should have been shown in your personnel records was apparently known to you to be no longer the current address of the employee.

It is still len to us to determine if you have yet posted the other 19 cheques or if you are still holding them in your possession.

If you are still holding them in your possession, then you are required by the terms of the Industrial Arbitration Act to forward all monies owed to employers to the Department of Labour and Industry within 60 days in case where the whereabouts of the employee is unknown.

This union is entitled to know whether cheques totalling $1,571.28 have been received by employees or whether any of the cheques are still in your possession or whether your company has forwarded any of such monies to the Department of Labour and Industry.

Furthermore although you made adjustments for the Industry allowance for the first part of 1976, you made no effort to make similar adjustments to the second part of 1976. When you were asked during a conference in your office in November 1977 why this had not been done, you replied that you had never been requested to do so. We strongly deny that you were never so requested and we are entitled to know if you have yet made such adjustments in the 4 months that have elapsed since that particular conference took place.

There is also the matter of overtime worked after 3.30 p.m. each day and the much more serious matter of overtime worked on Saturdays. Our investigation into these maters has not been assisted by the wage records which you kept.

Despite that existing circumstances have allowed you an opportunity to keep this dispute continuing for almost 2 years without any settlement of it, we are determined that the matter is going to be investigated to the fullest extent and that all matters that deserve to be rectified shall be rectified.

In respect of this you are requested again to make arrangements direct with this union to allow our representatives to again examine your wage records and to confer with you again in our attempt to ascertain the information which we need to allow our representatives to fully and properly make their investigations.

The information which we request and the records which we wish to examine are as follows:

  1. You are requested to provide our representatives with a list of all construction jobs which your company has been involved in since 1 January 1 976 and which would employ employees under the terms of the General Construction Award and Plant Operators Award. In respect of this we wish to know the following:

    1. The name of the principal to the contract.
    2. A brief description of the work done in respect to the two above mentioned Awards.
    3. The locality of the job site.
    4. The date that the work commenced and the date that the work was completed.
    5. The list of sub-contractors that you sub-contracted with in respect to each contract together with details of the work which the sub-contractors performed.
  2. When you provide our representatives with the above information we request that you produce the complete set of your wage records applicable to each contract for inspection by our representatives. In regards to (e) above we are of the opinion that we are entitled to know the details of work performed by sub-contract firstly to determine if sub-contractors are performing work which is the work of employees are members of this Union who could be employed on such work under the terms of the General Construction et cetera Award and the Plant Operators Award. In order to properly protect the interests of the Awards for which we hold responsibility, we are entitled to know if the sub-contractors were approved by the principals to the contract and we are entitled to know if the sub-contractors employed labour which is normally the work of employees employed under the terms of the General Construction et cetera (State) Award or the Plant Operators (State) Award. In regards to your sub-contractors generally we are entitled to safeguard the interests to members of this union as those interests relate to preference to employment as stated in each Award.

  3. Other matters which are still unresolved and which must be satisfactorily finalised are as follows:

    1. Are the employees entitled to be paid at Machine Man’s rates or trench labourers rate or mixed functions rates. Originally we claimed Machine Man’s rates. Later you insisted that the men were trench labourers and we calculated our adjustments on that basis. However the information now available to us suggests very strongly that they are entitled a mixed functions rates.
    2. The question of overtime for work performed after 3.30 p.m.
    3. The question of proper payment for work performed on Saturdays.
    4. The question of proper payment for annual leave and pro-rata Annual Holiday pay.
    5. The question of adjustment for the Industry allowance.
    6. The question of adjustment for sick leave.
    7. The question of the correct rate applicable as from February 1977 and whether the rate paid is a lump sum rate or whether it is a component rate calculated to contain all of the ingredients of the ladings added to a rate as specified by the applicable award.
    8. The question of whether you have delivered all cheques regarding the payment of adjustments totalling 1571.28 or whether you have forwarded such payments to the Department of Labour and Industry as you are required to do under the terms of the Industrial Arbitration Act.
    9. The question of whether you are able to provide this Union with a list of last known addresses of all of your employees employed under the terms of the General Construction etc Award or Plant Operators Award since January 1st 1976.
    10. The question of complaints that employees have not received their group certificates.
    11. The question of Union membership on your job sites. You are reminded that you agreed with Mr Young that you would only employ Union membership on your job sites and you are reminded of your own words spoken to Commissioner Shortall that you were prepared to co-operate in this respect to the point where deductions would be made from employees’ wages and your office would issue Union tickets to our members.
    12. Our records show that you only issued 9 rickets and the ticket butts were returned to the office with only one ticket correctly completed. Seven othertickets failed to record the addresses of the employees and one ticket failed to record the address and in addition the name was crossed out. We further understand that our Accounts Department has contacted you and written to you during the past few weeks and asked you to account for further tickets and or monies which you have not yet properly accounted for. You should agree that this is a most unsatisfactory situation in the face of your past assurances that you were endeavouring to co-operate with the Union.
    13. The question of adjustments to annual leave and prorate annual leave and pro-rate long service leave owing to Mr Favaloro.
    14. The question of job safety as it relates to allegations concerning rotten and split timbers used totimber up the trenches on your Wyong job site.
    15. The suggestion of discrimination. It is noticeable that your wage records show that almost all of the labour which you employ or have employed in the past are new Australians mostly of Italian, Spanish or Uraguayan origin. The absence of what might be called ‘old Australians’ is sufficient to request an explanation as to why almost all of your labour appears to have been selected from particular ethnic groups.
    16. The question of classifications of employment to be shown in wage records. At a previous conference in your office your attention was drawn to the fact that classifications of employment were not shown for any employees engaged on your Wyong job. Such a commission creates grave difficulties for any person required to inspect your wage records. When its commission was pointed out to you at the conference you offered the information that all of the employees were “labourers” and in answer to a question put to you by your own representative (Mr Barry Harridge of the Employers Federation) you stated further that the labourers were all in the same group. Yet the Wyong wage record shows that the name of R. Maniaci is included amongst the other employees and is paid $255.00 per week. When you were asked if the name was your own you replied that it was and you stated something to the effect that you were entitled to be paid for the work that you did in respect of that job.
    17. However this still remains to be clarified and we request that you clearly state whether you are employed on that job site as a labourer or as a Company Director. We understand also that another person on that job site is one of your co-directors of the Company and we request that you also clarify his position in regards to his correct classification of employment.
    18. The question of exhibiting of an up to date copy of the award on the job site. We understand that you do not comply with this legal requirement and you are reminded that it is a requirement of the Industrial Arbitration Act and that you are bound to observe it.

Now in regards to the details and total of the claim as it now stands subject to investigations and unresolved matters far from complete, you are reminded once again that those details could have been provided to you if you had bothered to attend either of the past two conferences that have taken place with Commissioner Shortall.

You will therefore find the documents enclosed and the original claim for $9,094.65 which was forwarded to you last year has been taken up and absorbed into the extended claim which now exists and which we currently estimate will be in the vicinity of at least $19,000 when our investigations are completed. This figure could possibly be greater if it can be proven that employees are entitled to a mixed functions rate instead of a trench labourers rate.

A break-up of the figures so far compiled are as follows:

plus further adjustments still to be added as follows:

  1. Industry allowance and sick leave applicable to Wollongongjob.
  2. Adjustment for overtime for work after 3.30 p.m. (unresolved).
  3. Adjustment for overtime for work performed on Saturdays (unresolved).
  4. Adjustment for annual leave etc. owing to Mr Favaloro (unresolved).
  5. Adjustments where necessary if it can be proven that employees are entitled to be paid mixed functions instead of trench labourers rates (unresolved ).
  6. Any other adjustments bound to be applicable from wage records so far unsighted (if any ).
  7. Adjustments from November 17, 1977 when last examination of records occurred up to date of March 2, 1978 and continuing.

You will also find enclosed copies of exhibits B2 and C1.

In conclusion we wish to make our position quite clear and therefore your office will be contacted by phone on Monday March 13, 1978 to make arrangements for a date mutually convenient to yourself and this Union to allow our Organiser Mr Young and Mr Sinclair of this office to attend your office, to carry out any necessary examination of records in respect of the above referred to matters and attempt to resolve in conference all unresolved matters.

Furthermore it is our intention to take it that any answers you give in regards to any questions which are raised will be your final and conclusive decisions.

We look forward to your co-operation and in doing so we refer you to Section 129A sub-section 2 of the Industrial Arbitration Act and which states:

Every persons who hinders or obstructs any such officer in the exercise of any powers conferred by this section or who refuses entrance to such officer or unduly delays such officer in entrance during any time as aforesaid to any such place, premises, ship or vessel shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars ‘.

Yours faithfully, C. T.OLIVER Branch Secretary

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I know that at a time like this we would have economic chaos if every tourist to Australia wanted to become a permanent resident but, together with one of my former trade union colleague, Senator Gordon Mcintosh, I know that the trade unions are adopting a reasonable attitude to this matter. They do not want to see the position abused. If the unions see a situation in which people have been exploited- I claim that these Uruguayans have been exploited- they will take a stand. We want much closer liaison to occur between the State and Federal industrial authorities, the arbitration inspectors and the unions concerned. I feel sure that when Mr MacKellar reads these documents that I have had incorporated in Hansard he will agree that endeavours should be made to ensure that these people in the Five Dock area, the travel agents and the legal gentlemen I have mentioned, obey the law.

I will not delay the Senate unduly but there are two other matters I wish to raise. On 24 October I directed a question to Senator Carrick, the Minister representing the Treasurer. I asked the Minister what was the Government’s attitude to the Commonwealth Banking Corporation’s interpreters and translators. I feel that I have been a victim of the Government’s priority over business which will prevent debate on a notice of motion standing in my name which seeks the momentum of the Senate to ensure that action is taken under section 96 of the Commonwealth Banks Act relating to job security. The Commonwealth Bank Officers Association is anxious to see that interpreters and translators are given the status of permanent employment in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Under section 96 the Corporation has to show that there is nobody else in the Bank of equal ability who can carry out the jobs. The interpreters and translators in the Corporation were specifically engaged for their interpreting and translating skills and they did not enter the work force of the Corporation through the normal qualifying examination. It could be said that the 18-year- olds, 20-year-olds and 25-year-olds in the Corporation who are the sons and daughters of postwar migrants could claim to have some linguistic skill. I am speaking on behalf of both Federal and State officers engaged by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation who believe that the Bank should abide by section 96 of the Commonwealth Banks Act. I doubt whether this action has ever been taken but provision does exist in this Act. These employees are in their forties and fifties and they believe that in view of the service they have given to the Corporation this gesture should be extended.

There is a parallel industrial precedent. I know that at the start of World War II there was a situation in which- I think this is a reasonable parallel- people called plant erectors in the gas industry who had certain pipe fitting skills but no other skills were accepted as members by the Amalgamated Engineering Union, in its wisdom. If it was good enough for that precedent to be established in the engineering trade I cannot see why these people, the translators and interpreters, should not also be given job security in the clerical industry. It is rather ironical to bring this matter up at this time which is the twentieth anniversary of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation’s interpreting and translator service. These are the people who have made that service a success. They are Australian citizens and cover about 1 1 nationalities. As the Parliament is to rise this week until February I think that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) should, on behalf of these people who have the banking union behind them, lean on the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to ensure that in the interim these people are given permanency.

Another matter I want to deal with has a Latin American connotation. It is the question of aid to underdeveloped countries or countries in distress. I know that this year there has been a classic situation. Aid has been given to Asian regions and to Middle East countries, including Lebanon. At this stage I simply request the Minister to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) for details on what Australia is doing about providing aid to help overcome the destitution that exists in Latin American countries. I want to take a very light rein about the undeniable political oppression that has been maintained in at least three Latin American countries and two other countries in which there has been considerable hardship caused not so much by economic but by climatic conditions. I know that in several of the countries the churches have found themselves in conflict with right wing governments because the churches have attempted to provide food and clothing for the families of people- mainly trade unionists- who are in concentration camps. I have in mind people who live in Santiago whose sons, brothers and sisters are in camps, allegedly for corrective purposes. I think that some of us in this place have a rather cynical opinion of what corrective detention means.

I just make that point in passing because I have a letter which deals with a situation in Peru. A number of honourable senators would be aware that in the last week or two there have been some spontaneous fund gathering efforts among the Cypriot community in Sydney to provide child care clinics in Cyprus, a country in which there have been serious upheavals recently. In that context I have with me a letter from a lass who has been recommended to me. She is at the Mater Private Hospital in Sydney. She makes a plea for assistance to establishing child care facilities in Peru. I think that if the letter is incorporated in Hansard it will be of some guidance to Mr Peacock when he looks at this matter. It is quite an innocuous document. I now hand it to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for his perusal.

Late last night I put to Senator Chaney, the Minister for Administrative Services, as the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, dialogue about what happens to the progeny of kangaroos and wallabies exported to foreign zoos. I think I got half an assurance from Senator Chaney that this matter would be looked into. I want to reinforce my plea by saying that I have had telephone discussions with several Sydney Pressmen and I would like to get from the Minister some information on this matter. That just about finishes my charter.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do you want the letter incorporated in Hansard)

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Yes. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter relating to the Peruvian community.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

C/o Nurses Home, Mater Private Hospital, Pacific Highway, Crows Nest, N.S.W. 2065 21.11.78

Senator Anthony Mulvihill, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir,

Please let me introduce myself to you. My name is Miss Lozmila Amelia Gallegos, and I believe Mr Leo Gallagher has spoken to you about me, as he has since asked me to write to you.

I was recently overseas in my home country Peru, where I came upon a lot of poverty, especially in the hospitals, and I am writing to you to ask if you could please support us in our move to send equipment and supplies to these hospitals. I already have the support of The Sterilizing and Advisory Council of Australia for the educational programme, and through them the manufacturers of Joubert & Joubert and Kendalls have already commenced to participate and have sent a number of their goods over to the hospitals, and are willing to organise the other manufacturers to do likewise.

You must understand that is been organised for the Children’s Hospital and the Maternity Hospital in Lima only, and that any donations at all should be sent as a private donation to either hospital. You will find enclosed a letter of thanks from the Peruvians to Australia.

We also have the full support of the Peruvian Embassy in Canberra, and we and the Embassy would he extremely grateful to you for any support at all that you may be able to give.

Could you please let me know if you have received a letter from Father Jose Frisancho Pinelo recently, as he was to write to you also. If not I have received a copy of the letter and it is at your disposal if required.

If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me at any time.

Thanking you for your time and interest in this very important concern.

I remain,

Yours Sincerely (Miss) LOZMILA AMELIA GALLEGOS

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I take the opportunity to speak to the motion for the first reading debate on the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 specifically for the purpose of again recording my concern about the Government bringing Bills of this nature into the Senate in the dying hours of the Budget session of Parliament. This Bill is necessary to enact measures which were announced in the Budget presented on 15 August. A quick check reveals that it is 14 weeks now since the Budget was put down in this place. We have waited that long for the Government to bring in legislation to ratify measures which the Treasurer (Mr Howard) talked about in his Budget Speech. I think that again emphasises a statement that I have made in this place on many occasions. We hear people claiming that the Senate is a House of review, that it is a States house.

This Bill was listed on today’s Notice Paper under Orders of the Day and the second reading debate was to be held today although the Bill was not yet before the Senate. The Bill did not go through the other place until about 11.30 p.m. last night. Yet this House, which is supposed to be a House of review is going to be called upon today to debate the motion for the second reading of this Bill, to complete that debate and to vote on the Bill before we rise tonight. That is conclusive proof that the Senate in fact is not a House of review, as is claimed by honourable members opposite on many occasions; nor is it a States House.

I want to express my concern because this Bill has great repercussions. It is having them already and, of course, it will become law after it is passed in this House tonight. Embodied in the BUI are increased tariffs on beer, rum and brandy. The brandy industry is of great importance to my own State. I will be speaking at some length on the industry in the second reading debate. That is why I express my concern. Every time that things like this happen I am afraid, as I have said before, that I have to rise and place my concern on record because I am disturbed that the electorate at large is continually told that the Senate is the House of review, that it is a very important place. However, the use of the powers of the Senate in the way they have been used this week is proof that the Senate is not a House of review.

As I have said on many occasions, when the Liberal Party is in government, the Senate is a rubber stamp for any measures it introduces into the other chamber; but whenever the Labor Party has been in government, and that has not been too often since the last war, the Senate has acted as a House of frustration. During the years from 1972 to 1975 the government of the day was continually frustrated in its efforts to get through this Parliament legislation for which it was given a mandate by the electors. That is why I say that when the Labor Party is in government the Liberal Party uses the chamber as a House of frustration and frustrates not only the Labor government but also the will of the electors who in 1972 and again in 1974 elected a Labor government under the Prime Ministership of Gough Whitlam. No one had a harder row to hoe than he because of the frustration to which the then Government was subjected by this chamber.

If the wheel were to turn the full circle, as it has in some other Parliaments, it could well be that after 1980 or the next half Senate election the people who now sit on the other side of the chamber will be pleading for mercy from a Labor government. They have set the precedent to use this place as a House of frustration and they will have no legitimate argument to put up if the Labor Party in the future does what the Liberal Party has done. Those opposite will have to suffer the consequences, as we have done. I hope that in the intervening years the powers of this Senate can be somewhat curtailed so that the Senate cannot be used as a House of frustration. If its powers are not curtailed the whole Parliament will be held up to ridicule.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The purpose of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 is to enact the excise tariff alterations introduced into the House of Representatives as Excise Tariffproposals Nos 2 and 3 on 1 5 August 1978 following the Budget Speech. Clause 3 of the Bill, in conjunction with clause 2 and the Schedule, proposes enactment of the alterations in the duties of excise on beer, spirits and manufactured tobacco products as set out in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 2. The Government has received representations on behalf of the Australian brandy manufacturing industry in relation to the effect of this measure on the industry.

We are concerned with the position of Australian brandy producers. Indeed although the Budget applied increases equally to all exciseable spirits, it provided no new impost on Australian wine, demonstrably this action has already stimulated domestic demand. There is an Industries Assistance Commission report on potable spirits outstanding and the appropriate time to consider further the position of the brandy industry is in the context of that report. The representations will be carefully considered by the Government at that time. Clause 4 of the Bill proposes enactment of the alterations in excise duty on crude oil as set out in Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3. This clause, which increases the excise duty on crude oil by $45.63 per kilolitre, forms one part of the legislative arrangement designed to effect the Government’s decision that all Australian produced crude oil should be priced to refineries at import parity levels. The other part of the legislation arrangement is Excise Amendment Bill 1978 which was assented to on 2 1 September. That Bill provided for variable rebates of excise duty rate for certain categories of crude oil. The conjoint effect of clause 4 and of Excise Amendment Bill 1978 will be to achieve, from 16 August 1978, the net rate of excise duty required to bring up to import parity prices all indigenous crude oil presently priced below import parity levels. Details of all the alterations are set out in the notes on clauses which have been circulated. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2478

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1978 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Bill, which contains 16 schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made since May 1978. All the changes were incorporated in Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 13-29 (1978) which have been introduced into the House of Representatives at different times since May 1978. In the main, the amendments give effect to decisions by the Government in respect of the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority:

Ball and Roller Bearings

Bench or Pedestal Drilling Machines, Belt Driven,

Pulley Operated (Non-Power Fed)- Interim Report

Brassieres- Rate or Rates of Duty Outside Quota

Brooms and Brushes

Carbon Coated Film

Carpets, Carpeting Etc.

Domestic Refrigerating Appliances Etc

Gearboxes, Gears and Shaft Couplings

Hoists, Pulley Tackle and Winches (Interim Report)

Hosiery, Undergarments and Knitted Sleepwear- Short

Term Additional Assistance

Insulators

Light Commercial and Four- Wheel Drive Vehicles and

Heavier Commercial Vehicles and Components

Metal Working Machine Tools

Orange Juice

Products of the Printing Industry

Starting, Regulating and Control Apparatus and Other

Electrical Equipment

Vices

The Bill also contains increases in Customs duties on beer, spirits and manufactured tobacco products which formed part of the Government’s budgetary program. Honourable senators will recall that when the tariff proposals were introduced a comprehensive summary in respect of each of the proposals was circulated which set out the nature of the changes. I have had a consolidation of those summaries prepared, and copies may be obtained from the Records Office. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2479

ATOMIC ENERGY AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition opposes this Bill and, in the spirit of the times, I will deal quickly with the reasons for our opposition. Essentially, the Bill deals with section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act, the section under which an authority to mine uranium is granted by the Minister for Trade and Resources. In introducing this legislation into the House of Representatives, the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in his second reading speech stated:

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Act to be amended so that a mining authority to be issued under section 41 of the Act for mining at Ranger affords the persons to whom the authority has been conferred, security of tenure . . . The Ranger Joint Venturers have pointed out that section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act, as it presently stands, does not provide them with adequate security of tenure.

From what I have quoted, it can be seen that the Minister is dealing glibly with the situation. Quite bluntly, the Bill is an attempt to legislate against the possibility of a future Labor government revoking an authority to mine uranium. Its purpose is to provide security for the companies, their backers and possible customers. It obviously was considered necessary in the course of the preparation of the documents relating to the Ranger agreement. Without going at length into the matter, the degree of effectiveness of that rather thick headed attempt, if I may refer to an initiative of this Government in those terms, does not need to be explored in the context of this debate. I find it extraordinarily absurd that the Government should seek to legislate beyond the grave in which it may well find itself in 1980. The provisions of the legislation relating to wills provide for people to do that, but it is not normal for a Government to attempt that sort of exercise in the carrying out of its policies, particularly those which are the subject of wide disagreement and discussion in the Australian community.

The detailed sections of the Bill have been fully referred to in the course of the somewhat lengthy debate in the House of Representatives, a debate in which the Senate, by virtue of the strictures of time, will not be able to indulge. I draw the attention of the Senate to some of the important consequences of this legislation as seen by the Opposition. Firstly, I think it is important that the Senate be reminded of the recommendations of the first Ranger inquiry report. I have always had some doubts about the practice of governments- in this case it was the Labor Government- to determine that issues of great national policy and questions involving some degree of national and social morality should be left in the hands of a judge. It seems extraordinary that we continue on that course and have some allegedly independent authority determine all these matters of great national consequence for us. This has been done with the approval of both sides of the House. The first Ranger inquiry report contained the following recommendation:

A decision to mine and sell uranium should not be made unless the Commonwealth government ensures that the Commonwealth can at any time on the basis of considerations of the nature discussed in this report, immediately terminate those activities, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period.

On 25 August 1977 the Minister for Trade and Resources announced the Government’s policy on uranium mining and in his statement on this very question stated:

The Government will therefore always be in a position to move immediately to terminate uranium development permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period as recommended by the Ranger inquiry.

This undertaking by the Minister following on the recommendations in the Fox report can be put in the same hogwash category as the Minister’s recent announcements about mineral export policy which have ranged from firm intentions to weaker intentions, consultations and so on. Such announcements lead to gross uncertainty in the mining community and in the Australian community generally about the sincerity of the Government’s intentions. The Government’s intentions on this matter were stated quite clearly and are in line with the Fox report recommendations. The intention of this Bill is to ensure that the recommendation of the Ranger inquiry and Mr Anthony’s assertion of 25 August 1977 cannot be implemented. The legislation is an explicit rejection of the recommendation and a denial of the Minister’s own statement. That is the first consequence of this legislation. It is another illustration of this Government’s spastic approach to policy, with the left hand never knowing what the right hand is doing in relation to these matters.

Senator Young:

– I am glad you said ‘hand’, not ‘wing’.

Senator BUTTON:

-I find that a penetrating attack on what I have had to say. I will certainly bear it in mind. As I say, that rejection is the first important consequence of the Bill now before the

Senate. In this Senate over the past two or three years we have had the extraordinary spectacle of the sort of thing to which I just referred, and which Senator Young finds amusing happening in this place. It is a cause of concern to anybody who is interested in the process of government and the reliability or otherwise of statements made by Ministers on the basis of expert recommendations.

The second important consequence of this Bill is that new conditions and restrictions on uranium mining, particularly those recommended in the Ranger report, could not be arbitrarily or unilaterally added to the authority to mine which is given by the Minister. This would apply to a whole range of factors. We are dealing, in the case of uranium mining, with perhaps not a very dangerous process; but in dealing with the development of the nuclear industry generally we are dealing with a dangerous process which is a cause of concern to nations and communities throughout the world. The result of this legislation is that no new conditions or restrictions could be added. That might well mean, for example, if a different view is developed in this country on the whole question of the nuclear fuel cycle, the disposal of nuclear reactor waste, and so on, that no steps could be taken in relation to this authority to mine which would alter the conditions that are now in it. There may well be new environmental considerations which ought to be taken into account by any responsible government but which cannot be taken into account under the terms of this legislation.

The third consequence of the legislation is that, as far as assignments of interests are concerned, the 1974 memorandum of understanding gave pre-emptive weight to the right to purchase, in the case of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission’s interest, to Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd; and in the case of Peko ‘s interest, to EZ, and vice versa. This Bill makes no such provisions or restrictions, although it does make transfers conditional on ministerial approval. Again, that is an interesting example of the inconsistency in the statements of intention of the Government. Fourthly, the memorandum of understanding referred to an initial authority to be granted for a period of 2 1 years and added that the Ranger project was not to continue in force during the economic life of the uranium ore deposits in the project area. This proposal is for about 85,000 tonnes of uranium to be mined; at 3,000 tonnes per annum rising to 6,000 tonnes per annum. That means, in effect, a lifetime of known economic reserves of 14 to 28 years, depending on the market and, of course, the discovery of additional reserves which could lengthen the life of that arrangement. That again is quite contrary to the initial memorandum of understanding.

In conclusion, let me reiterate the objections of the Opposition to this Bill. I have pointed to the absurd inconsistencies in the Government’s attitude to it and the different statements that have been made by the Minister on this matter. Let me point to the main, basic objections of the Opposition: Firstly, there is the basic objection that the Labor Opposition has a different policy on uranium from that of the Government Of course, that is a legitimate objection of which account has to be taken in the normal process of political debate. The important fact is that that difference of policy between the Opposition and the Government does reflect substantial differences in the community on this question. It is in the light of that that this Government has introduced this ‘steam roller to crack a nut’ legislation- I invite no interjection from Senator Young- in the way in which it has. There is an important point in terms of continuity in government and the considerations which apply in normal political debate.

The second major objection is the one which the Minister himself has stressed on previous occasions and which was pointed out in the Fox Inquiry report. That is the inappropriateness of the Atomic Energy Act to regulate a commercial operation. This was all referred to in the debate which we had in May of this year. The Fox Ranger Inquiry report was very critical of the use of the Atomic Energy Act and the severe security provisions of that Act. It was reinforced by another statement made by the Minister himself during his second reading speech on the present Bill, when he had this to say:

While the Act was designed to allow mining, detailed provisions to cover mining on a commercial basis were never included.

This is again a reference to the history of this matter and the undesirability of using the Atomic Energy Act for commercial purposes.

The third main objection is that .governments should at all times have the authority to order the cessation of uranium mining, based on considerations of nuclear proliferation, including the Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty which we have signed and some of the countries to which we have arranged to sell uranium have signed but are clearly not abiding by. Governments should have the authority at all times to order the cessation of uranium rnining because of important issues such as waste disposal and environmental protection. When one asks questions in this place about the steps which are being taken by miners in the Northern Territory in relation to that issue, one just does not get answers on important questions such as the pollution of the Alligator River, All these questions should be a fundamental principle that governments and this Parliament have the right to order the cessation of uranium mining because of some of those very important considerations which are involved in this issue.

Earlier in my remarks I quoted from the report of the Ranger Inquiry in which that matter was stressed and stressed again, and it was taken up by the Minister himself with apparent approval. It is important to note that the argument used by Mr Anthony, the Minister- that the authority to mine should provide security of tenure similar to that enjoyed by the holders of a mining lease in force under most of the State laws- is quite false. The comparison is irrelevant; the circumstances are quite different. The whole case in favour of controlling uranium exploitation is that it needs and ought to be treated differently from other mining. In the words of the first Ranger Inquiry report, ‘uranium is a very special metal’. I know that it is a very special metal in the eyes of this Government. It shines like diamonds in a- what shall I say?

Senator Young:

– ‘ In a pipe ‘ will do.

Senator BUTTON:

-The honourable senator puts them in his pipe. He should put something in his pipe.

Senator Young:

– I was thinking of Western Australia. That is why I said ‘pipe’.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes. Of course uranium is a very special metal. It has attracted a great deal of interest and a great deal of noise from this Government.

Senator MacGibbon:

– What about from the Opposition?

Senator BUTTON:

-Let me refer to some of the noises honourable senators opposite make. Our position has been fairly consistent.

Government senators- Ha, ha !

Senator BUTTON:

– It has.

Senator Messner:

– Have a look at Don Dunstan.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Messner can have a look at Don Dunstan. He has a look at Don Dunstan almost every day at Question Time, and he never looks much good. His difficulty is that he will still be looking at him as the Premier in about 10 years time, and there is nothing he will be able to do about it. If we look back to the headlines in newspapers prior to the 1977 election where people like Mr Anthonythe professional loud mouths of Australian politics- were promising that uranium mining would produce 100,000 jobs, we recall that sort of stuff. It was on the basis of projections like this that the much heralded uranium mining decision was made. I would remind Government senators about that. I look forward to the day when they can tell me that uranium mining in Australia has provided 100,000 jobs or anything like that number. It is on the basis of those sorts of things that uranium has become a very special metal for this Government. Anything becomes special which looks like getting the Government out of its particular problems of government. This legislation, of course, goes right to the question of problems of government.

The legislation is quite extraordinary, not supported by the Ranger Inquiry report and not supported by statements of the Minister for Trade and Resources which he made in this Parliament. As I say, it is quite unusual legislation which seeks to bind future governments, which I would have thought was a quite irresponsible principle of government for any party to embark on in this place. It is for those sorts of reasons that the Opposition firmly rejects and opposes this legislation. It is a source of regret that this matter will not be canvassed as fully as it might be in the Senate because df the pressures which seem to be burdening us all at this particular time of the year.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– Might I say at the outset that I was not surprised at the reaction of the Opposition to the proposed amendments to the Atomic Energy Act. One appreciates that, whilst Senator Button dealt in detail with some particular objections to the amendments, the overall policy of the Opposition at this stage is one of total opposition to the mining and export of uranium. I emphasise the words ‘at this stage*, because there is no doubt that we have seen changes in the policies of the Labor Party in the various States throughout Australia. For example, we know that Mr Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, has already made approaches to see whether an enrichment plant can be established in New South Wales. I shall have a little bit to say about the position of South Australia in this respect later on.

Senator Button quoted the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony). I just wish that he had quoted the Minister’s words more fully and had not stopped halfway through the sentence to which he was referring. To put the record straight I will quote from the Minister’s second reading speech. He said:

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Act to be amended so that a mining authority to be issued under section 4 1 of the Act for mining at Ranger affords the person on whom the authority has been conferred security of tenure similar to that enjoyed by the holders of a mining lease under the laws in force in the Northern Territory and most of the States while at the same time -

And these are the words that I hope Senator Button will note- ensuring that it is subject to appropriate controls.

Senator Button had quite a bit to say about the environmental aspects of uranium mining. Perhaps I should remind the Opposition that a package of Bills dealing with the proposed mining of uranium in the Northern Territory was introduced early this year. The package included legislation which dealt with the Kakadu National Park; legislation which dealt with the rights of Aboriginals; and legislation which dealt very heavily with environmental aspects. The package also included legislation which dealt with particular aspects of the mining of Ranger itself to make sure that there will be research, strict control and supervision the whole time with regard to pollution. So one cannot accept much of the argument put forward by Senator Button today. The Government has been responsible in establishing safeguards and the appropriate controls. We know that the safeguards that were put down by the Government with regard to the sale of uranium overseas are the strictest safeguards of any country which exports uranium at present.

Senator Messner:

– The companies are doing a lot too, are they not?

Senator YOUNG:

– The companies are also showing a great deal of responsibility and there is a need for this responsibility. I give them full marks for what they are doing.

There are two main areas in this legislation. One, of course, as I have mentioned, is the security of tenure. This is an important area because at present, as the Ranger venturers have pointed out that under section 41 of the Atomic Energy Act there is no provision whatsoever for adequate security of tenure. This places companies in a most invidious position because of the investment of millions of dollars that is needed for mine development and production. There is need, of course, to make sure that provision is made for security of tenure.

I refer to the memorandum of understanding to which Senator Button made reference todaythe memorandum of understanding between the Commonwealth of Australia, Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd.

It was drawn up between the Whitlam Government and these two companies for the purpose of mining uranium at Ranger. The following statement is made in clause 2 (e) of the memorandum:

In particular, Australia-

Shall grant any necessary and appropriate authorities under the Atomic Energy Act. The initial authority shall be granted for a period of tweny one years.

The Government has set about to make sure that that objective is met. Clause 2 (g) of the memorandum states:

The Ranger Project shall continue in force during the economic life of the uranium ore deposits in the Project area.

Who can say that the economic life of that mine will stop at 2 1 years? Nobody can. The Government proposes to give security of tenure so that agreement will be reached between the Northern Land Council and the consortium with regard to the further mining of uranium beyond 21 years.

I refer now to another clause in the memorandum. The original agreement set out very clearly that the Commission- that is the Australian Government- would invest72½ per cent of the capital in Ranger, Peko 13¾ per cent and EZ 13¾ per cent and that the Commonwealth and the two companies would share in the profits on a50/50 basis. The Government is saying that if mining is to be extended beyond 21 years the current arrangement under which the Government pays a72½ per cent share will be done away with and costs will be shared equally. This proposal is in contrast to the generous situation proposed by the Whitlam Government in the memorandum of understanding in respect of the Ranger mining project.

One appreciates, of course, that the Whitlam Labor Government was very keen to establish uranium mining in Australia. But we have seen a slight change of policy since then:I hope that wisdom will prevail and that we will see another change. I will be one person who will not criticise the Opposition when that change comes about. I know that many members of the Opposition today hope that that change will come about. They have been extremely concerned at the present policy of the Labor Party as expressed in the different States throughout Australia. I am waiting until the next ALP Federal Executive conference, which will be held next year.

Senator Button:

– In Adelaide.

Senator YOUNG:

– Yes. It could not be held in a better city because that is where the changes are really needed. I will refer to that in a moment. When we consider the amount of uranium that will be mined- I refer to the Ranger project and to the Yeelirrie deposits in Western Australia, which the Western Australian Government is to get under way- and the need for safeguards we can understand the need for enrichment of uranium to take place in Australia. I think that members of the Opposition would agree with that. There is a need for such a facility.

South Australia has led the way in research into uranium enrichment. The Dunstan Government- I give it full marks in this respect; I am not criticising it- has backed an expert uranium enrichment committee that has been working on research in this area for some six years. South Australia is regarded as the State with the greatest expertise in the field of uranium enrichment. Therefore South Australia has a very good start if the proposal to establish an enrichment plant somewhere in Australia is implemented. This specialist enrichment committee in South Australia has been having very close discussions with a consortium known as Urenco-Centec. It is a consortium of German, Dutch and British expertise. Urenco is recognised as one of the three major enrichment groups in the world. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, it is recognised as a world leader in enrichment technology. We know that it has shown great interest in establishing an enrichment plant in South Australia. We even know that it has had discussions with government in that State, not merely with the enrichment committee. I hope that eventually we will see an enrichment plant established in South Australia. Such a plant will be established somewhere in Australia.

I express concern because at present the policy of the South Australian Government is such that it is not possible, even though we have this expert committee, to set up an enrichment plant in that State. However, we know that Western Australia, through its Premier, Sir Charles Court, is doing everything possible to get the mining of uranium under way and would also like to see an enrichment plant established in that State. So already there are three States competing for the establishment of an enrichment plant. One is held by the Labor Party. Another is also held by the Labor Party but at this stage it is not coming out in favour of uranium mining, although it has done excellent work in regard to uranium enrichment and I give it full marks for that. One of the tragedies is that if we in South Australia miss out on this we will miss out on the chance to employ a lot of people. Enrichment is a big business. It would generate a lot of revenue for South

Australia, which would greatly help it. However, unless the State Government changes its stance, its policies being what they are, at this stage one cannot hold out too much hope for the future.

We know also that in South Australia there are great deposits of uranium. There is a deposit at Beverley near Lake Frome in the north of South Australia which, as I understand it, could get under way very quickly. For mine development and production the lead time would not be very great. Possibly South Australia, if it were soon to begin getting into production in the actual mining of uranium could still lead the other States. This would give it a great chance to have the enrichment plant established there.

Another reason why I hope that the State Government will change its mind is that at Roxby Downs, about which quite a deal has been said in the last few months, there are vast copper and uranium deposits. It also has some gold. Roxby Downs will not be a small mining project. In fact, it will be a colossus. That is the only way in which I can describe it. It will be far greater than Mount Isa. I go further and say that probably it will be one of the biggest mining projects in Australia. I repeat, it will be a colossus. The tragedy is that is also has uranium deposits. That should be a benefit but, because of policy, Roxby Downs cannot get under way. There could be an infrastructure in that place alone- here we are talking about people, I remind Senator Button- employing far in excess of the 700 people who are employed at Mount Isa.

Senator Button:

-I rise on a point of order. The Senate is debating the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, which relates to the Ranger mine in the Northern Territory. I have not previously interrupted the honourable senator because I found what he had to say very interesting and enjoyable, but it is really not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. Whilst this is said by some honourable senators to be a States House, and is a venue for commercials of every conceivable kind, it is very difficult to relate Senator Young’s remarks to the subject matter of this Bill.

Senator Young:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. Inasmuch as Senator Button made reference to the policy of his party and ours, I have been dealing with that of the Australian Labor Party federally on uranium. I am also trying to prove that with the mining of uranium at Ranger there will eventually be a need to meet safeguards and guidelines, to establish an enrichment plant in Australia. That being so, I am building up a case concerning where in Australia generally that enrichment plant, which will be both a benefit and a necessity, should be located.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! We are discussing the point of order. The material which Senator Button has presented to the chair is recognised, as is the relationship of the debate to the subject matter of the Bill that is before the Senate. Senator Young, you have perhaps strayed from the actual text of the Bill. I recognise the argument that you have just presented in regard to policy, but in the interests of confining the debate in a way that is acceptable to the Senate, I would ask you to relate your remarks in detail to the text of the measure.

Senator YOUNG:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I might respond to say that I hope that honourable senators opposite will heed Senator Button’s comments regarding my references to certain areas. If we are to confine ourselves to certain specifics it must be true for honourable members on both sides of the chamber.

Ranger will now be getting under way. There will be mining development there. Even though there may be opposition, it will take place. There has been a need to give security of tenure and equally to stand by the guidelines established by the Federal Government and set out clearly by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) last year. There is also need for the establishment in Australia of an enrichment plant. With enriched uranium it is far easier to comply with safeguards than if one merely exports U308, or yellowcake, as it is commonly known. South Australia has a favourable geographical situation and vast uranium deposits. The Ranger development has estimated reserves of the order of 500,000 tonnes. However, the estimates of the deposits in South Australia have now been revised and stand at some 500,000 tonnes. That is the equal of the expected yield from Ranger.

With this vast amount of uranium, as well as that in the Northern Territory, there will be need for an enrichment plant. South Australia is the place, in Australia generally, where a plant should be established. I hope that the policies of the Government of South Australia will change because of the great benefits that that would bring to the State. I also hope that next year there will be a policy change on the part of the Australian Labor Party. If that happened, many members of the Australian Labor Party who sit on the other side of the chamber could at last stand up and speak openly, as they would like to do, in supporting the mining and development of uranium, as they did when their party was in Government.

South Australia is presently a poverty-stricken State. However, the Province of Saskachewan in Canada generates revenue from royalties of some $50m a year, and its deposits are much smaller than those of the Northern Territory, and especially smaller than those of South Australia. I remind Senator Button that such development would bring benefits not only in revenue and to the economy but also in employment. I am glad that the Commonwealth Government has seen fit to give stability of arrangement to mining companies involved in the consortium that is developing Ranger so that it can get on with the job and generate both employment and revenue, and as well supply a material that is basic to the requirements of a world that has turned nuclear- not at our request but of necessity and as a result of its own decisions. The world is hungry for uranium and it is up to us to make sure that we supply the means of producing some of that greatly-needed energy.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I believe that the introduction of these amendments to the Atomic Energy Act amounts to an admission by the Government of how inappropriate this Act is as the legislative framework for the development and exploitation of uranium within Australia. This conclusion of mine is not simply something to be deduced from the provisions of the Bill; it is quite explicit in the admission by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony), in his second reading speech in another place where he says, of the Atomic Energy Act, that provisions to cover mining on a commercial basis were never included. He goes on to say that despite the fact that amendments have been introduced, this does not indicate that the Government has in mind using the Act for other mining projects. That disenchantment with the Minister in another place is understandable because, as I say, the Atomic Energy Act is quite inappropriate as as vehicle for the exploitation of mining of uranium for peaceful purposes and for commercial profit. I would go further and say that not only is the legislative framework as a whole inappropriate and totally inadequate to deal with the situation but also that the decision of the Government to continue using this Act in the face of the admitted inadequacy alerts us to a possible further reason for maintaining the Atomic Energy Act as the legislation governing the development of the Ranger project. I will come to that later but it is for that larger reason that the Opposition is determined to oppose these amendments.

We say that no amendment can save the basic impropriety of using an Act which was formulated in the early 1950s to deal with a completely different defence situation, namely, the exploitation of the Rum Jungle deposits in order to aid the nuclear weapons programs of our allies. We say that that Act was drawn on a completely different basis to that which is said to prevail at the moment, namely, that we are trying to develop these deposits to help an energy starved world and for commercial profit.

Senator Young said that the amendments would make the Act more responsive to ordinary commercial principles governing mining. It is true that the amendments confer security of tenure on the joint venturers for a period of 2 1 years from the commencement of mining and allow for a further renewal of the period if the consent of the appropriate land councils can be obtained. But as I read the amendments, revocation of the authority by the Minister cannot occur. Perhaps I should say that revocation can occur but only on the application of the joint venturers. It is true that if the conditions or the restrictions in the authority are not complied with, the Minister can take certain action which has the effect of preventing mining for a limited or stated period; but what is not included in these amendments is the normal provision one finds in State mining laws and no doubt in the Northern Territory mining ordinance, which allows, in terms of State mining laws, for forfeiture of the lease. There is no provision here giving the Minister any authority to revoke the mining authority given to the joint venturers. That, I think, gives the lie- if I may use that expression, Mr Deputy President- to the claim made by the Minister in his second reading speech. In any case it shows the confusion the Minister is deliberately trying to create in the public mind when he says that the purpose of the amendments is to bring the Act into line with normal provisions governing mining in the States. I think really that much of what Senator Young said when he was speaking about the Bill thereby falls to the ground. In no way are these provisions equatable with the ordinary provisions of mining Acts in the States in that no absolute forfeiture at the instance of the Minister is provided for.

It is true, as Senator Button said, that the effect of the passage of this legislation will be that a future Labor government will not be able to revoke the authority to mine. It will, of course, always be able to prevent the export of the products of that mine, But a future Labor Government will not be able to revoke authority to mine on the ground, say, of insufficient safeguards for the disposal of waste or for the international movement of these materials. That is merely a special vice of the amended legislation that will emerge later today. No doubt it is an important factor, perhaps the dominant factor, in the Government’s desire to push these amendments through and is reason enough for the Opposition to oppose them. The decision of the Government, as expressed in these amendments, flies in the face of recommendation No. 6 of the First Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, known colloquially as the Fox report. Recommendation No. 6 states, in part, it should be assured:

  1. . that the Commonwealth can at any time, on the basis of considerations of the nature discussed in this Report, immediately terminate those activities, permanently, indefinitely or for a specified period.

These amendments, in failing to follow the normal course of State rnining laws to give the Minister the ability to revoke or forfeit the authority, fly in the face of that recommendation of the Fox report. The Ranger Inquiry made that recommendation consequent upon recommendation No. 3 which states:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war. This is the most serious hazard associated with the industry.

It suggested that certain steps ought to be taken to reduce that hazard. If, at some future stage, that hazard should be realised, there is nothing in these amendments which would allow the Minister to reduce it. In fact these amendments prevent the Minister from revoking the authority as the Inquiry suggested he ought to be able to do in recommendation No. 6. There is no need to labour the point. It has been stated already by Senator Button that on 25 August 1977, barely a year ago, Mr Anthony, when presenting to the Australian people the Government’s response to the Ranger Inquiry, stated that recommendation No. 6, giving the Commonwealth the flexibility and the necessary power to intervene should some hazard arise in relation to the international movement of this material or in relation to the disposal of waste, would in fact be carried out. But that promise, that undertaking, we now find abandoned. Of course, this can hardly be surprising to honourable senators. The use of the Atomic Energy Act is in plain contradiction to the views expressed by the Ranger Commissioners.

I come now to the fundamental protest of the Opposition to the use of this Act, even as amended- perhaps especially as amendedbecause the amendments give it a veneer of ordinariness which can hardly be said to be deserved. There is a fatal flaw, a comprehensive flaw, distributed throughout the whole of the Atomic Energy Act. I stress that the use of this Act in 1978 in relation to the development of this Ranger resource for peaceful purposes to serve an energy starved world and for commercial profit ought to be recognised to be in a completely different context from that which led to the promulgation of the Act in 1953 when, as I say, we were concerned to provide from Rum Jungle weapons materials for the programs of our allies. We in the Opposition say that a legislative structure should be devised which is more in harmony with, more akin to, ordinary mining laws although, of course, taking account of the special nature of this particular energy source. I repeat that the Cabinet, in the face of the recommendation of the Fox report, decided against acting in accordance with the recommendation which is found at page 248 of the second Fox report. It states:

We strongly recommend against the use of that Act for the grant of an authority to Ranger to mine uranium.

The report makes that recommendation for the reasons I have outlined.

It is true to say, and I think it needs to be freely admitted, that the Labor Government decided that this Act was suitable as an initial legislative base for the Ranger venture; but that same Government then set up the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and, I believe, undoubtedly would have acted on the recommendation of the Ranger Inquiry to abandon this Act- a recommendation which was based on most cogent considerations which I will outline to the Senate shortly. However, the fact is that this Cabinet, faced with the Fox recommendation, decided to maintain the use of this particular legislative structure.

Why am I and the Opposition concerned? And why did the Government so decide? I really think that if one outlines some of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, the answer to both questions emerges. Under Part IV of the Act, the conveying of information concerning the composition of the ore body, if not otherwise published, is assumed to be prejudicial to the defence of the Commonwealth, as it is the conveying of restricted information. Paragraph (a) of section 47 of this Act concerns the prosecution of a person who relays this information, and states: it is not necessary to show that he was guilty of a particular act tending to show an intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth and, notwithstanding that no such act is proved against him, he may be convicted if, from the circumstances of the case, his conduct, or his known character as proved, it appears that he acted with intent to prejudice the defence of the Commonwealth;

Earlier this afternoon a proposal was put forward in a report presented by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that Bills should be scrutinised in order to ensure that they are not in conflict with our ordinary civil liberties. I say without any hesitation that had that provision been referred to such a scrutiny Committee it would have been the subject of a special reference to this Parliament for its serious consideration.

Perhaps more disturbing is section 54 of the Act. It states:

No action lies against the Commonwealth, a State, the Commission, a constable or a peace officer in respect of an arrest, apprehension, detention, search, seizure or act in pursuance of or for the purposes of this Part, but, if the Governor-General is satisfied that an arrest, apprehension, detention, search, seizure or act was made or done without reasonable cause, he may award reasonable compensation in respect of it.

The effect of section 54, of course, is to grant immunity in advance. Commonwealth Police officers know of the existence of this section and know that they are assured of immunity in respect of illegal detentions, arrests of persons, the searching of premises or the seizure of property. This granting of immunity from legal repercussions in advance is precisely the technique employed by the Smith regime in Rhodesia in regard to members of its armed forces who were told in advance that they could carry out actions against the general population in Rhodesia without any risk of criminal sanction. The result of a section like section 54 is obvious: A situation is created whereby with political connivance on the part of the Minister, co-called security action and harassment can take place with impunity. Police and so-called peace officers can enter homes; they can seize property and can search, detain and arrest without any risk of being called before a court to explain their actions.

It may be, too, that under section 60 of this Act, the whole Ranger project has become an Approved Defence Project because of the contribution by the Atomic Energy Commission of working capital for the project. If that is the case, and there is a very respectable argument that it is the case, then the project comes under the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act of 1947. Under that Act, if any person boycotts the project- say, by withdrawal of labour- or speaks or writes in advocacy of preventing the carrying out of some aspect of the project, then that person is guilty of an offence. So, under the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act, ordinary civil rights of protest, whether by withdrawal of labour- after all we are not yet a conscripted slave society- or by normal peaceful practical measures of dissent, such as circulating a pamphlet, marching in a street or giving a speech- all these non-violent means of protest which ought to be positively encouraged in a demoracy- may lead one to be convicted.

What is worse is that the offence can be prosecuted either summarily or upon indictment. The conclusion, depending on which way the prosecution is mounted, can be liability to a fine of $1,000 or six months’ imprisonment if the offence is prosecuted summarily or a fine of $10,000 or 12 months’ imprisonment if the offence is prosecuted upon indictment. So, quite an extraordinary and undue discretion is given to the Attorney-General to decide on what basis a prosecution will take place under the Approved Defence Projects Protection Act.

Senator Georges:

– Against one of the members of the Opposition, perhaps.

Senator TATE:

– Yes, that is right. The whole point is that whilst these provisions have not been brought into operation at the moment, they are potentially available to Government. This must be the explanation for the Government continuing with the Atomic Energy Act as the legislative framework for the development of the Ranger project, despite the very clear recommendation against it by the Ranger Inquiry Commissioners. In other words, the fact that we are presently free to advocate a timetable other than that of the Government is merely a privilege. It is a permission; it is something allowed to us by the Government for the time being. However, to be granted the privilege by the Government to engage in peaceful protest is not to enjoy a civil right and, surely, that is really what democracy is all about. In a democracyadmittedly, for the time being- the majority makes the laws but the minority is entitled to dissent from the Government’s program by peaceful, non-violent means. That is a right, not a privilege.

I am coming to the end of my remarks and I hope that honourable senators perceive why it is that the Opposition finds that merely to amend the Atomic Energy Act is in no way to ameliorate the situation created by its provisions. We say that if development is to go ahead it should be within the framework of laws more akin to the ordinary mining laws of the States and the

Northern Territory, making due allowance for the special nature of this particular metal. We believe that the legislation which at the moment governs the development of the Ranger project is quite incompatible with our ordinary civil and political liberties. For those reasons the Opposition very strongly opposes the Bill.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I support the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978. Of course, when one looks at the second reading speech of the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in another place, it becomes quite obvious that for the Ranger project to be brought into a workable situation whereby uranium can be mined, it is most necessary for the proposed amendments to be passed. When one looks at the provisions of the old atomic energy legislation, which I think was introduced in 1945, relating to the mining of uranium, it is obvious that that legislation is quite outmoded.

I am very pleased to see that we have reached the stage where agreement has been reached between the Northern Land Council and the Government so that Peko-EZ can commence mining. In the last year or two there has been a lot of emotion, some hysteria and a tremendous amount of activity leading up to the point where we can now see the commencement of the mining of this uranium. I think many people have really forgotten that the mining of uranium in the Northern Territory is not something new but really commenced many years ago, in the late 1940s or early 1950s, at Moline east of Katherine and at Batchelor, Rum Jungle, where the Australian Atomic Energy Commission developed uranium. Uranium was developed there quietly for many years and that source of supply was used for very many purposes, including meeting Australia’s obligations overseas. October 1975 saw the memorandum of understanding of the Labor Government brought into being and which, if I remember rightly, was signed by Mr Whitlam, Mr Connor, Dr Cairns and perhaps one other person on behalf of the Government and by the people of Peko-Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltd to bring about the commencement of further uranium development. It appeared in those days that the development and mining of uranium were going to be another phase in Australia’s development but, of course, this situation did not come about. The inquiry by Mr Justice Fox and various other events brought about a most controversial situation.

I believe that the people who have been against the development of uranium, particularly those people in the Northern Territory, who endeavoured during the negotiations with the Aboriginal people to prevent them from coming to an agreement, used every method under the sun to prevent the Ranger Uranium Mining Agreement from being made. I think the way that the Aboriginal people were used and abused is most unfortunate, to say the least. I believe that this sort of thing will continue for quite a long time until these people are prevented in some way from putting pressure on the Aboriginal people. The people who have put pressure on the Aboriginal people are supposed to be leaders in Australian society. They come from the churches, from government and from various other spheres. I believe that there is absolutely no excuse for them to have done what they did in putting pressure on the Aboriginal people. I have mentioned previously the publications that were passed amongst the Aboriginal people in Arnhem Land. These publications were printed in a comic-type format and, when tied to their culture and their laws, were an attempt to bring about tremendous fears in the minds of the Aboriginal people as to what would happen to them if uranium were developed. One particular cartoon depicted the myth of the sacred snake on Mount Brockman. The Aboriginals believe that if this snake is disturbed it will come alive, cast itself upon the Aboriginal people and gulp them down in large lumps, with the tribe disappearing. This is how the situation was presented to the Aboriginal people. This cartoon showed the snake, with its head reared, coming from Mount Brockman and gulping down the tribe. Another one depicted an Aboriginal woman carrying a child and showed that uranium was killing the child.

Senator Harradine:

– Who put those out?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I think all members of the Government and all members of the Opposition received copies of this paper. It originated from Elcho Island and is readily available now. I hasten to say that it was not put out by the Uniting Church in Australia but by people within the church and by people who were employed by the Department of Education and other departments and who, because of the facilities available to them and the fact that they lived among the Aboriginal people, had an influence on the Aboriginal people. This situation is not yet finished. My understanding is that although the Government has come to an agreement with the Aboriginal people, another book is being prepared. I think that is most unfortunate. As far as I am concerned, this type of person should be picked up and cast out of the country because he is endeavouring to destroy the minds of the Aboriginal people and is using and abusing them. There is very little room now for many European people in the land of the Aboriginal people, because many of the Europeans who are there now and who have been there in the past are left wing activists who have used the Aboriginal people.

Senator Melzer:

– Have you proof of that?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I can prove it. I am proving it now. I do not know why the honourable senator should take exception to my remarks. I am proving it by telling the Senate of this book. I could prove it also by what is documented and what one reads in newspapers of the discussions and moves that took place in the negotiations for the signing of the Ranger agreement between the Aboriginal people and the Government. One saw that the left wing advisers were ultimately kicked out by the Aboriginal people because of the frustrations they were causing to them.

I draw the Senate ‘s attention to the actions of a most courageous person. If he were a European he would be looked upon possibly as one of the leading young Australians. But this person is not a European. He is a young Aboriginal person. He originated from Arnhem Land. He has had the courage and fortitude to stand up against these left wing activists- the people who are endeavouring to use his Aboriginal people and to destroy them. I refer to Galarrwuy Yunupingu.

Senator Melzer:

– You did not say that about him when you thought he was on our side.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I do not think that I have ever criticised him. If I have, that remains to be seen. But I have certainly not criticised him in the context of the actions he has taken in this situation. This young person, whom one has to admire, has not been in the sophisticated surrounds of most European people; he has not had that contact. Nevertheless, he has had the ability to stand up for his race and, I believe, to lead them to the fine and honourable decision which has taken place. This is still not enough for the antagonists, the people who are endeavouring, even now, to destroy the system, his actions and the agreement that has been made. Only last week I read in a Press statement that Mr Hawke is now to go to Arnhem Land to discuss the matter further with Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu. In fairness to this person, could he not be left alone with his Aboriginal people to work out their future in Arnhem Land and in what we call the Kakudu National Park, the uranium province, or whatever one wishes to call it? Now that the decision has been reached that mining should continue, why should these people not be left alone to work out their future?

The amendments proposed in the Bill are quite reasonable. If one goes back to the memorandum of understanding that was arranged by the Labor Government in October 1975 one will see that it agreed to put up 72 Vi per cent of the capital in return for a 50 per cent equity. I believe that the former Labor Government should be commended for showing initiative and backing this project in the first place, thereby bringing about this development, but I do not believe that it is the role of government in the future to exceed its holding of 50 per cent equity in the Ranger project. I think that it is quite reasonable for the Government’s capital inflow to be reduced from 72 Vi per cent to 50 per cent.

We must also consider the continuation of the project. Under previous arrangements, this vast development would have taken place on very shaky grounds. The tenure of the lease was insufficient. Everyone must agree that if tremendous development of the type envisaged is to take place a firm tenure must be arrived at. Of course, this has not been the case. How could this tremendous development, costing many millions of dollars, be expected to take place in the north of Australia on the shaky foundations that would have existed if this amending Bill had not been introduced?

I think that I should raise another point at this stage. When we are considering the future of uranium mining we must remember that, particularly in the last two years, the people of the Northern Territory- in fact, people throughout Australia- have become more and more interested in the development and surveillance of northern Australia. Some people may not believe it but this uranium development will bring about tremendous developments. It will bring about development in other sections of the mining industry in that other minerals will be required. It will bring about developments in the transport industry. We will see the construction of a uranium town. More importantly, Darwin Harbour will be developed. A large number of jobs also will be created. No one would dispute that the unemployment situation in the Northern Territory at the moment is bad. However, the mining of uranium will bring about great advances in the Northern Territory. One may ask why uranium mining will have an effect on surveillance. The fact is that with the development of the north and the movement of people into the north, more people will settle in the remote areas. If the country is opened up in this way and more people move into the area, I say to those people who are concerned about the surveillance of the Northern Territory- I am one of themthat this will bring about more safeguards for the future.

I wish to refer briefly to the clauses of the Bill. The initial authority for mining is issued for a period of 21 years. Clause 6 seeks to insert a new section 4 1C in the Act. It states, in part, that the applicants should apply in writing to the Minister not earlier than 6 years and not later than 4 years before the expiration of the mining period. Proposed new section 4 lc (3) states:

Where an application is made under sub-section ( 1 ), the Minister administering the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 shall endeavour to obtain, not later than one year before the expiration of the mining period, the extension of the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) -

Proposed new section 41c (4) (b) states: as soon as practicable, but not later than 6 months before the expiration of the rnining period, give to the applicants a notice in writing setting out those conditions and restrictions.

Proposed new section 41c (5) states that the applicant has to indicate within three months following the receipt of the notice, through an application to the Minister, that he wants to have an extension of the lease. Perhaps the Minister can answer a question I want to ask. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the Bill and I have overlooked it. However, the Bill has not been in front of us for very long. It was introduced only yesterday. Bearing in mind all the problems and negotiations that have taken place in the last few months, what will happen in the future if the Minister is not in a position to offer the rnining company an extension of lease, as dealt with in clause 6? A problem may arise which is similar to the problem which arose this year when the Government was not in a position to bring about an agreement. At the end of the first period of extension there could be a breakdown in consultations or negotiations. Is it not a fact that the Minister may not be in a position to offer to the applicant- that is the term used in the Bill- what has been stated in new section 4 lc (3)? The proposed new section states in part:

  1. . shall endeavour to obtain, not later than one year before the expiration of the mining period-

The term ‘shall endeavour to obtain’ puts fears in my mind that in the future- perhaps at the end of this 21 -year period- we will once again have to go through all the tremors and strains that the people of Australia have had to experience in the last few months. I support the Bill.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I oppose the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. It is alarming to see an attempt being made by the Government to legislate beyond its own time. The ethical implications of this kind of intent are in themselves serious since surely under our system of democracy it is basic that when a government loses the confidence of the people through an election it also loses the right to influence the affairs of the nation in a decisive way as from that time. It is all the more alarming to see such an attempt being made by a government within an area of concern which that government knows to be a matter of deep division within the Australian community. The debate which has taken place so far today has demonstrated that. I reinforce my point by saying that this was indicated by a secret written ballot conducted of 6,000 Australian Democrat members last year to determine our policy on uranium. That ballot consulted more Australians on that subject than have been consulted at any other time before or since. I assure honourable senators that it was a ballot of middle Australia. More than 70 per cent of those people voted for a policy option stating that uranium should not be exported from Australia until three vital criteria could be met. The first is that means exist for the safe storage of nuclear wastes through the necessary timespan of many thousands of years. In this regard I mention that the half life of plutonium is 24,400 years. That gives some idea of the time span in respect of which it is necessary to think. We have to think much further forward into the future than we can count back into history. The second criterion in our policy is that the means exist to guarantee that plutonium created in such profusion as a by-product of the nuclear power industry is not diverted to the making of nuclear bombs by irresponsible governments or criminal elements. The third element of our policy is that in the light of these requirements the nuclear power industry is economic when compared with other sources of electric power.

These matters relate directly to the very basis of consideration of this Bill which I see as being the flexibility in decision-making in the future in the whole area of nuclear power and the export of uranium so that the decisions may quickly and readily be taken in accordance with the wishes of the Australian people. The future viability of the nuclear power industry becomes a matter for deep concern in any consideration of this Bill. Nothing could be more basic to it. We in the Australian Democrats are satisfied that the first requirement we have set down in our policy, that is the safe storage of nuclear wastes, has not yet been met although in some small ways some progress has been made. We await with interest the final costing of nuclear waste disposal, especially that created by the closing down and dismantling of nuclear power stations. This aspect in itself indicates the necessity for policies concerning the whole area of nuclear energy to be as free and open as possible in the future.

As some honourable senators would know, some of the world’s first nuclear power reactors are due for close-down and disposal, yet no satisfactory means of doing this has yet been worked out other than at enormous cost. Sometimes it involves burying the whole station in an enormous quantity of concrete. Disposal methods are variously estimated to cost between 20 per cent and 50 per cent of the original installation cost. The quantity of material involved in such cases is very large- a matter of tonnes; certainly not an amount that could be fitted into a beer mug, to recall at this stage a recent flight of fancy of one of our better-known Western Australian mining magnates.

As to the security of plutonium, it can only be said that international safeguards are not adequate. Ships with whole cargoes of nuclear material have gone missing in mysterious circumstances and it has been reasonably established that there is already existing in the world a black market for plutonium which serves very willing buyers at very high prices.

As experience in the more advanced nuclear countries is showing, these prime factors of waste disposal and control are tending to make nuclear power uneconomic, quite apart from any moral, safety or environmental considerations. The cost of reactor construction has increased a good deal in recent years, partly because it is now recognised that much greater and more comprehensive safeguards are necessary in a mechanical sense if reactors are to be safe throughout their lifetime. Indeed, the productive lifetime of reactors is shorter than was once hoped in the days when we believed that nuclear power was to be the great hope of tomorrow. These cost factors are, of course, the basic reason why most of the advanced Western nations are now not carrying out the nuclear programs that they projected a decade ago. I suggest that there again is reason for absolute flexibility for future governments to deal with uranium in a way which suits the circumstances of the time, without limitation, without any kind of hindrance.

By the end of 1975, 19 countries had installed 157 reactors over a 15-year period producing a total output of almost 72,000 megawatts. It was expected, on early projections, that this might rise to 500,000 megawatts by 1985, a date now not far off, and some projections were that as much as 2.5 million megawatts would be produced by the year 2000. There was the view that nuclear power would provide cheap and safe energy throughout the world. But now the picture is one of major nations abandoning or restricting their nucler power programs severely. Japan, which expected to have a nuclear power capacity of 60,000 megawatts by 1985, now seems likely to have barely one-third of that amount- about 21,000 megawatts. I noted a recent decision of Austrian voters not to use a reactor which had been built. That decision, interestingly enough, was the result of a referendum arising from a citizen’s initiative, a civilised aspect of government that the Australian Democrats believe ought to be introduced by the citizens of Australia, acting on their own behalf and in their own interests.

How can any attempt to perpetuate the uranium mining industry through legislative means be justified in circumstances in which there has been an actual decline in nuclear power production and when there is recognition, as there is in the State of California, that it is necessary for societies to live without nuclear power. That has been the decision of California, one of the most advanced American States, a group of 2 1 million people. They now say that it is viable to support their society by other means of power. In this regard I think we can recall the tragic death of Congressman Ryan who was one of the people behind this investigation. He is a great loss to the world.

Instead of introducing these amendments the Government should be considering the fact that the nations which are now seeking nuclear power houses and nuclear fuels are of a quite different and more alarming type. They are typically autocracies, like Libya, Uganda and the Philippines. They are typically nations whose approach to technology has been far from meticulous. They are typically nations which, based on their known records, might not be at all averse to acquiring a number of dirty atom bombs- that is, high fall-out type atom bombs, the sort of crude device which can be produced in association with an ordinary power reactor at quite low cost and with access to quite limited technologyprecisely the type of atomic weapon which was produced by India through the use of its Candu reactor. These nations also are places where economic conditions are not so good as to guarantee the kind of adequate spending on nuclear installations that would ensure maximum safety. I believe it is true that the low rate of mishap associated with nuclear power houses over the last two decades has been due in no small part to the fact that it is the highly developed nations technologically, such as the United States, West Germany and Japan, amongst others, which have built and maintained the reactors.

Unfortunately the nations now wanting reactors and nuclear fuel are also places in which, because of their autocratic governments, dissident movements exist- dissident movements which already have shown themselves to be so desperate that they would seize any possible opportunity for violent revolt, or merely the chance of attracting world publicity to themselves. Surely we can see in this situation a danger to the whole world in the spread of nuclear power or the attempt to promote it artificially as this legislation attempts to do. Such nations do not have well established and reliable law and order enforcement procedures. Such nations also very often are ruled by juntas supported by power bases, often military, within which corruption of all kinds is rampant.

An interesting example of great relevance to this country and to this Bill is the Philippines. It is interesting and relevant because Australia already has made commitments to supply it with nuclear fuel. That nuclear fuel will be used at the first Filipino power reactor located quite close to Manila. It is relevant that we consider some of the circumstances of that reactor. We are fortunate in that only today there was an interview on the Australian Broadcasting Commission AM program with a nun, Sister Moorehead, who had been to the Philippines. She gave a report on this matter. She said:

In actual fact this particular plant will only benefit the people of Manila. Primarily, it will benefit the multinationals, the big international companies that have factories in the Philippines and the profits and money from those factories that is being taken out of the country does not benefit the people actually at all. The people in the Philippines need human housing, adequate nutrition, food and all this son of thing before they need electricity.

The next point made by Sister Moorehead was more sobering and much more relevant to the provisions of this Bill. She said:

It’s actually documented- I’m not just saying this off the top of my head- that this nuclear plant is on an earthquakeprone zone, that the reactor is quite close to a fault zone. It is surrounded by five volcanoes, four of which are classified as active. It is actually verified that already there has been corruption and fraud in the building of the plant and so inferior concrete is being used which makes it a definite safety hazard.

I ask Government senators whether they would like to have that on their consciences. I certainly would not like to have it on mine.

I intended considering the security aspects of the Bill which I think ought to be considered but as Senator Tate has raised them I will not take up the time of the Senate by going over them again other than to indicate my agreement with the suggestion that if the Government wants to amend this Act it should look first at . section S sub-section (4). It should recognise that the Act is unduly repressive because it relates purely to nuclear power, the science of which is now so well and so openly known as to require quite different provisions which separate completely the power generation area from the military area. The Government does not seem to have understood the basic problem when it framed these amendments. It appears in all good faith to wish to perpetuate in a solidified way into the future- 21 years or more- the right of private corporations to export uranium to wherever they wish within reason. The Government does not seem to realise that this is cloud cuckoo land where nuclear energy is concerned; there is no El Dorado for Australia in nuclear energy and uranium.

Export of nuclear fuels may make some money for a few interests, many of which are foreign, but the effect on the nation at large will be negligible, as the first Ranger report indicated, clearly enough I should have thought, for everybody to understand. It seems that fuel will be exported at a likely terrible cost to human beings in other countries, human beings who live under governments which use military means to crush dissent. Again, that is not a situation which I would like on my conscience.

I predict, without any pleasure at all and with great sorrow, that the Filipino reactor will be the scene of a massive and tragic accident due either to structural faults or to volcanic activity around it. This is not my own personal view; it has been stated repeatedly by nuclear scientists in the United States who have pleaded with their Government to intervene and try to persuade the Marcos family, which is dominating ownership and control of this reactor, to move the reactor to a safer area. But it will not do so because a reactor in close proximity to Manila means more money in the hands of the Marcos family. The fact that an accident involving the reactor would cause fallout over the whole of Manila is, I gather, of no interest to the President of the Philippines and his wife. No doubt they have means of getting away in such an event. My final comment is a tough one but I feel that it has to be made. If in decades to come some of our fuel returns to us in the form of crude and dirty atomic bombs with their inevitable very high fallout rate, we shall have only ourselves to blame.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-In passing I cannot help but wonder whether Senator Kilgariff would have felt quite the same about Galarrwuy Yunupingu, about whom he spoke so feelingly, if the small group of members of the Northern Land Council who signed the Ranger agreement had not signed it. I wonder whether then he would have felt that Galarrwuy Yunupingu was a fine upstanding young man who should be left in peace. I am sorry that all Government supporters are not here to participate in this debate which means so much to so many people in Australia. Honourable senators opposite, such as Senator Young, should participate in this debate instead of making accusations that some members of the Australian Labor Party want to support the rnining of uranium. Senator Young should come into the chamber and tell us who those members are. If he had such an intimate knowledge of their real feelings he would tell us. The fact that he does not puts the lie once and for all to the story that more than half of the Australian Labor Party members in reality wants to mine and export uranium. That just is not so, and it is not so because we in the Australian Labor Party know of the difficulties that this would involve. Members of the Labor Party outside this chamber do not want uranium mined and used any more than do 50 per cent of the Australian population. I invite Senator Young to give honourable senators the names of those members of the Australian Labor Party who, he says, support uranium mining.

At one stage the Australian Labor Party did support the mining of uranium but it was not then aware of the dangers and the difficulties attached to the use of uranium and nuclear power. The Opposition is concerned enough and big enough when it sees the difficulties and understands the problems to change its policy. That is more than I can say for members of this Government. They know in their hearts what the problems and difficulties are. They are spelt out chapter and verse. There is not one scientist in the world who, with the support of his colleagues, would tell us that there is a safe way to handle the waste from the use of uranium.

Senator Chipp:

– Except Sir Philip Baxter.

Senator MELZER:

– Yes, except Sir Philip Baxter who says: ‘Madam, you should have faith’. There is not one scientist who could tell us of a safe method. If there was a scientist who had a foolproof method, he and the uranium miners would have told the world about it because they would have by-passed all the difficulties and problems. However, they have not because they cannot. We are told that perhaps something will work; we are told that scientists are looking for something that will work; and we are told that this work will be done in the future. But the work has not been done yet, and not one person can stand up and say that it has been. I am pleased to say that even the vitrification story seems to have died away.

The Opposition is told that all it is really doing is pressuring the Aborigines. The difference between the Government and the Labor Party is that the Opposition is not run by the uranium miners, most of whom have overseas allegiances, whereas it appears that the Government is. Commissioner Fox said in his report that uranium is a very special metal. I can say only that uranium miners must be very special miners because they get very special treatment from this Government. The Fox report also said that the Act that the Government is now amending was inappropriate. Government supporters, every time they stand up to speak on this Bill, quote the Fox report and say, not only in this chamber but also outside, how much they support it and what a fine report it is; and the Government admits, by putting through the second amendment to the Act in eight months, that the Act is inappropriate.. Yet the Government refuses to abide by Commissioner Fox’s recommendation that it should not use this Act if it intends going ahead with the mining of uranium.

This amendment is further proof of the inappropriateness of the Act and will mean that no stricter safety measures and no new environmental safeguards will be able to be brought in once the Bill is passed into law, despite the fact that everybody, including this Government, admits and accepts that there is no threshold information available at this point on which changes to the environment can be judged. The Government is just setting up machinery to cover the environment as it now is; but when mining gets under way, if it does, and the information starts to flow in, if it starts to flow in, the Government will not be able to alter the circumstances under which uranium can be mined because the Government will be tied by the provisions of this Bill. This will be so despite the fact that no project sites have yet been proclaimed for Jabiluka and Nabarlek, the two areas that Mr Anthony is hell bent on getting into production. No provisions exist to protect those sites. We know that Commissioner Fox said specifically that there should be no irrevocable undertaking to mine uranium because we know too Utile about the problems and difficulties that would be encountered. Yet the Government is tying the people of this country to an agreement that cannot be broken- an agreement relating to the mining of uranium for a falling market. No extraordinary developments will take place in the Northern Territory because of uranium mining; no massive number of jobs will come out of uranium mining, because the market is falling, and the uranium miners know that. That is why they are so desperate to get something out of the country and to get some money while there is a little prospect of a market left.

Overseas the production of nuclear power stations has been drastically cut; the use of electricity from nuclear power has been drastically cut. In America, the General Electric company said that halfway through this century it was faced with the greatest disaster, so far as the production of nuclear power plants was concerned, that it had ever been faced with. ‘There will be no nuclear future’, it said. The Energy Commission in America said that nuclear power was finished; it was gone; it was over. Orders are down to an extraordinarily small number in the United States- something like four- and those four are doubtful. The German producers of nuclear power stations say gloomily that there is no future in the industry. Japan- the customer most lauded by this Government and the country that in the 1970s, at the height of the furore about the use of nuclear energy, proposed the installation of 60,000 megawatts of generating capacity by 1985- now says that it will have no more than 26,000 megawatts by 1985, and it may not even reach that because of the sharp contraction in the growth rate, the drop in demand for electricity and public opposition to nuclear power. Similarly, Germany has reduced its program. America has reduced its program.

One of the overriding reasons all over the world is the cost of the building and disposal of those nuclear power stations.

Senator Mcintosh:

– And Austria voted against it.

Senator MELZER:

– Yes, and Austria voted against it. I quote from the International Atomic Energy Agency:

Soaring costs of nuclear power projects far beyond the originally estimated limit have led to great difficulties, disappointments, controversies and even to the cancellation of projects. This has happened also amongst countries with some experience in nuclear technology. It appears to be even more difficult for inexperienced countries and companies to control the costs of a nuclear project unless they buy a standard nuclear unit from an experienced supplier, which means little participation of their local manufacturing and engineering capacity.

Later it says that the Environment Energy and Natural Resources Sub-Committee of the United States Congress published its findings on the cost of nuclear power. It said:

Neither the Federal Government nor the Nuclear Industry has prepared reliable cost estimates for the ultimate disposal and perpetual care of radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel.

It said further-

After 30 years of nuclear power development, technology to dismantle a large commercial reactor has not yet been demonstrated and the costs of dismantling such a reactor are still unknown.

It finally stated:

Capital construction costs of nuclear plants as well as fuel costs have risen dramatically. Construction costs have risen 10 times faster than the Consumer Price Index and more than twice that of coal fired plants.

So, this is the market for which this Government is taking extraordinary action. Is it any wonder that we wonder what sort of hold the uranium miners have over this Government? Above all, in this argument we must remember that we have not the only source of uranium in this world. More and more reports are coming in of more and more findings of deposits of uranium. As has been said before in this debate and earlier, the fuel can even be distilled from sea water. The Japanese are working on that particular program at the moment. It is a falling market. If the market is falling it is conceivable that governments could offer customers other facilities. What people in Australia are afraid of is that this Government will do just that and offer customers other facilities to get their custom. We might find this Act being amended further to allow for the disposal of waste on this continent. Already the Atomic Energy Commission has a new Environmental Division. It seems highly likely that its inquiries will be into the disposal of waste in Australia.

All this is happening despite the Aboriginal people. It is extraordinary how, before the agreement with the Aboriginal people was signed, we heard comments about Aborigines having too many rights, about apartheid in reversal and about the interests of the white people of Australia being sacrificed in the interests of the Aborigines. Now that in rather dubious circumstances this agreement has been signed, we find people like Senator Kilgariff castigating people and talking about every method under the sun being used to have the Aborigines not sign the agreement. We believe that this Government used every method under the sun to pressure the Aborigines into signing the agreement. There seems to be ample evidence for that. If Senator Kilgariff is assured of it being the other way, if he has the evidence which he says he has, perhaps the Government would like to hold a full and open inquiry into just how that agreement with the Northern Land Council was signed, under what circumstances it was signed, who signed it, and why the meeting had to be held in secret.

Fox said in his report that it had to be acknowledged that the mining of uranium could lead to nuclear war. This country has initialled an agreement to sell uranium to South Korea. I remember that, when the American Government said that it was going to take its troops home from South Korea, the South Korean Government said: ‘Now we are very interested in the uranium in Australia because we will need it to protect ourselves’. Just lately, at the same time as this Government was announcing that it had initialled an agreement to sell uranium to South Korea, the South Korean Press came out and pointed out that South Korea had the equipment, it had the warheads and it had the equipment to transport the warheads; and that all it needed was the nuclear warheads and it was then in the race with other larger and stronger powers in the world. This is from a country that has signed the non-proliferation treaty- the treaty that is supposed to protect us.

If a country like South Korea is now talking about adding nuclear warheads to the equipment it already has- and it signed the nonproliferation treaty- what are we going to do about a country like India that has not signed the non-proliferation treaty? We all know that India was given a reactor and fuel by Canada to experiment for peaceful purposes. India cheated and it made a bomb. The world tut-tutted and said that that was a very bad thing to do. So, for a little time India did not have any fuel with which to use its reactor; but then America said to India: ‘I am sure that you have learned your lesson. If you will promise not to do it again, we will give you supplies of fuel’. America has given it supplies of fuel. Now, just in the last few weeks, India has announced that the reactor it has near Bombay is producing weapons-grade plutonium. Why would a country want to produce weapons-grade plutonium, but to put it into weapons? What are we going to do about something like that? What can America do about something like that? America says that it has safeguards too, but how did it safeguard the world from that sort of action?

No piece of paper safeguards the world. No treaty, no agreement safeguards the world in those circumstances. We have to take the responsibility. If we dig uranium out of the ground, if we sell it to people and if we make any sort of profit out of a material that can affect lives for generations to come, then we have to take some responsibility. We say that the responsibility we should take is to leave uranium in the ground until such time as the world is assured that the material can be handled safely. Much effort is being put into feather bedding the uranium miners, while the majority of the Australian people who cannot be called, in Senator Kilgariff ‘s words, ‘left wing activists or extremists’ do not want uranium mined. Of course, this will be acknowledged by a Labor Party government. The uranium miners must remember that, when we become the Government shortly, we will prevent the export of uranium. One must acknowledge the integrity of the Australian people.

At the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference the question of international terrorism came up. The use of nuclear weapons and plutonium by terrorists was raised. Australians made the point that one way to prevent that use was to leave uranium in the ground so that the weapons and the plutonium would not be available. The Canadian delegation said: One must acknowledge the integrity of the Australian people, who up to this point have not exported their uranium because they are concerned about the result of that export’. I just wish that this Government would show its integrity in the matter.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I wish to make a very brief contribution to this debate to sum up the points which have been made by my colleagues on this side of the chamber. In that context I include Senator Mason, because I know he shares exactly the same sentiments that are held by honourable senators in the Australian Labor Party. There is nothing that I can really add that is new. But at the risk of being a little repetitious may I briefly restate the points which have been made. Senator Button so ably pointed out the breaches of the first Fox report that are occurring under this legislation. The Government seems oblivious to the fact that in drawing up this legislation it has gone back on the very commitments which it gave to this country in respect of the Fox report. The Labor Government made certain commitments but we said they would be subject to the findings of the Fox report. Unfortunately, of course, we were without the benefit of that report when implementing our decisions. But this Government should have been as completely committed as any other government to the findings of Mr Justice Fox. Senator Tate dealt with the civil liberties aspect of the legislation and rightly pointed out the dangers- the hidden dangers- that exist. He pointed out how these dangers can be abused in other countries, and even in Australia. Senator Mason dealt with the dangers of waste. As he said, we live in a nuclear age in which the technology of nuclear power production has outstripped our capacity to get rid of the radioactive wastes that reactors produce. Yet we as a country seem quite prepared to lock ourselves into the world system of the nuclear energy industry again oblivious to the dangers that we are not only creating for ourselves but also creating for the rest of mankind.

The question of costs was dealt with by both Senator Mason and Senator Melzer. I wonder whether we realise the significance of the change that has occurred in this industry over the past 10 years. Figures have been quoted to show the rundown in the commitments by many nations around the world to their nuclear energy programs. All projections have been wound down quite dramatically. One of the major reasons is that the construction cost of reactors has gone way beyond the original calculations. Of course, in the last year or two one has had to take into account the significant cost of pulling down these establishments. As someone said, this cost is now as much as 50 per cent of the installation cost. Apparently reactors cannot be build for less than a $1 billion investment. Is it any wonder that governments are now finding that they cannot maintain the enormous financial burdens involved in the construction of nuclear reactors.

If we look around the world at some of the places where nuclear reactors are being built we find, for example, that a reactor is being bum on an earthquake fault in the Philippines. It seems that even if the Philippines Government does not seem to be concerned about that we go on merrily supplying uranium to a country which is prepared to construct reactors under those conditions. The Westinghouse reactors are being built in Rio de Janeiro on a base which apparently is not adequate. Already, Westinghouse is in trouble with the foundations of that construction. Goodness knows what may flow from catastrophes which could result from the faulty design in the first place of any of these reactors.

It seems to me that opinions all over the world are changing in respect of the uranium industry. Opinions are being influenced not only by the factors that have been mentioned in the course of the debate- the waste, the costs and so on- but also by the moral question of what we may be doing to this generation and many generations ahead of us. I am one- and I do not hesitate to say this- who has come to realise that the opinions I held three or four years ago are wrong. I have learned a lot in the last three or four years. I realise now that the continuation of this dangerous industry all over the world can be only fraught with danger and apprehension for the whole of the human race.

In what way will the developing countries be recipients of the benefits? They w3l benefit in a marginal sense. Some months ago when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) put down his statement about the development of the industry around the world he gave figures which showed that only a handful of reactors were being built in developing countries because of the almost total incapacity of those countries to invest the enormous sums of money required. Of the 500 reactors which are already in operation or about to be put into operation, the overwhelming majority are in the wealthy countries and any economic benefits that are to be gained will be gained by those countries.

I do not think I need to say any more because the arguments have been well canvassed. I want to indicate the Labor Party’s continued opposition to the development of this industry. The Labor Party will not accept Australia’s involvement in the world nuclear industry until such time as the proper safeguards which any reasonable and thinking person would demand are provided.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- The Opposition, supported by the Australian Democrats, has used this Bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act as a vehicle to debate and to oppose the Government’s policy to permit the mining and export of uranium. When one looks at the provisions of the Bill one may be surprised to find that they, as such, have attracted a debate of this character. In fact the provisions of the Bill are simply ancillary to a decision made some time ago which has been the subject of continuing debate inside and outside this Parliament.

It has been found that the existing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act which provide for an authority to mine under that Act, and which were drawn in completely different circumstances many years ago, are not appropriate to deal with authorities to be given for the commercial operation of uranium mining. It is said that this Act should not be used; that it is not the proper vehicle to give authority for uranium mining. The views of Mr Justice Fox have been quoted. But the fact of the matter is that the Government inherited from its predecessor, the Labor Government, a memorandum of understanding between the Government and uranium mining companies under which a joint venture operation was to be carried on under the Atomic Energy Act.

This Government does not hold the attitude which the Opposition expressed in relation to this whole matter. The Government believes that when a government has entered into commercial contracts it should stand by those contracts and observe them. This Government believes that, even if it is minded to do so, it should not exercise powers which it may have to change them. That is why the Government has proceeded with this joint venture agreement under the Atomic Energy Act.

The purpose of the Bill is simply to provide normal commercial conditions such as would appear in any authority given for an operation of this size. Very large sums of money will be invested in this operation and will be at risk. If some of the views of Opposition speakers are correct, apparently the mining of uranium will be a great commercial risk, so obviously there must be security of tenure. That is provided for. There must be, in an agreement, clauses whereby interest can be assigned and there can be rights of renewal. These are all quite common, ordinary legal and commercial provisions such as are found in an authority of this kind.

The Bill also contains a provision whereby, if conditions are not met, the Minister may prohibit mining operations from continuing. That is a very important provision and one that seems to have been overlooked by Opposition speakers. The mining operations in the Northern Territory are to be conducted in such a way as to observe very closely a whole host of environmental safeguards and conditions. These have been the subject of a package of legislation that was passed by this Parliament earlier this year. They are the subject of legislation that has been brought down in the Northern Territory. They are the subject of conditions which have been entered into already and which the Government has an obligation to ensure will be observed. One of the provisions of the Bill is designed to ensure that the Government will be in a position to ensure that the mining companies will observe the necessary environmental conditions.

I do not intend at this stage to discuss the pros and cons of uranium mining. That debate has taken place at other times, and in view of the stage of the session that we have now reached I do not propose to go over it again. I want simply to emphasise that the provisions of the Bill do not present an appropriate vehicle for such a debate. The Bill has very limited but necessary purposes and the Government is seeking its passage because it wishes to implement the policies that it has already announced, policies which are embodied in legislation which this Parliament has already approved. These measures are simply ancillary to that and are such as to ensure that the conditions upon which uranium mining has been approved by the Government and the Parliament will be observed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Durack) put:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

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

AYES: 34

NOES: 25

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2498

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I shall speak only very briefly on this Bill as the Opposition does not oppose it. Its purpose is to include for purposes of assessing import duties the cost of packaging in accordance with what I understand is known as the Brussels Accord- in any event to conform with international practice. Because it is a move to conform with international practice the Opposition will not be opposing the Bill. It may be argued, validly I think, that where the cost of packaging is high or a high proportion of the total cost, and given that packaging previously was exempt from duty, the effect of this measure will be to increase the rate of duty applied on imports. It may be argued also that this is not warranted but I suggest that in those cases where duty has increased appreciably and where it is considered that there is no justification for such an increase in duty, the appropriate response or remedy is to alter the rate of duty. It seems to us a common sense measure that we should conform with standard international practice in this regard. I understand that subsequent to my comments Senator Evans has some remarks to make about the legal aspects of this Bill. We shall not oppose it.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I rise not to speak on any policy issue underlying this Bill but on a matter which I submit is equally appropriate for a house of review to contemplate- the question of the constitutional validity of this Bill if it is enacted in its present form. The question arises under section 55 of the Constitution which states, in part:

Laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

This, of course, is the basis on which, over many years now, with the effective approval, if not the direction, of the High Court to this effect, assessment Acts have been traditionally distinguished in their presentation from taxing Acts properly so called. Against this background I draw the attention of the Senate to the existence of the Customs Tariff Act 1966 which already makes provision for taxing the kind of packaging which is very much an issue in this legislation. Section 1 5 of the

Customs Tariff Act is the general section which imposes duties of customs in accordance with the detailed schedules. The First Schedule of that Act, item 44.2 1 , makes specific provision with respect to both a general rate and a preferential rate for wooden packaging of the kind that is in issue here. I think that the currently applicable general rate under that schedule is 22.5 per cent. The Second Schedule of the Act, item 12, is the exempting provision and that makes it clear that such outside packaging is entirely exempt under the terms at least of the Customs Tariff Act and that no duty is applicable. It counterbalances, as it were, the effect of the general duty imposing provision in the First Schedule.

The Customs Tariff Act is the Act in the package of customs legislation which always has been thought to be, and properly so, the Act which actually imposes the respective levels of duty on particular classes of goods. What we are dealing with here is an amendment to the Customs Act 1901 which, of course, is the Act which deals with just about everything except the actual imposition of taxing rates. It deals with assessment procedures, the administration of customs and with innumerable other aspects associated with customs. What we now have is an amendment to the Customs Act 1910 which, when read in conjunction with the amendment attempted along the same lines in 1976, will have the effect of bringing outside packaging within the dutiable value of imported goods. The result is that packaging of the kind that is in question here now will be dutiable at quite substantial rates- indeed, at the rates that are applicable to the particular class of goods around which the packaging is established. In the case, for example, of car parts brought into Australia for the purpose of assembly, the duty that is now applicable, if it has not recently risen, is of the order of 35 per cent. The effect of this amendment to the Customs Act would be to make such packaging surrounding car assembly components dutiable at that higher rate.

Bringing all this together, the suggestion has been made to me- it seems to be a point of some considerable validity and certainly is strongly arguable- that the result of the provision we are now asked to enact is a Bill which could be construed by the courts and indeed is likely to be construed, as itself imposing taxation. I suggest that this legislation is itself imposing the rate of tax on packaging which is applicable to the particular goods it surrounds. The argument then becomes that this provision is intended to appear in the Customs Act, not in the Customs Tariff Act. In other words it is to appear in an Act which, in the language of section 55 of the Constitution, cannot be said on any view to be an Act which imposes taxation and does nothing else.

I have endeavoured to compress a rather complicated argument within a very short compass but I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) whether he is prepared to concede that there may be some substance in the technical point I have just made. If he is prepared to concede that it may have some substance, I ask, further, whether he would be prepared to do what I suggest is the only appropriate thing to do under the circumstances and that is to withdraw this legislation and re-consider its form before reintroducing it into the Parliament. I make the further point that there is no basic constitutional limitation on the Commonwealth’s ability to impose whatever rate of taxation it likes on packaging as such but there are some very real constitutional limitations on the form of presentation in which that legislation can be brought forward. It may well be, and I am putting the point quite strongly to the Minister, that this legislation will be unconstitutional in its present form, and, even worse, will throw into doubt the constitutional validity of the whole Customs Act if it can be perceived to impose a duty of taxation. Accordingly, if it is to become part of our law it ought to be through the route of the Customs Tariff Act, not the route proposed in this amendment which, as I have said, is a change to the Customs Act itself.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its support of this measure which is designed to make clear what the Government and the Parliament thought was clear when amendments to the Customs Act were passed in 1976 introducing the new system of valuation for assessment of customs duty. I also thank Senator Evans for his contribution and noted his learned comments on the constitutional pitfalls in the path of any government under our federal system. However, that is not a matter for the Senate but for the High Court to decide. Nevertheless, I appreciate the point raised by him and I will give it some consideration, although I do not think that now is the time or the place to do so. The legislation is necessary for the purpose of clarifying a doubt which has arisen and is in pursuance of a government policy that is to take effect from 10 July this year. I hope that the Senate will give this Bill a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2499

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Before the debate on this Bill is resumed I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4)

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it the wish of the Senate to have a general debate covering both measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 seeks to enact the tariff alterations that were announced in the last Federal Budget Clause 3 of the Bill, in conjunction with clause 2, proposes enactment of the alterations in the duties on excise on beer, spirits and manufactured tobacco products. Clause 4 deals with the enactment of the alteration in excise duty on crude oil as set out in Excise Tariff Proposal No. 3.

My speech will be as short as the second reading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) who introduced the Bill. That speech was of 10 paragraphs’ duration and set out in very bald terms what the Government intends to do to raise several hundred million dollars of additional revenue. What the speech did not tell us, of course, was why the Government is doing it. It also did not disclose the fact that this is a breach of a commitment given by the Liberal-National Country Party Government after the general election of 1977. 1 daresay that one of the major attractions during the course of that election campaign was the promise given by Mr Fraser that he would reduce taxation in this country. He promised during the course of that campaign that if his Government were re-elected, in February of this year he would enact reductions in taxation in Australia. We all remember the propaganda put out by the Government on this issue, with advertisements showing a fistful of notes which, allegedly, was being given back to the people as a result of the generosity of Mr Fraser. Of course when February came those reductions were made but in the Budget introduced in August of this year we saw the whole lot taken back again. On top of the $500m that was taken back, these indirect charges totalling no less than $ 1,000m were introduced. This Bill, of course, deals with those indirect charges. We oppose them, and my colleague,

Senator McLaren, will be moving amendments in respect of each of them during the Committee stage. Senator McLaren will deal in particular with the excise as it concerns the brandy industry.

I wish only to add that in opposing the Bills we do so in the knowledge that they have been introduced by a Government that is in real trouble, particularly with its revenue, because of the manner in which it has mishandled the economy and the manner in which the revenue has run down because the economy has run down. It ought not to be forgotten that the position in which we find ourselves today as a nation is a direct result of the stringent and restrictive practices that have been adopted by Mr Fraser since he has been in office. He and his colleagues have no one but themselves to blame for the difficulties they are in. Notwithstanding the fact that increases in the excise on beer and cigarettes is something which we have seen imposed by all governments over the years, the particularly reprehensible nature of these increases in indirect charges following the commitments given during the course of the last election campaign, only serve to illustrate that the undertakings and the promises given by this Government are totally unreliable. It is for those reasons that we oppose the Bill before the Senate.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– The Senate is discussing the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978. One of the aspects of this Bill about which I am particularly concerned is the additional imposition that is being placed on Australian brandy. The excise on brandy has a long history which is particularly well known to South Australians. I regret very much that the Government has chosen to disregard the significance of representations that have been made to it over a year or so with respect to this issue by members from both sides of the Parliament. In March this year I asked a question of Senator Webster, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, following other representations I had made to Ministers concerned with this matter. At that time, I referred to the present serious over-supply of wine grapes and I asked:

In view of the great success which attended the move of the then Government in the Budget of 19S4 to allow an excise differential of 30s per proof gallon of Australian brandy as against other potable spirits, will the Government give urgent consideration to the immediate reintroduction of a differential in equivalent monetary terms to the differential allowed at that time?

I drew attention to the fact that brandy production requires, I think, roughly three times more- the amount varies according to whom one speaks about the matter but it is considerably more- than the amount used in wine production. This was also pointed out in 1975, of course, in the Coombs Task Force report. I quote from page 353 of that document as follows:

The preferential rates of excise and customs duties for brandy were introduced in 19S4. Excise and customs duties on all potable spirits have been increased twice since 19S4. On each occasion the differential in favour of brandy was retained at the original absolute amount.

NATURE OF THE COMMITMENT

The rates of duty are set out in the Schedule to the Excise Tariff and the Schedule to the Customs Tariff.

PURPOSE OF THE CONCESSION

The excise differential in favour of brandy was introduced as an emergency measure to assist the grape-growing industry to dispose of a glut of surplus grapes which had emerged at the time. The reduction in the retail prices of brandy thereby effected was seen as boosting demand for brandy and thereby providing an incentive for distillers to process surplus grapes. The rate of customs duty was reduced at the same time, as it is tied to the excise rate.

This, of course, had a desirable effect on sales. The adverse effect of this type of excise was adequately demonstrated in the 12 months following an earlier increase in excise- from September 1973 to August 1974- when there was a fall of approximately 24 per cent in Australian brandy clearances. However, that year was a year of exceptionally high income increases in Australia. The South Australian Department of Economic Development and Department of Agriculture and Fisheries estimate that the real impact of the 1973 brandy excise rise was a first round loss of sales of approximately 30 per cent compared with likely sales had the impost not been made. It is fairly difficult, I suppose, to make a firm judgment on the precise effect on sales. Various percentages have been put forward and claimed to be accurate. The econometric model which was produced by Professor Burley of La Trobe University suggested, I think, that the anticipated downturn in sales would be 35 per cent to 39 per cent. However, the Department of Primary Industry, for some reason or other, makes an assessment of a 5 per cent to 6 per cent downturn in sales.

That seems to be quite incredible, particularly in the light of what I have just said about an earlier increase in excise demonstrating accurately a fall in sales of 24 per cent. It is a considerable blow to the grape growers and brandy producers, particularly those in South Australia who have their properties in the Riverland area. As you well know, Mr President, the Riverland produces about 85 per cent of the brandy for the whole of Australia. I think that the State itself produces slightly in excess of 90 per cent. The effect on the Riverland people will be, according to the industry and its predictions, that those producers are likely to lose about $7.7m over a twoyear period. In my view this seems to be a quite incredible prediction. Whether it is entirely accurate is difficult to say, but we can see that there will be a considerable loss of income for people in that area when we have regard to the fact that this excise measure will bring into Consolidated Revenue about $3.85m a year. The industry has made some comments that have been reported in the Press. For example, the Wine and Brandy Producers Association of South Australia issued a Press statement which appeared in the Advertiser on Saturday, 7 October. It said in part:

South Australia Brandy producers expect a 40 per cent to 50 per cent drop in sales by November.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Is that total or just locally produced?

Senator JESSOP:

-That was said by the South Austraiian brandy producers. I gather that it implies that it is South Australia. The figures apparently are not quite so bad as that now, but they seem to indicate that there will be a decrease in sales of about 25 per cent. It is a substantial decrease. I must say in defence of the Government at this stage that certainly it could well have considered an impost on wine. That would have been very serious indeed. I ask the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) to consider what that action would have done to the Australian grape growing and wine making industries had it been contemplated. I think we can thank the Government in that respect. I know that the industry appreciates the action of the Government in not imposing a tax on wine. However, as I understand it, the industry is faced with a surplus this year of 95,000 to 100,000 tonnes of grapes. I have to be critical of the Government here because I believe that it should have waited until the Industries Assistance Commission report had been presented before making a judgment and increasing the excise on Austraiian brandy by 83.6 per cent. I think that was a bad thing to do. It would not have cost the Government very much in revenue if it had waited and deliberated after the IAC report was presented. It would have saved a lot of unnecessary heartburn for the grape growers in South Australia in particular.

A surplus of 95,000 to 100,000 tonnes is a large amount of grapes for the forthcoming 1979 vintage. The following year the situation will be worse because some grape vines have not yet come into full production. So we are going to be faced with an incredible problem, I think, the year after next. If we preserved a differential of at least 30 per cent between the excise on Australian brandy and the excise on other potable spirits such as Scotch whisky, the main competitor, I believe that some of the surplus grapes would be used. As I have said previously, the quantity of grapes required in brandy production is three or four times the quantity used in wine production. A differential excise on brandy would mean that a considerable amount of surplus grapes could be used for brandy production. Of course, sales of brandy would increase. I believe that is a very important consideration for the Government. I note with some satisfaction that the Minister has written into the second reading speech that the Government will reassess the position. He said:

The Government has received representations on behalf of the Australian brandy manufacturing industry in relation to the effect of this measure on the industry. We are concerned with the position of Australian brandy producers. Indeed although the Budget applied increases equally to all excisable spirits, it provided no new impost on Australian wine. Demonstrably this action has already stimulated domestic demand.

That is true; sales of wine have picked up to quite a large extent.

Senator O’Byrne:

– White wine.

Senator JESSOP:

– White wine in particular; but I believe that there is now an increase in demand for red wine as well. It seems to me that we should be encouraging a little more red wine drinking. I think this concern about its chemical constituents is a lot of nonsense.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Histamine.

Senator JESSOP:

– I suppose that it is a question of how much one drinks. I think one would get the same effect whether one drank three or four bottles of white wine or red wine. Wrong estimates of the effects of histamines, in my view, have caused the red wine industry some problems. The consumption will pick up and people will drink more red wine this coming season. I was also happy to see that the Government is prepared to consider carefully these representations that have already been made by the brandy industry when the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on portable spirits is presented to Parliament. Again, I could be critical of the IAC because it seems to take a long time to prepare these reports. To my knowledge, this is about the fifth report on this industry. I understand that the report was supposed to have been presented to the Government in June of this year. It still has not been presented. It is expected that the report will be presented at about the end of the year. Another report is being prepared on the wine and grape growing industry, which is expected to arrive on the Minister’s table in June or July of next year. I hope that that happens and that we are not faced with another protracted wait, perhaps until the end of next year, for that report. I certainly will be looking forward to reading that report. I ask the Minister to take note that, at that stage, I could well be moving a motion in the Senate for a differential in the excise to give Australian brandy an advantage over scotch whisky.

A great deal has been said on this subject. I believe that Senator Teague set out very clearly in his speech on the Budget the matters of substance that have to be considered. I would like to quote from newspaper cuttings which demonstrate some of the views that have been expressed about this issue. The headline in the Murray Pioneer of Thursday, 2 November, reads: ‘Brandy Tax a Savage Blow- Sir Alexander Downer Urges Combined Action’. The article states:

Although I support the Federal Government’s overall strategy in the battle against inflation their assault on the brandy producers seems incomprehensible folly which can be defeated only by the combined action of all concerned.

That gentleman, being a distinguished South Australian, is very knowledgeable about that area. I noted also a letter which was written to the editor of the Loxton News by Mr Lind, who is the General Manager of the Loxton Cooperative Winery and Distillery Ltd. I ask leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

Letter from Mr Lind 22 August, 1978

The Editor,

The Loxton News Pty

Limited,

East Terrace,

Loxton, SA 5333

Sir,

As General Manager of the Loxton Co-operative Winery and Distillery Limited and as an involved member of both the Loxton and Riverland communities I wish to vigorously condemn that section of the avarice 1978 Federal Budget that may well bring ruin to an already depressed Australian Brandy Industry. It seems most unlikely that Australian brandy distillers and Australian wine grape growers particularly those in the South Australian Riverland will be able to survive this latest serving of bureaucratic ineptitude.

One cannot help but be amazed at the callous disregard in which the Federal Government holds the Wine Grape and Australian Brandy Industries. To illustrate this point the following table details the changes in Brandy Excise over the last six years. The table also details of consumption of Australian Brandy and the revenue generated for the Federal Government.

Thus it can be readily seen that over the last six years duty has risen from $3.08 per litre of alcohol to $ 1 8.75 per litre of alcohol or an increase of 608 per cent over the period. Brandy Excise during that time has contributed just over one hundred and thirty six million dollars ($136,715,634) to Federal Government revenue. It is worthy of note that this information is sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (N.B. these figures are apart from sales tax and state licence fees).

To me the complete injustice of this ‘rip-off’ lies in the fact that up till now the wine grape industry has been one of the remaining few, non-subsidised, primary industries in Australia. In fact the reverse is probably true, that is, on a per capita basis it must be one of the most overtaxed revenue generating industries in Australia and still, Federal Governments are bent on its destruction.

To put increased Federal Government Excise Duty into another perspective I ask that the following be considered. It is conservatively forecast that the 83.6 per cent increase in Brandy Excise will result in a reduction of clearances (sales) of Australian Brandy for the financial year 1978-79, in the order of 35 per cent. The financial year 1978-79 has had the first of its six weeks subject to the old rate of excise whilst the remaining forty six weeks will be subject to the new rate of excise. Had the entire 1978-79 financial year been subject to the new rate then the loss in clearances, would be at 39 per cent.

Our estimates therefore indicate, that as a result of the excise increase the Federal Government will collect an additional 3.8 million dollars by 30 June 1979, bringing it to a level of 32.8 million dollars for the financial year.

At the new level of clearance the level of stock currently held is in excess of 13 million Lal. The balance between stocks and clearances is grossly out of proportion. At the predicted level of clearances for the year ended 30 June 1979, (of 1.855 million lal.) a stock holding of no more than 9 million Lal. could be warranted. Therefore, at least one entire production period ( 1979 Vintage) must be avoided in order to balance stocks and sales. At the 1978 levels of production of approximately 2.8 million Lal. this would result in an additional grape surplus of 3 1,800 tonnes. At an average price per tonne of $125 for Brandy grapes this will mean that grape growers will suffer a loss of revenue to the extent of 3.98 million dollars. In other words, the Government’s nett gain from excise alone is fully matched by a loss in revenue on part of the grape growers, the producing Brandy firms, will at the same time suffer losses in turnover, thus in taxable profit.

Had the Government not changed the excise, then clearances of Australian Brandy would have risen and therefore also revenue collected if one uses the Government’s own prediction of 4 per cent real growth and 5 per cent inflation.

If the loss of 31,800 tonnes could be absorbed via additional sales of wine, which is highly unlikely because of varietal mix, then total wine sales would have to grow by 11.2 per cent between 1977-78 and 1978-79, and this appears too optimistic an outlook when considering the general state of economy.

During the last six months there have been at least three industry deputations to the Federal Government arguing the case for Brandy Excise reduction. It is absolutely amazing to think that such experienced industry leaders as make up the Australian Wine Board, The Australian Wine and Brandy Producers’ Association and The Wine and Brandy Cooperative Producers’ Association should see their advice to Government ignored.

Sir, if this heartless and destructive piece of legislation is not reversed within fourteen days or less then the future of wine grape growing and processing in the Riverland of South Australia will be at an end.

I would like to think that all Riverland wine grape growers and public spirited citizens will join with me in acquainting the Federal Government via our Federal member of our absolute condemnation of any increase in Federal Brandy Excise and not rest until this heinous imposition has been removed.

  1. B. LIND
Senator JESSOP:

-I quote from page 2 of that letter where Mr Lind states:

To put increased Federal Government Excise Duty into another perspective I ask that the following be considered. It is conservatively forecast that the 83.6 per cent increase in Brandy Excise will result in a reduction of clearances (sales) of Australian Brandy for the financial year 1978-79, in the order of 35 percent.

This letter cites another figure. A 39 per cent reduction in sales was forecast by another authority and 35 per cent is cited in this letter. The Department estimated a figure of 5 per cent or 6 per cent. I am more inclined to believe that the reduction would be of the order of 20 per cent to 30 per cent rather than 5 per cent. Let us look at the position in 12 months’ time. The letter continued:

The financial year 1 978-79 has had the first of its six weeks subject to the old rate of excise whilst the remaining forty six weeks will be subject to the new rate of excise. Had the entire 1978-79 financial year been subject to the new rate then the loss in clearances would be at 39 per cent.

I think that letter spells out the industry’s concern fairly well and gives an indication of the consumption per litre of alcohol and the prevailing duties.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator JESSOP:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was talking about my concern at the impost which the Budget places on Australian brandy. I had pointed out the severe effects of this legislation on the grape growing industry in South Australia, particularly in the Riverland area. I do not intend to delay the Senate unduly because I believe that I have made the points I wished to make. However, I suggest to the

Government that, when it is considering the Industries Assistance Commission report which is expected to be presented at the end of this year, and also the other report which I hope will be presented in mid- 1979, it should take heed of what I have said about the need to provide an excise differential on Australian brandy as opposed to imported potable spirits. In my view an excise differential is essential for the continued healthy existence of the brandy and wine growing industry in Australia. In conclusion, I remind the Minister of the point that I made about putting before the Senate, after I have had a chance to examine the IAC report, a motion the thrust of which would be to emphasise the need to provide an excise differential on Australian brandy as opposed to other spirits.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking in the second reading debate on these two Bills, which are being dealt with together, I will confine my remarks to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) insofar as it relates to the excise on brandy. As my Leader, Senator Wriedt, has pointed out already, the Opposition is opposed to the Bill as a whole and I will be moving amendments to it in the Committee stage. I want to restate what our leader, Mr Hayden, said in his alternative Budget. He gave a clear undertaking that when Labor gains office in 1980 we will remove the excise increase on beer, cigarettes and spirits as well as the increase in the price of crude oil not covered by the import parity arrangements. That is a clear undertaking. I think that insofar as excise goes, the Labor Party is on record as having honoured any undertaking that it has given, particularly in respect of excise relating to the grape industry.

Senator Jessop said in his speech that the Government could well have considered an impost on wine. As we all know, and as you know only too well, Mr President, when Mr Gorton was Prime Minister of Australia the then Liberal and Country Party Government did impose an excise on wine. I think it was 50c a gallon. That caused no end of trouble, particularly in South Australia among wine co-operatives where sales slumped dramatically. It was only the efforts of people like Mr Grassby, who was then the honourable member for Riverina, Mr Norm Foster, who was then the honourable member for Sturt, and continued pressure from other members of the Labor Party that forced the Government to halve that excise during its last term in office. We gave an undertaking -

Senator Peter Baume:

– Why didn’t you take it off, Senator?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am coming to that. Your party was in government.

Senator Peter Baume:

– All talk.

Senator McLAREN:

– No, I am not all talk. Your Party was in government when the excise was imposed. We forced your Government to halve it. We gave to the grape growers a clear undertaking in our 1972 election policy that if Labor was elected we would remove the excise. Just for the information of Senator Baume, shortly after that we were elected to office and we did remove the excise.

Senator Messner:

– And then reimposed 3 lA.

Senator McLAREN:

– I will have something to say about 3 1a too because your Treasurer made promises about that and I also will refer to that.

Senator Georges:

– You tell them.

Senator McLAREN:

– I will tell them all right. Senator Jessop was very critical about the length of time that the Industries Assistance Commission is taking in presenting its report on the inquiry it is conducting. I do not want to be provocative in this debate but I would like to say to Senator Jessop that he cannot unload on the IAC the responsibility for imposing this brandy excise. It clearly was a decision of the present Government and it has to take full blame for imposing it.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Senator Baume has walked out of the chamber.

Senator McLAREN:

– I think I have answered him and if he has a look at the record he will see who took off the wine excise. Let us look at the debate on this legislation that took place in the House of Representatives last night. Mr President, I did complain in the first reading debate on this legislation that the legislation was rushed into this House although the ink was hardly dry. We are now debating the motion that the legislation be read a second time, yet this place is supposed to be the House of review. We were not given much time to review this legislation. I quickly want to refer to some remarks that were made in the other place. Mr Giles, in his speech, tried to lay on the Dunstan Labor Government blame for the increase in grape production in the Riverland district. He said that that was brought about by the Dunstan Government’s decision to increase water licences, and he named all of the wineries which got them. I heard the speech by Mr Giles last night and I have read the Hansard report. I have checked up with the office of the Deputy Premier of South Australia, Mr Corcoran, who is the Minister for Lands and who is responsible for the issuing of water licences. I am reliably informed that except for one instance there has been no increase in water licences granted in South Australia in the last 10 years. The exception was in respect of Mr Angove who received an increase in his water licence as a result of a court action which he took. He won that action and, as a result, the South Australian Government had to give him an increase in the water licence. So it can be seen that Mr Giles is wrong in blaming the Dunstan Labor Government for the giving of massive increases in water licences which in turn brought about a surplus of grapes. Mr Giles also was prompted by an interjection from Mr Porter, the honourable member for Barker, about price control, and he said:

  1. . because the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has reminded me, that by introducing, with the best motives in the world, price control on grapes the Dunstan Government has succeeded in centralising the entire wine surplus for Australia in Riverland, McLaren Vale and one or two other areas.

Of course, price control over grapes in South Australia was introduced in 1965 when Mrwho was the Premier at that time after Labor was elected?

Senator Messner:

– Oh, my God! Frank Walsh.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am indebted to the honourable senator. We all have a mental blank sometimes. Frank Walsh received many deputations from the wine grape growers aimed at bringing in price control and he agreed to their request. It was not merely a decision of a Labor government; It was at the request of the wine grape growers. Labor brought in price control in South Australia and it was complemented by the wine grape growers. In a Press release put out on 1 June last year by the present Minister for Agriculture, Mr Brian Chatterton, this was said:

Victorian wine grape growers support the South Australian Minister on price control.

Wine grape growers in Victoria have asked for quick action to ensure that new price control legislation is working in their State and in New South Wales before the next harvest.

It goes on to say:

The Sunraysia branch of the Victorian Farmers Union had written to him following their annual meeting last week indicating they want necessary legislation for price control to be introduced in both States in time to negotiate prices for the 1978 crop.

The concept of establishing minimum prices for wine grapes interstate was put forward by Mr Chatterton at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council last year. The Ministers of Agriculture in New South Wales and Victoria both agreed with Mr Chatterton that the only way to prevent a major price war within the industry was to establish stable prices.

Because of the limited time for this debate I will not quote further from that Press release, but that is clear evidence, despite what Mr Giles says in trying to blame the State Labor Government, that the other States are in agreement with price control on grapes. We in the Labor Party stand by what we did in 1965 when we were elected to office in South Australia and introduced price control on grapes because it was of major assistance to the grape growers who were at the mercy of the wineries. Senator Messner interjected and said that the Labor Party removed section 31a from the Income Tax Act. Some mention was made of this fact in the debate in the other House last night by Mr Fisher, and Mr Giles in the Committee stage also made further reference to it. Mr Giles endeavoured to blame the Labor Party when he said:

The Labor Party took the brandy industry to the cleaners in five moves while it was in government. Yet members of the Labor Party dare to be pious on this issue for no particular reason when they were the cause of the trouble in the brandy industry.

The Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce conducted an inquiry into the grape industry and the evidence given to it is quite interesting. I will refer to part of the evidence in view of the fact that Senator Messner has had something to say about it. Mr President, you will recall being present at that inquiry on 6 August and asking a question of Mr Henschke who was giving evidence. In his reply Mr Henschke stated:

We were all assured last year by the Treasurer that 31a would be reinstated. This was stated at a luncheon as Seppeltsfield by Mr Lynch himself. Acting on that statement, all the wine makers filled their cellars this year because there were surplus grapes in certain areas and we have more wine than we need for the year in front of us.

Mr President, Mr Henschke said that on 6 August 1976 in answer to your question. I will not delve into that statement because it is already on the record but it is clear to everyone that when Mr Lynch was Treasurer he gave an undertaking to the grape growers throughout the length and breadth of Australia that if the Liberal and National Country Parties were re-elected they would reinstate section 31a and thereby remedy the situation which the Labor Party had been criticised for creating. It is no good honourable Senators on the Government side complaining that the Labor Party deleted section 3 1a because the present Government has had three years in which to reinstate this section in the Income Tax Act. However, the Government has not done so because it has received the same advice from Treasury as the Labor Government received. The Labor Party did not give any undertaking that it would reinstate this section whereas the

Government did. The Government gave the assurance that the section would be reinstated and that is another promise that the Government has dishonoured. As Mr Henschke pointed out, because of that promise given at Seppeltsfield the winemakers filled their vats. The blame lies with the Government; it does not lie with the former Labor Government, even though, I suppose, it could have some criticism levelled at it too. The intervening period has provided plenty of time to remedy the situation. The Government knew of the problems that were being created and gave us a solemn undertaking.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) must go on record as the shortest second reading speech we have ever heard on a Bill of such magnitude. The speech was one and three quarter pages in length and in it Mr Fife said:

The Government has received representations on behalf of the Australian brandy manufacturing industry in relation to the effect of this measure on the industry. We are concerned with the position of Australian brandy producers.

It is clearly evident from the massive impost that has been placed on the grape growers that the Government is not concerned about the industry. The Government has been told for a long time of the damage that would be done to the brandy industry if something were not done to relieve the problems in the industry. Senator Jessop quoted one part of the second reading speech which I also will quote. The Minister said:

The representations will be carefully considered by the Government at that time.

That is, after the Government received the report from the Industries Assistance Commission on potable spirits. Why has the Government not considered the representations it already has received? Why does Mr Fife say in the second reading speech that representations from the industry will be carefully considered after the IAC report is received? Those representations should have been considered a long time ago. I would like to quote from a Press release issued by Mr Chatterton, the Minister for Agriculture in South Australia. It is dated 13 March 1977, nearly 18 months ago, and reads:

page 2505

AUSTRALIAN BRANDY INDUSTRY IN TROUBLE-CHATTERTON CALLS FOR ABOLITION OF SALES TAX

South Australia’s Minister of Agriculture Mr Chatterton has called on the Federal Government to remove all sales tax on Australian produced brandy.

Mr Chatterton said ‘production of Australian brandy has fallen by a staggering SO per cent in the last S years, threatening the prosperity and development of the entire winegrape industry.’

We are reaching the stage where Australian brandy is being priced out of the market the Minister said.

This dramatic fall in production is directly related to savage increases in excise dudes that have been progressively applied by the Federal Government.

The industry is currently paying $ 1 0.2 1 per litre of alcohol in excise duty compared with $6 in 1973 and just over $3 in 1965. This represents over 300 per cent in the last 10 years.

Mr Chatterton said the increase in duty has reduced the demand for Australian brandy to such an extent that carryover stocks within the industry are now excessive.

Large stocks of low priced imported brandy and scotch whiskey are being held in bond and this is aggravating the situation the Minister said.

Sales of Australian brandy have fallen remorselessly since 1973 and they will continue to fall unless the Federal Government takes positive steps to place the Australian product on a more competitive footing.

The best way to re-establish our brandy as a successful competitor with other spirits is to remove the present sales tax of 15 per cent. This would reduce the retail prices of a bottle of Australian brandy by 70c-80c.

Mr Chatterton said 87 per cent of the Australian brandy is produced in South Australia. Most of this is produced from grapes grown in the Riverland area.

These figures were confirmed earlier tonight by Senator Jessop. He is aware, as are Senator Missen and Senator Teague, that South Australia produces that great proportion of Australian brandy.

Senator McLAREN:

– I know they did and that is unfortunate. Perhaps they will have a change of heart at the next election. The Government was forewarned 18 months ago about the problems that would be faced by the brandy industry if it did not reduce the excise. Instead, it has increased the excise by a massive amount. I attended a meeting of the Upper Murray Wine Grape Growers Association at Berri in the Riverland in March of this year. Mr Giles also attended. I stated publicly at that meeting that I would be prepared to bury my political differences and go with Mr Giles to see the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and make a plea on behalf of the grape growers in South Australia. I wrote to Mr Giles on 21 March, three days after the meeting, and said:

I now wish to confirm by letter the undertaking I gave last evening 20.3.78 at the meeting of the Upper Murray Wine Grape Growers Association held at Berri SA.

My undertaking being that I as Secretary of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party Resources Committee would be prepared to join, with you as the Chairman of the Federal Government Rural Committee in making a joint approach to the Prime Minister Mr Fraser and the Minister for Primary Industry Mr Sinclair to seek immediate assistance for the Riverland Wine Grape Growers.

In view of the statements made last evening by Grape Growers, Local Government Representatives and Business interests, it is abundantly clear that the whole of the Riverland will be faced with a serious situation unless Federal Government assistance is forthcoming immediately.

These statements coupled with the two resolutions carried-

. ‘That this meeting demands that all Growers who cannot sell grapes be compensated to leave grapes on vines.

That the Government stop all imports that are subsidised by Exporting Countries until the present Grape Surplus is resolved, that the Federal Government stop taxing the Grape Growers out of existence, that the Government reduce the Excise on Brandy. ‘

‘That the Prime Minister and other appropriate Ministers be requested to come to the Riverland as soon as possible to meet with Grape Growers, Industry Leaders, Local Government and Business Representatives.’ -stress the urgency of our making this joint approach at the earliest possible date.

Senator Tate:

– What was his response?

Senator McLAREN:

– I got a letter back from Mr Giles dated 30 March. It read:

Dear Geoff,

Thanks for your letter of 23rd March, in which you offered your help in any approach made to the Prime Minister, The Minister for Primary Industry, or The Treasurer.

Following on our discussion in the Parliamentary Offices, Adelaide, this week, I now have to inform you that a provisional date has been set, namely, 9 p.m. on a Wednesday evening, to see the Minister for Primary Industry. I would be pleased to have you with whatever group attends. If there is any alteration to the time, I will try and let you know.

Then I received from Mr Giles a letter dated 4 April in which he said:

Dear Senator McLaren,

The Minister for Primary Industry would appreciate it if you would attend his office at 9.00 p.m. on Wednesday 5 April 1978 to discuss brandy excise.

Mr President, you and I, and many South Australian members of the Liberal Party, were present at that meeting.

Senator McLAREN:

-Yes, I think he was there. Well, he shakes his head. I am sorry. I thought that Mr McLeay was the only South Australian Liberal who was missing. Senator Messner indicates that he was not present. They would be the only two who were not present at that meeting. We put a case to Mr Sinclair, pointing out the problems that the grape growing industry was experiencing. That was back in April of this year, long before the Budget was drawn up. So, the Government was well aware of the problems. But, unfortunately, our pleas fell on deaf ears. We in the Labor Party were prepared to bury our political differences and to make a joint approach on behalf of the grape growers in

South Australia. On 19 April 1947-not 1947; 1977 -

Senator Messner:

– You always were 30 years behind.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am putting this on the record so that Senator Messner may be aware of how long ago his Government was acquainted with the problems that face the grape growing industry, particularly the brandy producers. On 19 April last year the Minister of Agriculture in South Australia put out another Press release. It stated:

South Australia’s Minister of Agriculture, Brian Chatterton, is considering what action can be taken to help fruit growers in the Riverland avoid a surplus of wine grapes reported to be in the vicinity of 4,000 tonnes.

This morning the Minister received a submission from the Wine Grapegrowers Council indicating that there were many growers in the area who have not been able to sell all of this year’s harvest.

Mr Chatterton said he will ask Treasury to investigate the Council’s proposals and he will also ask for a report on the situation from his own Departmental officers.

I hope a decision can be made on this matter as quickly as possible ‘ the Minister said.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He was giving effective leadership, anyway.

Senator McLAREN:

– He was. On 26 April last year- I will quote only part of the Press release- Mr Chatterton said:

The State Government is to provide $130,000 for an emergency pool -

Senator Messner:

- Mr President, I would be quite happy to give Senator McLaren leave to table the various letters from which he is reading.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren may continue.

Senator McLAREN:

– If Senator Messner knew the Standing Orders, he would know that he can ask for that when I am finished. He is only taking up more time of the Senate. I will refer to what the State Government did in South Australia with reference to the proposal put by the Minister for Agriculture to the South Australian Treasury after he received a request from the grape growers. The South Australian Minister’s Press release of 26 April stated:

The State Government is to provide $130,000 for an emergency pool to process surplus wine grapes in South Australia, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Chatterton, said today.

In view of the fact that Senator Messner has asked that I table these two documents- they are only short Press releases- I seek leave of the Senate to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

page 2507

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

Press Release 19.4.77

page 2507

GRAPE SURPLUS

South Australia’s Minister of Agriculture, Brian Chatterton, is considering what action can be taken to help fruitgrowers in the Riverland avoid a surplus of wine grapes reported to be in the vicinity of 4,000 tonnes.

This morning the Minister received a submission from the Wine Grapegrowers Council indicating that there were many growers in the area who have not been able to sell all of this year’s harvest.

Mr Chatterton said he will ask Treasury to investigate the Council’s proposals and he will also ask for a report on the situation from his own Departmental officers.

I hope a decision can be made on this matter as quickly as possible ‘, the Minister said.

page 2507

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

Press Release 26.4.77

page 2507

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT ACTS TO PREVENT GRAPE SURPLUS

The State Government is to provide $130,000 for an emergency pool to process surplus wine grapes in South Australia, the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Chatterton said today.

Mr Chatterton said Cabinet agreed to make the money available through the Wine Grapegrower Emergency Cooperative Pool Ltd.

Last week the Wine Grapegrowers Council, in a submission to the Government, asked for funds to establish an emergency pool to cover costs involved in carting, processing and storing surplus grapes’, the Minister said. ‘They estimated that costs will be in the vicinity of $65/tonne’.

We are providing funds to process 2,000 tonnes’, the Minister said. ‘If this figure is insufficient to cover industry needs, then the arrangement will be reviewed’.

Mr Chatterton said the Council, in its submission, estimated that an emergency pool could provide growers with a return of up to $ 100/tonne- when all other costs have been deducted.

I should emphasise that growers are not likely to be paid for their grapes until the emergency pool is finalised and this could take from 1 8 months to 2 years ‘.

Mr Chatterton said establishing an emergency pool is only a short-term answer to the underlying problem of declining wine and brandy sales.

The Australian market is very depressed. Total wine sales fell in the first two months of this year and the decline in dry red wine sales is accelerating’.

The most obvious and immediate solution to the problem lies in the brandy market. This market will be expanded very rapidly if Australian brandy is given protection against imported spirit.

The South Australian Government has pointed this out on a number of occasions to the Federal Government. In our submission to a Senate Inquiry into the wine industry, we indicated that the removal of the present sales tax of IS per cent on brandy would stimulate sales and encourage wineries to take in extra grapes ‘.

Unless the Federal Government takes immediate action to protect the Australian brandy industry, the creation of an emergency pool could add to growers marketing difficulties next year’, the Minister said.

Senator McLAREN:

– I thank the Senate. On 2 June this year the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association made a submission to the Australian Government on matters of urgency concerning the Australian wine and brandy industry. No doubt Senator Messner has a copy of the submission that was made. Certainly the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) did have a copy of it. They were acquainted by the Wine and Brandy Producers Association of the terrible thing that this Government had done to the industry by imposing this savage brandy excise. I will not quote from that, because I think every South Australian senator, including you, Mr President, would have a copy of it. It is there for the record. I go back to 6 July this year, when an article in the Murray Pioneer stated:

A deputation from the seven South Australian cooperative wineries met the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs ( Mr Fife ) in Can berra last week.

They pressed for aid for the Australian brandy industry in the August Budget.

This was back in July, following the submissions made by the Wine and Brandy Producers Association, setting out the problems that the industry had and at that dme seeking a reduction, not a savage increase of 83 per cent as we have found occurred. That article further stated:

The deputation was introduced by the member for Wakefield (Mr Giles).

He said he was very impressed with the case put to Mr Fife on matters including brandy excise.

Cabinet meetings made it impossible for the deputation to meet the Treasurer ( Mr Howard ).

It went on from there. That is further proof that the Government has been acquainted of the problem that existed. No doubt honourable senators opposite received the same correspondence as I received from many interested people in the Riverland. I received a letter dated 18 August from the Riverland Local Government Association- which takes in the local government bodies of Barmera, Berri, Loxton, Morgan, Paringa, Renmark and Waikerie- and signed by E. P. Jackson, the Mayor of Loxton. My attention again was drawn to the problems that this excise was going to pose to the industry. I will not read the letter. I think you, Mr President, also received the same letter, because you were mentioned in the letter. Mr Jackson enclosed a copy of a letter received from you which was your reply to his Association’s appeal for assistance for wine grape growers. So, it is not only the Labor people in South Australia who have been making representations. Members of the Government parties also have been making representations for some relief for the brandy industry.

On 2 1 August I received a letter from Mr Colin Kraehe, who is the General Manager of Renmano Wines Co-operative Ltd at Renmark.

Senator Mulvihill:

– He would not be a radical, would he?

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not think anyone could say that Mr Colin Kraehe would be a radical. He is the General Manager of one of the most successful co-operatives in the Riverland. He is a man of good standing in the community. He wrote to me:

I have attached a copy of the telex which the Australian Brandy Industry has forwarded to the Treasurer following the Budget.

The position for the Brandy Industry and the Riverland region is critical and I request your support for a change in the rate of brandy excise.

I will be pleased to supply additional information should you require it.

No doubt all honourable senators opposite received that telex. I do not think it is necessary to seek its incorporation in Hansard because the people in the industry know the contents of it. Also the members of the Government parties know the contents of it. On 31 August, 10 days later I received a letter from Mr G. M. Nettelbeck the Manager of the Australian Wine and Brandy Producers Association, to this effect:

The Australian Brandy Industry is in a critical position following the 83.6 per cent excise increase announced in the Federal Budget.

The Australian Spirit Industry is currently under IAC reference and Grapes and Wine have now also been referred to the IAC.

Attached is a copy of the points discussed with the hon Treasurer (Mr John Howard) in Adelaide on 30 August which highlights the problem now facing the Australian Brandy Producing Industry.

Your support for the Industry case is requested. He set out the main points which were discussed with the Treasurer, Mr Howard. So, Mr Howard also is fully aware of the problems that are facing the industry because of this excise. It is not my intention to seek leave to incorporate that letter in Hansard either. I wrote back to Mr Nettelbeck on 6 December, thanking him for his letter. I further said in that letter:

I attended a meeting with the Minister for Primary Industry in the company of South Australian Federal Government members earlier this year to acquaint him with the problems facing the industry.

I have also raised the matter consistently in the Senate, however, the Government has shown no signs of any concern at all.

It is my intention to continue my efforts.

The enclosed copies of correspondence and extracts from Hansard may be of interest to you.

I sent to Mr Nettelbeck copies of all the questions I had raised and all the speeches I had made in this Parliament over the years, showing my concern for the grape growers in South Australia. On 23 August the whole of the front page of the Loxton News was taken up with the subject of the brandy excise. The headline was: ‘Brandy excise rise could ruin industry’. That was sent to me by Mr N. A. Winn, the Secretary of the Riverland Local Government Association, to draw my attention again to the problems now being faced by the brandy industry because of this savage excise that has been imposed. I will quote only a few of the main points, because Senator Jessop has already quoted correspondence from Mr Lind. I do not think I need to repeat it. This article says:

Condemnation of the brandy excise increase in the 1978 Federal Budget was voiced very strongly this week by the General Manager of the Loxton Winery, Mr G. B. Lind.

Mr Lind said yesterday that he vigorously condemned that section of what he termed an ‘avaricious Budget’ as he felt it may well bring ruin to an already depressed Australian brandy industry.

So, from all corners of the Riverland representations have been made to the Government to acquaint it with this problem.

On 24 August I received a letter from Mr Fife in reply to some of the questions that I had been asking about imported brandy and whisky. I think I have already quoted this, so it is already in Hansard. He included with this letter a table which is very important and should be very enlightening to a lot of people who may not be aware of the problems we face in the brandy industry, not only because of this excise that has been imposed but also because of imports. He set out a table of figures showing the importation of brandy and whisky from 1972-73 to 1976-77. The table shows under brandy that 1,118,690 litres of alcohol was imported in 1972-73. That was just at the end of the McMahon Government when this would have been in train. In 1973-74 we saw a further increase. The amount of brandy imported was 1,137,496 litres of alcohol. In 1974- 75 we saw a dramatic decrease in imports under the Labor Government. Only 701,234 litres of alcohol brandy was imported into Australia. There was a further decrease in 1975- 76, the last year of the Whitlam Government. In that year the figure went down to 576,375 litres. But in the first year of the present Government, 1976-77, it increased again. There was an increase from 576,375 to 708,294 litres of alcohol. So this Government is apparently allowing increased imports of brandy.

The same situation applies to whisky, which is a competitor of brandy. In 1972-73 5,773,588 litres of whisky alcohol was imported. In 1973-74 that volume increased to 7,926,677 litres. In 1974-75 we saw a decline to 5,839,333 litres. In 1975-76, the last year of the Whitlam Government, it increased a little to 6,683,035 litres. In 1976-77,the last year for which figures are provided by Mr Fife, saw a rapid increase again of 2 million litres. The volume imported went from 6,683,035 to 8,704,917 litres. So we can see that this Government has not shown any concern for the grape growing industry by allowing these imports and it has shown less concern for the industry by putting these savage excise imports upon the industry.

On 28 August the South Australian Minister for Agriculture wrote to Mr John Howard and made a plea that he do something about this impost. Mr President, to save the time of the Senate, I seek leave to have the letter incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

Grenfell Centre 25 Grenfell Street, Adelaide 28 August 1978

Box 668, G.P.O. Adelaide, S.A. 5001 Telephone: 227 9911 Hon. John Howard, M.H.R., Treasurer, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Mr Howard,

On behalf of the wine and brandy industry in this State, I must protest strongly at the Federal Government’s decision in its Budget to impose severe imposts on the Australian brandy industry through large increases in excise. Figures taken out by economists in my Department show that sales of Australian brandy can expect to fall at least 40 per cent as a result of the rise in price to the consumer because of the new excise levels.

While I realise your intention is to increase the revenue of the Federal government the 85 per cent increase in excise will not result in a corresponding increase in revenue.

Not only will sales of brandy fall by at least 40/50 per cent but 1 5,000 more tonnes of surplus grapes will be left to rot on the vines. This loss of income to winegrapegrowers is of course a loss of income tax revenue to you.

The processing and bottling sectors of the industry will provide less employment, hence less income tax revenue.

There is the distinct possibility that the processing sector will shed labor which, of course, will be eligible for unemployment relief payments.

I am convinced your Department has not thought the whole exercise through.

In the immediate term the position in these industries will be even more severe as the expected dramatic drop in sales of Australian brandy will lengthen the period in which the present stock levels will be adequate to meet the expected demand. Some economists have fallaciously claimed that the increase in excise on beer and spirits will actually benefit winegrapegrowers as a whole because there will be a swing to the consumption of wine.

If these excise changes were the only tax changes made in your budget then such a change in consumptions patterns might occur. Of course, the budget included increases in personal income tax, increases in taxation on cigarettes and petrol, which will mop up any consumer demand that might be available to spend on wine.

I would also like to put to you that even if, in spite of all probabilities, wine sales do increase this will not help the majority of producers of the present surplus of winegrapes. This surplus is concentrated on granache and doradillos. Neither variety is particularly suitable for making quality table wine and they are traditionally used in making brandy spirit.

Certainly, one can expect that as a consequence of the effects of the increased excise, the current surplus of wine grapes can be expected to be much greater from this coming harvest. This will further jeopardise the financial position of wine grape growers.

The only form of assistance available to them is the joint Commonwealth/State Carry-on Loan scheme.

The criteria for eligibility for this finance is that a grower must be assessed as ‘viable in a normal year of operations’. With the current surplus of wine grapes and the further predictions of surpluses to be created by your Budget measures it is obvious that few growers can be assessed as ‘viable in a normal year of operations’.

The overall situation of depressed brandy sales will certainly worsen their prospects and they will be in an even more difficult and hopeless situation.

I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to reconsider this taxation increase which will be such a severe burden to winegrapegrowers and will be a further blow to the industry as a whole.

Yours faithfully, BRIAN CHATTERTON Minister of Agriculture

Senator McLAREN:

-On 6 September the South Australian Minister Assisting the Deputy Premier wrote to me, as he did to all other South Australian senators and Federal members. I will read this letter because it is of great import. He said:

I write at the request of the South Australian Government inviting you to attend a meeting in the Cabinet Room, 1 1th Floor, State Administration Centre, Adelaide, on Friday 8th September at 2.30 pm.

My invitation is directed to all South Australian Senators and Members of The House of Representatives in the hope that we can collectively discuss the crisis facing the brandy producers and wine grapegrowers of this State as a result of the decision embodied in the Federal Budget to increase the excise on Australian brandy and other spirits.

There is every indication that the decision will gravely jeopardise the future of many brandy producers and grapegrowers and I am hopeful that our meeting on Friday we will reach agreement on how to influence the Commonwealth Cabinet to reverse this decision.

Invitations to all South Australian Federal Parliamentarians have previously been issued by telephone and while I appreciate that some Members were absent from their offices at the time or have other engagements on Friday 8th, I urge each of you to make every attempt to attend the meeting at which the industry will also be represented.

Any enquiries may be lodged with Mr L. D. Murray, telephone 227 4591,

Yours sincerely, DON BANFIELD Minister Assisting the Deputy Premier

At the time the letter was sent out it was thought Mr Chatterton, the South Australian Minister for Agriculture, would not be able to be present at the meeting. Mr Chatterton was able to attend the meeting and he put a strong case to us. I thought we went away from that meeting as a united body to put another case to the Federal Government to have some relief granted to the grape growers. It is unfortunate that was not agreed to. A case has been put by the South Australian Minister for. Agriculture pointing out all the ramifications of thus increase in the brandy excise. I again seek leave to have that document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

page 2510

QUESTION

EFFECT OF BRANDY EXCISE RISE ON BRANDY SALES AND GRAPE SURPLUSES

  1. Expected brandy sales decline:

    1. . The 1 5 August 1978 Federal Budget raised the excise on Australian produced brandy from $ 10.2 1 per litre of alcohol to $18.75 per litre of alcohol. To find a comparable scale of increase to this 83.6 per cent rise, one needs to look at the August 1973 Federal Budget, when brandy duty rose by 94.8 percent (from $3.08 per litre of alcohol to $6.00).

In the twelve months following that earlier increaseSeptember 1973, to August 1974-there was a fall of approximately 24 per cent in Australian brandy clearances. However, that year was a year of exceptionally high income increases in Australia. Thus the Departments of economic Development and Agriculture and Fisheries estimate that the real impact of the 1973 brandy excise rise was a firstround loss of sales of approximately 30 per cent, compared with likely sales had the impost not been made.

  1. Following the 1978 Budget impost, our South Australian Departmental officers estimate that there will be at least a 30 per cent fall in Australian brandy clearances compared with the 1977-78 level of 2,844,000 litres of alcohol. The main reason for their belief that the impact will be as great as this is that Australian brandy has lost much of its relative price advantage, which it had over Scotch whisky in 1973.

This has been due to the large increases in excise duty on brandy but slightly smaller increases in customs duty on scotch. In mid- 1973, scotch prices (on reasonable quality lines), were about 50 per cent above brandy prices in Adelaide. Today, the same ‘reasonable standard’ scotch whisky prices are less than 20 per cent above Australian brandy prices in Adelaide, and even closer in other cities.

As prices of both have moved up sharply due to these huge tax increases, the duty component of the final price becomes more and more important. Today, after rising by $15.67 per litre of alcohol in five years, Australian brandy excise is $18.75.

Scotch whisky customs duty in the same period increased by $ 14.36 to reach $ 1 9.29 per litre of alcohol.

  1. At the extremely high prices for Australian brandy and Scotch whisky now prevailing, the Australian brandy industry is entitled to be worried by the small percentage price difference the local product possesses relative to Scotch whisky.

This competitive position has been further undermined in the last two or three years by the appearance of major quantities of heavily discounted ‘low priced’ Scotches from surplus Scotch abroad.

  1. Our departments advise the South Australian Government that they do not expect any significant real income rise in Australia over the next twelve months, which could have reduced the size of the decline in brandy sales.

    1. Effect on grape usage for brandy
  2. In 1977-78 the quantity of brandy produced in South Australia was 2.2 1 million litres of alcohol. This represented 85 per cent of the Australian production (2.60 million lals. The South Australian brandy production used an estimated 25,100 tonnes of grapes. Thus about 9 per cent of the estimated South Australian total crush of grapes for wine and brandy were absorbed in brandy production.
  3. The prospects for brandy producers and grape growers supplying brandy grapes are now much more serious than just a 30 per cent cut in sales would first indicate. Because of the prospective drop in sales, brandy stocks, which looked to be in a good relationship to sales before the August Budget, have now been thrown out of kilter.

It is estimated that brandy stocks held in bond at the end of 1 977-78 were 11.512 million litres of alcohol.

  1. Using a four year stock to sales ratio, which is certainly quite high enough, at a new sales level of approximately 2.0 million lals (assuming a 30 per cent decline in sales) there would be very little need for production of brandy in Australia for the next two production years. If this adjustment in stocks is made, then an appropriate new stock level of about 8 million lals would be achieved.

  2. If no grapes are needed for brandy production during the 1979 vintage, the suggested addition to current grape surpluses in South Australia could be in the order of 25,000 tonnes. Some of these grapes may be able to be used in white wine production, which is expanding.

    1. Effect of sales drop in Federal Treasury’s revenue estimates:

On previous occasions, Federal Treasury has ignored or under-estimated the effect of higher excises on sales of the products taxed. In this Budget an extreme example of this has occurred. Attached in an Appendix is the calculation made by the Department of Economic Development, which indicates that Federal Treasury expects that retail price rises of 40-50 per cent in Australian potable spirits will cause no reduction in sales. Such a conclusion seems absurd to the South Australian Government.

A 30 per cent decline in clearances from bond would cause a $36m shortfall in the Budget estimates. If the effect on sales is more severe, the revenue gain will be less, and could even be nil, or have a negative effect on revenue if the sale drop reaches about 45 per cent or more.

We have ignored the adverse effect on incomes and on income tax receipts of lower sales of grapes and production of brandy. These would also be significant.

Prepared by the Departments of Economic Development and Agriculture and Fisheries.

September 1978

Given the control on clearances in a pre-budget period of the type just gone through the assumption of 1,080,000 litres of alcohol cleared in the July to mid August 1978 period is a very generous one. Using the average excise duty rates appropriate we deduce that Federal Treasury expects clearances of Australian brandy, whisky, rum, gin, et cetera to be maintained in the last 1014 months of financial year 1978-79 at comparable levels to last year despite duty rises averaging about 83 per cent and retail price rises of between 40 and 50 per cent in various States.

Senator McLAREN:

– Not only are grape growers complaining to the Government but also the National Farmer vol. 1 No. 17 September 7-20 carried the headline ‘Brandy Tax Storm’. The National Farmer supported the grape growers. I will quote only the first paragraph of the article that appeared under that headline. It states:

There is mounting anger and frustration among the thousands of small family grape growers of the South Australian riverland as they face another year of poverty and hardship.

All of these matters had been pointed out to the Government in no uncertain terms in all the representations that had been made to it over a long period. It is unfortunate that the Government has not taken any notice of the representations that have been made.

Senator Teague sent a copy of his maiden speech in this place to the Murray Pioneer. An article which appeared in that publication was headed ‘Senator Slates Brandy Tax in Maiden Speech’. I do not need to repeat what Senator Teague said. I think he very eloquently outlined the problems that are facing the industry because of the savage increase in excise. In view of the problem that is now facing the industry, I hope that Senator Teague and all South Australian senators, will join their colleagues Mr Giles and Mr Fisher, the honourable member for Mallee, who also expressed concern last night, and support the amendments that I will move during the Committee stage of this Bill. If the South Australian senators do that a request will go back to the Government to make some alterations in the excise Bill which will be of great benefit to the grape growers in South Australia.

On 1 1 October I received a letter from Mr J. B. Dillon, the Secretary of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia. He acquainted me with a resolution in writing. He had no need to do this because I attended most of the meetings of the Liquor Trades Union in the Riverland and I spoke to very large gatherings of people about the problems of the brandy industry. He stated in his letter:

At Meetings of this Unions Winery Employees held in the following areas:

Tanunda, Berri, Renmark, Waikerie, Reynella, Adelaide and Clare, the following resolution was passed and carried unanimously.

This Union’s Members employed in SA Wineries and Vineyards call upon the Federal Treasurer to reconsider the totally prohibitive excise burden they have placed on the Wine and Spirit Industry.

Protection of jobs and viability of the Industry is of paramount importance in this delicately balanced rural Industry.

These meetings call for full consultation between all parties concerned and proper consultation to take place before the Brandy Industry completely collapses.

We further call upon the Treasurer to immediately rescind the totally prohibitive excise increase the last budget imposed.

In fact, because of the decline in sales, in all probability the excise increase will be nullified. ‘

I think Senator Jessop made that point quite clear in his speech this afternoon when he pointed out that the Government was expecting to gain an extra $4m by this increase, but because of the drop in sales of brandy the amount of excise will be less. In other words, the Government will be down the drain. It will make no profit out of the excise at all but it will ruin an industry. Mr Dillon went on to say:

Our members feel you should be aware of their concern and call upon you to use your powers to rescind this excise, so that viability can be maintained in their industry.

I am sure that this letter went to all Government senators. I did attend the meeting at Berri, Renmark and Waikerie and my colleague, Senator Elstob, attended some of the other meetings. These meetings were well attended and grave concern was expressed.

Senator Jessop referred to a statement made by Mr Downer, who represented Angas for many years. He quoted a statement that Mr Downer made when he opened a show at Renmark in the Riverland. A Press article under the headline ‘Former Minister Hits Brandy Tax’ states:

A former Federal Cabinet Minister and former High Commissioner in the United Kingdom has spoken out against the brandy excise increase in the last Federal Budget. Opening the Renmark show on Saturday Mr Downer said grape producers and everyone involved should voice their opinion about the rise which was incomprehensible folly.

That is what he said. Those words were used in here many times by supporters of the present Government against the then Labor Government. I repeat, the former member for Angas castigated the party in which he served as a Minister for what it had done, calling its action incomprehensible folly. I need not pursue that matter further. That is on the record.

On 30 October a letter was sent to Federal Cabinet Ministers, and all South Australian senators and members of the House of Representatives, headed ‘Brandy Excise’. It reads:

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter forwarded to the Rt Hon. J. M. Fraser, M.P., Prime Minister of Australia, on Wednesday, 25 October, 1978.

It was signed by L. E. McCreanor. Chairman, Riverland Co-ordinating Committee. Attached was the text of the letter that was sent to Mr Fraser as a matter of urgency and appended were the signatures of the officers of 50 different organisations in the Riverland- hotels, clubs, all sorts of organisations including wineries and cooperatives. No doubt, it was received by all honourable senators opposite. The letter was shown earlier to a Minister and he agreed to its being incorporated in Hansard. I now seek its incorporation.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows-

P.O. Box 153, BARMERA, SA 5345 17 October, 1978

The Prime Minister, The Right Honourable J.M. Fraser M.P., Parliament of Australia, CANBERRA, ACT 2600

SUBJECT: BRANDY EXCISE REMOVAL-A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY

Mr Dear Prime Minister,

We the undersigned wish to bring to your attention a matter of great urgency- that being the removal of the excise upon Australian Brandy as imposed by the 1978 Federal Budget. If your Government does not remove the aforementioned impost, then we the undersigned forecast that great economic hardship will befall the people of the Riverland of South Australia. We hasten to remind you that this opinion is shared not only by the South Australian Government on both sides of the House, but also by South Australian Federal Senators and members of the House of Representatives of both persuasions.

Prime Minister, since the budget the Loxton Co-operative Winery and Distillery Limited has experienced a downturn in Cellar Door Brandy sales in the order of 51 per cent. Indeed Tolley, Scott and Tolley Limited of Adelaide have made no secret of the fact that they have experienced a downturn in Cellar Door Brandy sales in the order of 76 per cent. It must be clearly understood that such massive marketing reversals will have a disasterous impact upon the surplus grape situation.

Sir, you were recently interviewed by the Canberra Bureau of the National Farmer and in response to the following question, ‘Prime Minister, Brandy. What is your reason for increasing the excise on Brandy which was a way of reducing the grape surplus?’

Your reply was,

Well I think the wine industry is going to be very greatly assisted by the budget. You say it is a way of using excess grapes, but to the extent that grapes go into wine, the wine industry is going to be assisted. This is one of the reasons why there weren’t increases in wine duties, as there were in spirits and beer’.

Prime Minister, such a statement is incorrect. One tonne of grapes produces approximately 700 litres of table wine or 380 litres of fortified wine or 260 litres of Brandy (at 38 per cent bottling strength). So it can be seen that by volume table wine uses a lot less fruit than Brandy. Furthermore Australia’s principal Brandy grapes are the varieties Grenache and Doradillo and they have little appeal in the making of table wines. In addition to this the budget puts at risk a most significant investment in such things as distillation equipment and specialised Brandy maturation wood. A figure of some $5,000,000 would be conservative.

Such equipment and wood storage is of no use in the manufacture of dry table wines. We need not remind you that the shock wave from the budget will be soon felt as additional unemployment in the Riverland. Clearly if one refers to the latest industry statistics (ABS July) the only area of worthwhile sales growth can be found in dry table wines. Surely it must now become clear that the budget has done the following things (i) increased the wine grape surplus for the 1979 vintage and beyond (ii) imperiled great investments in form of distillation equipment- stills and boilers and maturation wood (iii) increased the inventory costs on existing Brandy stocks by retarding sale of Brandy and (iv) increased the likelihood of greater localised unemployment.

Prime Minister, as an industry we have several times acquainted your Government with issues of great importance that confront us. As recently as the 2nd of June 1978 the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers Association of Australia Incorporated presented a submission to your Government ‘on matters of urgency concerning the Australian Wine and Brandy Industry’.

By way of a summary, the principal thrust of that submission was to recommend that:

  1. The Australian Government make an immediate reduction in excise duty on Australian brandy to stimulate sales and permit competitiveness with imported spirits.
  2. The Australian Government establish a national register of vineyards with the objective of exercising a measure of control over future plantings in order to maintain a reasonable balance between supply and demand for Australian grapes.
  3. The Australian Government in conjunction with the States introduce a standardised National Pricing Scheme for wine grapes to eliminate unfair price differentials between States.
  4. All National Health and Medical Research Council Regulations applying to wines produced in Australia be rigidly applied to and enforced upon wine and brandy imports.

As a result of that submission all we have seen is a letter from Mr Ralph Hunt Minister for Health, commenting upon that aspect of the submission.

From the 1978 Vintage it can be accurately stated that the following surpluses existed.

New South Wales, 9,506 tonnes; South Australia, 39,879 tonnes. Refer to enclosure ‘surplus facts’; Victoria, 2,069 tonnes.

In the Riverland of South Australia alone, as at the 1978 Vintage, the area of vines planted but not yet in bearing stood at 1692 hectares. The average yield per hectare is in the order of 20 tonnes. Thus it can be seen that the following situation has almost fully developed.

With the South Australian price for Doradillo at $123 per tonne in 1978, it means that grape growers will be denied an income in the order of twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) plus, and surely this means a lot of revenue being lost by the Federal Government. As proof of these surplus figures we would welcome that our enclosures be subjected to independent audit.

It is recognised that the solutions to the problems of the independent Australian wine grape grower and the Australian wine and brandy industry do not rest absolutely with Governments either Federal or State. But as a starting point Governments should carefully consider the immediate reversal of legislation that by its very nature impedes industry’s progress. The reversal of the recent increase in brandy excise would be a case in point.

Our industry should be encouraged by Governments to develop self help schemes. We do not propose in this submission to elaborately develop a theme in this regard but as an example rural reconstruction monies should be more readily available to growers, who in conjunction with Cooperative Wineries, are prepared to grub unwanted varieties and replace them with a controlled planting of more desirable varietals. When the industry is prepared to develop new products for the market place- for example non alcoholic grape juice; and this has significant export potential- the Government could allocate a percentage of the excise duty collected from brandy, to provide the promotional funding such a venture would require to make it viable on both the domestic and overseas markets. It is worthy of mention that in the area of non-alcoholic grape juice one Riverland Cooperative (Loxton) has gone a long way with independent research and development in perfecting the required technology to put both still and sparkling grapejuice on the market. Could not the Government also favourably view the proposition (as it applies in the South African Brandy Industry) for an excise rebate system on brandy, under which distillers are compensated for the maturation costs by means of a rebate on duty. At the same time, minimum requirements are laid down in respect of the quality of wines used for distillation, specifications regarding maturation casks, blending, et cetera ( beyond our existing levels) in order to even further improve the quality of Australian brandy and thus win back the ground we have lost in export.

Prime Minister, we the undersigned invite you, your Treasurer and your Minister for Primary Industry to attend an industry meeting to be held in the board room of Berri Fruit Juices at Berri in the Riverland of South Australia at which we propose youput the Government’s case on the matters thus far raised. The date and the time of this meeting would be at a time suitable to you sometime in November. The industry meeting could be followed by a public meeting of concerned fruit growers.

You will note the wide range of district organisations and industries represented by the signatories to this request. This is an indication of the wide-spread concern for the future of the Riverland which is felt by all sections of this community.

District Council of Loxton- Mayor E. P. Jackson

Riverland Local Government Association- President, E. P. Jackson; Secretary, N. Winn

Loxton Community Hotel Motel- Chairman, A. Jolly; General Manager, P. Battams

Loxton Co-Operative Winery & Distillery LimitedChairman, A. B. Dunstone; General Manger, G. B. Lind

Loxton Club Incorporated- Chairman, R. Flight; General Manager, G. Thornborrow

Loxton Co-Operative Producers Limited- Chairman, R. J. Thayne; Manager/Secretary, B. E. McClory

Loxton Tourist & Travel Centre- Tourist Officer, A. Todd

United Farmers and Graziers- Vine Fruit CommitteeChairman, J. F. C. Petch

Riverland Winemakers Association- President, J. Angove; Secretary, T.A. Sheahan

Union Liquor & Allied Trades- Secretary, J. B. Dillon

Riverland Vine Improvement Committee- Chairman, L. E. McCreanor; Secretary, C. Shepherd

Australian Dried Fruits Association River CouncilPresident, H. Swansbury; Secretary, K. Dunstone

Wine & Brandy Co-Operative Producers- Vice Chairman, W. J. Harris

Renmano Wines Co-Operative Limited- General Manager, G. Kraehe

Renmark Hotel Incorporated- Chairman, W. J. Marshall; General Manger, P. Odonell

Renmark Club-President, K. Peterson; General Manager, B. Kucko

Riverland Fruit Products Co-Operative LimitedManager, T. C. Hoey

Renmark Tourist Centre- Tourist Officer, T. Hersey

Renmark Chamber of Commerce- President, C. Hartley

Riverland Chamber of Commerce- President, J. Hollingdrake

Greek Community- Representative, E. Karragiannis

Italian Community- Representative, M. Morena

Yugoslavian Community- Representative, E. Kregar

District Council of Waikerie-Mayor, D. Elliott

Waikerie Hotel Motel-General Manger, L. Goldsworthy

Waikerie Co-Operative Producers Limited-Chairman, J. Andrew; General Manager, D. Beaton

Waikerie Club Incorporated-President, H. R. Lehmann; General Manager, E. Jones

Waikerie Travel Centre-Tourist Officers, J. Gordon; T. Booth

K..M. Fruitpacking Society Ltd-Chairman, G. Harrington; General Manager, E. Reid

Moorook & District Club Incorporated-Chairman, G. Hunter; General Manager, O. W. Kloeden

District Council of Berri-Mayor, H. Bosman

Berri Hotel-Motel Incorporated- Chairman, T. O’Brien; General Manager, M. Hill

Berri Co-Operative Winery & Distillery LimitedChairman, W. J. Harris; General Manager, B. J. Hill

Berri Club Incorporated- Chairman, D. Mills; Secretary/Manager, T. Whittaker

Berri Co-Operative Packing Union Ltd- Chairman, D. Andary; General Manager, A. T. Thurmer

Berri Tourist Association-Tourist Officer, A. C. O’Connell

Berri Chamber of Commerce- President, M. Henwood; Secretary, K. D. Colbert

District Council of Barmera- Chairman Councillor, B. J. Vasey

Barmera Hotel Motel Inn Incorporated- Chairman, C. Schultz; General Manager, P. Wilson

Barmera Co-Operative Packing Company Ltd- Chairman, A. R. Packer; General Manager, J. E. Green;

Barmera Tourist & Publicity Office-Tourist Officer, J. Nitschke

Barmera Chamber of Commerce- President, J. Pilgrim

Corporation of Renmark- Mayor, L. G. Sims

Riverland Ex-Servicemen’s Land Settlement Association- Secretary, R. Phelps

Cobdogla and District Club- President, H. Neindorf; General Manager, B. Pilmore

House of Assembly, Member for Chaffey- Peter B. Arnold M.P

Upper Murray Wine Grape Growers AssociationChairman, R. Telfer

Correspondence to:

Chairman Co-ordinating Committee- L. E. McCreanor, P.O., Box 153, Barmera, South Australia5345

I replied to Mr McCreanor in the following terms: 3 November 1978

Mr L. E. McCreanor, Chairman,

Riverland Co-ordinating Committee, P.O.Box 153, Barmera, SA 5345

Dear Mr McCreanor,

Thank you for forwarding me a copy of the letter you have sent to the Prime Minister in reference to the savage increase in Brandy Excise.

You have my full support in your efforts to have the Budget decision rescinded.

Yours sincerely, Geoff McLaren

Senator McLAREN:

– I have one further point to make to bolster up what I have been saying in support of the grape growers. I refer to a further Press release by Mr Chatterton on 30 October in which he urged the placing of increased pressure on the Government for reversal of the brandy excise proposal. The Press release reads:

The Minister of Agriculture, Mr Brian Chatterton, this week urged grape growers and winemakers to renew thenprotests at Liberal-Country Party brandy excise measures following a reversal of Federal Budget decisions to tax overseas earnings.

We know that many of the Budget proposals have been overturned as a result of public pressure. It continues:

Mr Chatterton said that the Federal Government’s reversal of its decision on overseas earnings would benefit large companies and individuals. He pointed out that this was the second major decision to be reversed due to strong, wellorganised pressure from groups adversely affected by the budget. lt establishes a clear precedent for the Federal Government to accede to the resolve of the wine grapegrowers and co-operatives in South Australia that there must be a significant lowering in the level of excise on Australian brandy’, he said.

The need to restore a substantial differential in favour of the Australian product is becoming more and more urgent ‘

Figures released to the IAC enquiry into the wine industry by the SA Department of Agriculture and Fisheries shows that more than 100 000 tonnes of surplus wine grapes will rot on the vines in South Australia during next harvest. ‘

That harvest is only a few months away. The Press release continues:

Mr Chatterton said the magnitude of this crisis had not yet sunk into the minds of those in the corridors of power in Canberra.

Growers and co-operative winemakers must renew their efforts by every means to change this vicious increase in tax that has been thrust on our brandy industry’, he said.

I think that I have set out in detail all of the representations that have been made to the Government during the last 18 months acquainting it with the problems that were faced by the industry prior to the impost of the brandy excise proposal, and the further problems that it will face now. I would hope that, as a result of all of the representations that have been made, the South Austraiian members of parliament will maintain their joint attitude with Opposition members in the approaches we have made to the Government and will support amendment of the measure, particularly the amendment that I intend to move on the brandy excise proposal. If they live up to the statements that they have made in their electorates, and in some cases in this chamber also, they will support my amendment. The Government will then have to do something. It has plenty of time to do so before the Parliament rises. The House of Representatives is still sitting. This Bill can be sent back there tonight. The Government can have a change of heart. It can delete that section which relates to the brandy excise and the Bill can be returned here for ratification. We can then salvage something from the wreckage that this Government has created among the grape growers of South Australia.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Opposition opposes the Bill entirely. We will not take it to a division. We will vote against it on the voices. The only division that will be required, unless some of the Queensland representatives want to divide on the savage impost in regard to rum, will be on that part of the Bill which affects the brandy excise and the livelihood of all South Australians in particular.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

-The Bill before us is the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978. 1 wish to refer to that section of it which relates to Australianproduced brandy. My aim is to be concise. I support the Bill and urge all honourable senators to do so also. I speak on this matter chiefly for three reasons. First, 90 per cent of the brandy industry is to be found in my State of South Australia. Secondly, I first spoke on this matter during the Budget debate in September and then raised a number of critical questions which I now want to answer. Thirdly, I believe the reason why this section of the Bill has been highlighted in the Parliament, both in the other place and here, has been the context in which the grape growers and the grape industry find themselves, with the present enormous surplus in grape production. It follows the imposition by the previous Government of an increase in the excise of 23 1 per cent in the period 1973 to 1975. This led to a change in the differential between Australian brandy and imported whisky, from 60 per cent in favour of Australian brandy at the beginning of that Government’s term of office to a much diminished differential of 5.4 per cent at the end of its term.

In this context, the grape industry faced a very serious situation, which was heightened all the more by the over-production, the enormous number of new vines that were planted throughout Australia. The present Government has responded to this by welcoming a Senate inquiry into the grape growing industry and by setting up a thorough and comprehensive inquiry by the Industries Assistance Commission into the industry. It is believed that the Commission will report to the Government in February of next year. This section of the Bill is all the more highlighted because the submissions to the IAC by the industry were being made at the time the August Budget was being prepared. Naturally, the industry made the same representations to Ministers, hoping that they would have effects, by the introduction by the Government of a differential, as early as the Budget presentation. The Government has decided that the decision with regard to the differential should be made when the IAC report is received. I appreciate the Government’s opinion and support it. Accordingly, the representations that were made at Budget time by the industry have been delayed and there has been a sense of frustration, a sense that the industry ‘s representations were not fully heeded at that time. I have been assured, from constant representations to the Government on behalf of the industry, that these representations have been well received by the Government and will be fully taken into account, as Ministers have said in this debate, when the IAC report is received.

What is the situation before us? The excise on spirits, beer and tobacco was raised substantially in the August Budget so as to produce increased revenue from these sources in the amount of $435m. The increase in the excise on potable spirits was 83.6 per cent. Most of the misunderstandings and differences in this debate have resulted from the differing responses to that Budget decision by the industry on the one hand and by the Government on the other. The Government has estimated that the fall in brandy sales as a result of that decision on excise will be of the order of 5 per cent to 6 per cent. If that is the case, as the Government now predicts, there will not be a major dislocation of the brandy industry or the disaster that local newspapers and industry spokesmen have predicted. But the industry has made different estimates and it has put these, strongly and convincingly, especially in the weeks immediately following the presentation of the Budget. Industry spokesmen were well armed as a result of their representations to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry and their representations in June to the Government. Their immediate response to the increased excise was to put out thencase. On the face of it I welcomed and understood the case and was very concerned that it be put clearly to the Government. Accordingly I spoke along those lines in September. I said that I would work continuously to make sure that a remedy is found; that I would assist the Government in determining that remedy and in passing it on to the people. I believe that that remedy will be found for the people in this industry in the light of all the facts put to the IAC inquiry, the report on which is being presented to the Government.

The argument that follows from this estimate by the industry of a 35 per cent to 39 per cent fall in sales leads immediately to a different calculation of the stocks of brandy the industry has on hand. What before the Budget had been 3.9 years of stock became, allowing for the 40 per cent fall in sales, 6.3 years of stock. In the light of this it was contemplated that the industry would not be taking any new grapes. However, if this estimate is wrong and if the Government’s estimate of a fall in sales of only 5 per cent to 6 per cent is right, those stocks are not so greatly increased and it would be practicable for the industry to take in fresh brandy grapes, even this season. The Government’s estimate needs to be taken into account by the industry. It is the industry which will decide on the tonnage of grapes to be received and the amount of brandy to be produced. The estimates should be based on the best available evidence.

The industry has based its entire case on one paper entitled ‘A model of the Australian brandy industry’. It is an econometric model produced by Professor Burley and Mr Bath. It has not been tested and it has not been used by the industry to predict changes in excise in any previous year. It was written some months ago and was snapped up immediately by the industry as a basis for predicting its estimates. This academic paper, this econometric model, predicts- I believe unreliably and without certainty- that there will be a drop in brandy sales of 35 per cent this year and 39 per cent in a full year. Hence the whole industry case, the story that got across to the Riverland which led to some degree of panic and severe concern and which has been continuously published in Riverland newspapers, the story that was taken up by the former member for Angas in his remarks at the Renmark show, the story that was taken up by me in the Budget debate in putting the industry’s view, depends upon this high estimate of the fall in sales.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who is right?

Senator TEAGUE:

– The question that has to be considered is: Who is right? This Senate is a House of review and I believe that it must make an assessment of the speeches and remarks made in the weeks immediately following the Budget and analyse the industry’s case as fairly as it can. I have tried to undertake that review. I listened carefully to the debate in the House of Representatives and I believe that there are weaknesses in the initial industry case and strengths in the Government’s position. Briefly I want to outline those weaknesses and strengths. The first weakness in the industry’s case is, of course, that the econometric model has not been tested previously, even informally. Various sections of the industry are not going to rely fully upon this academic model but will watch sales carefully to see what the position might be in the middle of December. The second weakness is that no one has been able to show that a substantial number of grape growers depend in a major way on sales of brandy grapes for their livelihood. In the Riverland most grape growers sell most of their grapes for wine. They are involved also in fruit growing and other enterprises. Only part of their income is derived from the sale of brandy grapes. Traditionally in the industry the excess grapes, the inferior grapes, have been sold to distilleries to make brandy. So a case could not be made that as a result of the increased excise a substantial hardship would fall upon people; that they would be denied completely their livelihood. I do not know of one single case where someone will be denied his livelihood because his income was derived from brandy grapes.

The third point in respect of the industry case is that we should not lose sight of the fact that grape growing is an industry incorporating the wine industry, the fortified wine industry, the spirit industry, the brandy industry, the dried fruit industry and the table grape industry. In the Riverland area, where 85 per cent of the brandy industry is located, there has been an enormous input of fresh income and prosperity as a result of the Government’s Budget decision not to place any impost or tax or excise on wine. Indeed, the increase in wine sales since the Budget has been of the order of 25 per cent. This enormous boost in wine sales will bring fresh prosperity to the incomes and livelihood of the majority of grape growers. I believe that as a result of the Budget it cannot be shown with certainty that there will be substantial, significant losses on account of brandy but that there certainly will be quite enormous gains to those grape growers as a result of increased wine sales. By looking at the industry as a whole the Government has begun to correct the suffering that was induced several years ago, both on the wine front and on the brandy front.

With regard to the Government’s position, I will outline various strengths. The Government did not introduce in the Budget any new differential with regard to Australian produced brandy. It allowed the status quo to remain until the IAC report on potable spirits is received. I am convinced that this is the time to consider the change in the differential. In addition, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) advised me in mid-October that the tariff still substantially assists the Australian brandy industry. He said:

The short-term tariff assistance for brandy of about $2.10 per litre of alcohol on import clearances within quota remains and, as announced in the Budget, Australian brandy production is now also provided with additional protection from imported brandy by the 12.S per cent tariff surcharge within quota import clearances.

The Government also has relied in coming to its Budget decisions on not imposing a wine tax because of the enormous problems that the industry faces as a result of the surplus in production. Estimates of the quantity of excess grapes have varied from 50,000 tonnes to 100,000 tonnes. These grapes will be left on the vines this season and the Government, in making its revenue decisions, had to weigh whether, in order to gain necessary revenue, it would place an impost upon wine or an impost upon all potable spirits. The Government chose to place the increased excise on potable spirits because it believed that giving a free reign to wine sales would be the most significant way in which to assist the grape growing industry as a whole. In recent weeks I have been most impressed by the Government’s case and I have been unable to sustain a strong argument on behalf of the industry.

I have borne in mind some other considerations but these have been lesser considerations because I believe that the substantial question before us in this Bill is the estimate of damage done to an industry by a Budget decision. I have tried to argue my assessment of that damage. The other consideration which should be given some weight is that this is a revenue Bill and that a government in the House of Representatives has the right to determine the guidance the economy should have and to determine how it should raise its revenue. Accordingly, by this Bill the Government has imposed an excise upon potable spirits, upon beer and upon tobacco and in other areas has increased sales tax and the excise on oil and so on. It would be with reluctance that honourable senators, particularly those on this side of the House, would say that the Government has not that right to raise revenue. Even if some aspect of the Budget were to prove an impediment to an industry or even if I greatly disliked some aspect of the Budget, the Budget should be seen as a whole. If every member were to delete from the Budget those items which he did not like, there would be a chipping away at the Budget here and there and the Government could not be assured of its own Budget decisions prevailing.

Another consideration, and it was a very serious one for the Government, was whether instead of an excise increase an alternative wine tax should be imposed. The whole grape growing industry does not want such a tax. The Senate standing committee that reported on the grape growing industry, chaired by Senator Sheil, strongly recommended to this Senate and to the Parliament that there be no new tax on wine until the industry is able to buy itself out from under the great penalties imposed on it by the previous Labor Government. Another consideration that has led to my assessment of the situation is that the Government has given every assurance that it will act to take up the representations that the Liberal senators and the Labor senators from South Australia put to it on behalf of the industry at the time that the Industries Commission Assistance report was received. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), when he introduced this Bill in another place on 15 November, said:

The Government has received representations on behalf of the Australian brandy manufacturing industry in relation to the effect of this measure on the industry. We are concerned with the position of Australian brandy producers. Indeed although the Budget applied increases equally to all excisable spirits, it provided no new impost on Australian wine. Demonstrably this action has already stimulated domestic demand. There is an Industries Assistance Commission report on potable spirits outstanding and the appropriate time to consider further the position of the brandy industry is in the context of the report. The representations will be carefully considered by the Government at that time.

Similarly, Senator Durack, as the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, when introducing this Bill in the Senate gave similar assurances, and I do not take those assurances lightly. I have welcomed them from the Government, as have all my fellow senators from South Australia.

Senator McLaren:

– You don’t take them literally, either.

Senior Bishop- But you have changed your mind, Senator, since we met the Acting Premier.

Senator TEAGUE:

-Mr President, I hear various interjections from the other side of the House but I have noted that Opposition senators have been very quiet throughout this debate. I believe it is evident from the debate both here and in another place that members of the Labor Party are aware that their Government imposed an extraordinary 23 1 per cent increase in excise during its term of office.

Senator Young:

– What was that figure again, Senator?

Senator TEAGUE:

-Two hundred and thirtyone per cent.

Senator Messner:

– What year was that- 1973?

Senator TEAGUE:

– It was 1973 to 1975. 1 listened to the debate in the other place and I listened to the honourable member for Adelaide who led for the Opposition. He was the only person present in the chamber on his side of the House. I believe that he had at the back of his mind that his side would be accused of hypocrisy if it took a stronger line in falsely accusing this Government. I also note that the honourable member for Adelaide, when leading for the Opposition in the debate in another place, said that he accepted the 40 per cent drop in sales that the industry had calculated. He said:

That is the indication from all sources I have been able to tap to date.

In other ways he left himself with routes of escape in case that industry estimate, based on the academic paper, did not eventuate. I believe he was wise to do so. The case that has been put by the Opposition in this place has been similarly restrained and careful because the whole of the Opposition’s case, apart from political pressuring, is resting upon this estimate.

In summary, I can say only that in the Budget debate two months ago I had very clearly in my mind the very significant questions that had been put to me very clearly and carefully by the industry. I took these matters most seriously. I represented them here in the Senate and I represented them carefully to the Government. I am delighted that the Government has responded to those representations with the assurance that every consideration would be given to those representations at the appropriate time and that is when the full, objective case of the Industries Assistance Commission is given to the Government. I believe that that will be in February. I assure the people of South Australia that all the Liberal senators from South Australia, indeed, all senators on this side of the House will be most vigilant to remind the Government of its assurance then.

Finally, I point out that the dilemma in which the grape industry finds itself is not primarily the outcome of an absolute increase in excise, although I believe that the industry will be assisted early next year by a differential of about 30 per cent- the amount of differential which was enjoyed in the past and which ought to be given to an Australian industry. What is more serious is the degree of over-planting of new vineyards, without control, without check, without licence and without registration. I believe that the case put by the Wine and Brandy Co-operative Producers Association of Australia, which still stands before the Industries Assistance Commission and which has been very responsibly argued with regard to a national register of vineyards, with regard to a national pricing scheme and with regard to wine and brandy imports being required to meet the National Health and Medical Research Council regulations applying to wines produced in Australia, is vital in remedying the serious situation before the grape industry. I hope that I have given to the Senate a fuller explanation of the questions that have been in my mind in recent weeks, and I urge honourable senators to support the Bill.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

-I am amazed at the disregard that this Government has shown for the brandy industry. I believe that if we look at just what governments have done to the brandy industry we will be amazed that it even exists today. I remind the

Senate that in six years it has paid $136,715,634 in taxation. This tax has come from an industry which is based primarily in one small area of South Australia. Nearly 90 per cent of the Australian brandy industry is in that area. In 1972-73 the industry paid duty of $3.08 per litre of brandy. For 1978-79 the duty is to be $18.09 per litre of brandy alcohol. This industry has never sought assistance from governments or anyone. It is one of the few remaining primary industries that is not subsidised. I believe that it is a complete rip-off for any government to do what this Government is doing to the industry. The brandy industry, unlike any other industry, cannot survive sudden changes. It takes at least three years to get a reasonable grape crop from new vines. Some of the other spirit industries that use grain can alter their structures within 12 months, but the brandy industry, which relies on the use of grapes, cannot do this. Consequently, the grapes have been grown for brandy production.

I was interested to hear Senator Teague say that we could hold an inquiry probably early next year. If this Bill is passed tonight, I believe that this industry will be entirely finished. If the growers cannot sell their product they have no alternative but to pull out the grape vines and plant something that is salable. It is estimated that this year there will be a surplus of between 35,000 and 40,000 tonnes of grenache and doradillo grapes, which are specially grown for the brandy industry and which cannot be used in any other industry. They cannot be used in wine production. Last year some growers dried them and sold them to the cake manufacturing industry, but this only had the tendency to upset the dried fruit industry. If more growers dry some of these grapes which are grown primarily for the brandy industry, it will have disastrous effects on the dried fruit industry. I am certain that you, Mr President, are well aware of this. Senator Teague was reported in the Murray Pioneer to have said in his maiden speech -

Senator McLaren:

– He sent that Press release up there, didn’t he?

Senator ELSTOB:

-This Press release was sent there. He is reported to have said:

How can I be credible as a Liberal and as a senator if the facts being as they are I do not voice the strongest protest?

Senator Teague:

– If the facts being as they are?

Senator ELSTOB:

-That is what the honourable senator said. He continued:

I have not yet been assured by anyone as to how this catastrophe will be avoided, but it must be avoided.

Senator Teague:

– I am assured now.

Senator ELSTOB:

-Yes, I can see that the honourable senator is assured. Senator Teague stated that he was opposed to this increase. He said that it was a disgrace that an 83 per cent increase in the excise on brandy would virtually destroy the industry. I certainly agree with what he said at that time. I would also like to point out at this stage that 13 million litres of brandy is being held in stock by the industry. Last year 1.855 million litres of brandy was sold. It is impossible for the industry to hold stock for more than three years, or four years at the most. With 13 million litres of brandy in stock it will be virtually impossible to process one grape in the coming season. Senator Teague is fully aware of that. As I stated previously, if this Bill goes through the Senate it will mean the complete destruction of this industry. In times such as those we are facing now, when there is a lack of employment and security, it is a wonder that this Government does not face up to its responsibility and try to save an industry.

The industry has to compete with imported brandies. Many of these imported brandies are produced in areas where it is doubtful that very many grapes have been seen at all. It is unfair competition. Every litre of brandy produced by the Australian brandy industry is produced from Australian grapes. The cost of it is naturally higher than the cost of imported brandy. No one can actually prove that imported brandy is produced from grapes only.

Senator McLaren:

– The quality is better.

Senator ELSTOB:

-The quality of Australian brandy is most certainly better. It is estimated that next year 3 1,800 tonnes of grapes will not be picked. Those grapes would have produced 2.8 million litres of brandy alcohol. Because we hold at present 13 million litres of brandy it is very doubtful whether any of those grapes will be picked for the production of brandy in the coming season. We have about five years supply. In some areas sales have been reduced by as much as 70 per cent; most certainly they have been reduced on average by 40 per cent.

If this Bill goes through the Senate tonight it will mean the complete destruction of the brandy industry. As I have said previously, I believe that the brandy industry has never asked for help from any government, but no industry can survive with such a tax being continually levied against it. The price of brandy today is equal to the price of whisky. Unless brandy is sold at a lower price people have a tendency to drink imported Scotch whisky.

The brandy industry most certainly will collapse. I believe that the Senate should look sincerely at this matter. For over 100 years the families of those who pioneered the development of South Australia have developed this industry. It has given a great deal of service and provided much work. A great number of people have been employed in this industry over many years. I believe that the present situation is a disgrace and this Government most certainly should re-assess its approach. Honourable senators must realise that there will be repercussions in the Murray Valley if this legislation is passed. We have already seen what happened in South Australia when this Government stopped the building of ships in Whyalla. The social consequences in that area are unbelievable. The cost must be measured not just in terms of dollars and cents. The cost of human suffering and degradation should be taken into account. What happened to the shipbuilding industry in Whyalla will happen to the grape growing industry in the Murray Valley. As I have said, families have been engaged in this industry for over a century. All the social evils will come with the problem. In addition the Government will not gain the extra revenue that it should from the increased excise because brandy sales have dropped. Also, it will have to pay unemployment benefit to the people who are thrown out of this industry and become unemployed.

I assure honourable senators that the industry will collapse. I believe that this Government most certainly should take a second look at this matter now. It will be too late to do anything even in February of next year. Many growers are in real trouble because last season a large quantity of their red wine grapes and brandy grapes were left to rot on the vines as they could not sell them. If this happens again this year, many of these people will go out of the area and the grape growing business completely. In addition, many of the small brandy producers will want to leave this country. They will sell their brandy stocks at giveaway prices. This also will cause great problems for the bigger brandy producers. They will not be able to sell their stocks of brandy when the smaller producers are virtually giving away their brandy stocks. Most certainly, the smaller producers will be leaving this industry. That also will cause further trouble within the industry. It will have an effect that will completely crush that industry. I believe that the Senate should take stock of this situation.

When I first became a senator I went to the Murray Valley and arranged a meeting between the growers and the brandy producers. It was I who, through the State Government, arranged a meeting of senators on both sides of the chamber to examine this matter in a non-party way in order to save this industry. It is no use Senator Messner nodding his head.

Senator Messner:

– We were there.

Senator ELSTOB:

-That is all right, but I think that the honourable senator ought to be a little more sincere about this matter. We should all forget party politics when considering it. We ought to be genuine in our remarks because if we cannot save industries and jobs, I do not know why we are in the Senate. I have always believed that people are more important than any other consideration. It is the people- the grape growers, the workers in these industries and the people with the expertise- we will lose. We will lose this expertise in the same way we lost the expertise from the Whyalla shipyards and other industries. I believe that we should reassess this situation. My colleague, Senator McLaren, has dealt with many of the other matters that I intended to raise tonight. As the hour is late, I will not deal with those matters. I ask honourable senators to think honestly about this matter at this late stage. I ask the Government to take another look at it because it will be too late to do so next year.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I have mentioned before that many years ago South Australian senators in particular and sometimes South Australian members of the House of Representatives met together with the State Premier and other officials to consider what were exclusively South Australian propositions. Over the years all the South Austraiian members of the Senate and the House of Representatives usually went along with the requests of the State Government if they were well-founded. However, it is sad to relate that in recent years we have met and agreed upon a policy but it has never been carried through. In the past I have made mention, just in passing, of the circumstances in which such requests have not been carried through. For example, it happened only a few days ago in regard to the Stuart Highway. Some months earlier, an arrangement which we made in respect of the shipbuilding yard in Whyalla was broken. We joined together and framed a proposition to put to the Government and agreed to try to get it carried. Tonight we are talking about a situation in respect of which all the South Australian senators and members of the House of Representatives met in the office of the acting State Premier and agreed to do what we could to get the Government to remove the excise on Austraiian brandies. The honourable senators who have spoken tonight were present with me at the meeting. As I recall, various people spoke at the meeting including representatives of the brandy industry. An article appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser of 9 September 1978 following the meeting. This article was headed: ‘Call to remove brandy excise’, and stated:

A meeting of Federal and State politicians and wine and brandy producers yesterday called for the removal of the excise on Australian brandy imposed in the Federal budget.

The South Australian Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tonkin, at first said that he would not attend the meeting. He changed his mind and instructed his State members of Parliament to attend the meeting. When the South Australian member for Chaffey, Mr Arnold, attended the meeting, he raised no objections to the sorts of procedures which we endorsed. The report continues:

Yesterday morning however, the party reversed its decision and Mr Tonkin issued a statement that the Member for Chaney, Mr Arnold, would attend the meeting.

We met as a group. Some discussions took place on how we were to proceed but we finally decided that the statement to be issued should be a unanimous statement. It was issued by Mr Kraehe of Renmano Wines Co-operative Ltd. The article in the Adelaide Advertiser contained the statement issued by Mr Kraehe after the meeting. It reads:

  1. . it had been unanimously decided to support the Australian brandy industry ‘s case for a reduction in excise.

The meeting had expressed particular concern at the impact on SA ‘s Riverland region.

Overnight, because of a Budget decision, the industry is dramatically overstocked with producers not needing to take in stocks for brandy production for another two years.

He said the meeting had prepared a submission to be sent to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the Treasurer-

At that meeting we all agreed, after some two hours of discussion, that we would support the industry. Everybody presumed that when the matter came before the Parliament each member in turn would support the proposition and if the Government did not decide to remove the excise we would take some action. The Excise Tariff Amendment Bill has now been presented in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Motions have been moved to remove the excise. I am sad to say that all honourable senators opposite who have spoken on the issue have changed their minds. That is not good and it does not augur well for the future. If I were to quote what honourable senators have said in the debate tonight in relation to the excise their remarks would not be much different to what was said by Mr Giles in the other place. He gave basic support to what that meeting, under the chairmanship of Mr Corcoran, proposed to do. Mr Giles is recorded on page 3220 of Hansard of 22 November as saying:

Without any alteration few brandy grapes will be purchased for at least two years. That seems to be a reasonable assumption. This is an absurd situation in which to place a section of that Australian industry. It is equally absurd to leave grape growers in the position where some of our brandy grapes certainly will be unsalable at a time when many of their red grapes, and last season some of their white grapes, were already unsalable and were left on the vines. The lesson surely to governments of all colours is that this industry is complex. It is not as simple or as simplistic as governments seem to think. It has several parts to it. Many of them are interchangeable when there is a need to adjust. It is a vertically integrated industry wherein the growers, having no economic alternative source of production, are locked into the total health of the processing and the marketing sectors.

Mr Giles went on to say, as recorded at page 3221 of Hansard.

I recognise the need for revenue, but I have serious doubts that an increase in excise duty of 83.6 per cent for Australian brandy will in fact increase revenue as much as expected. In fact, early indications support that view because of the reduced volume of sales. Therefore, there seems to me to be a case for less drastic increase which could maximise revenue yields.

A group of South Australian senators, who were concerned about an important industry and excited by the representations made on behalf of the industry, sat around a table for two hours and decided to do what we could do to remove this excise on brandy. I cannot understand why Government members are afraid to support removal of the excise. If they are not prepared to support it now we will get nowhere in the future.

I have restated the issues as I see them. This is certainly not an indication that joint action is likely on matters affecting South Australia in the future. As I have said more than once in the past, the State of South Australia needs unity because of economic and geographical disabilities. These disabilities will not be overcome unless the members of the Federal Parliament join together to take a positive stand. I hope that even at this late hour the South Australian representatives on the Government side will join the Opposition in supporting the proposition which has been put forward by Senator McLaren.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply-The legislation before the Senate is a part of the Government’s measures announced at the beginning of this session in the Budget Speech delivered about 14 weeks ago. It provides for increases in excise on a whole range of products including beer, spirits, tobacco products and crude oil. The legislation is a major piece of the revenue raising proposals announced in the Budget. The debate in the Senate this evening has been suprising inasmuch as some honourable senators apparently have not read the legislation or are not aware of the ambit of its provisions because they confined themselves, as far as I could see, entirely to one item, namely, the increase in the excise on brandy. But as I have said, the legislation has a much wider ambit than that. That is its most important feature.

The Opposition has mounted an attack on the legislation and concern has been expressed by senators on the Government side, too. This is inspired by the problems that undoubtedly exist in the grape growing industry in the Riverlands area of South Australia. South Australian senators have expressed concern about the industry. Opposition members have referred to efforts that they claim they have been making for many months. Indeed, Senator McLaren and Senator Elstob spoke of events that occurred well before the Budget was introduced. They dealt with problems that they observed in the industry at that time. It is really rather surprising that the Labor Party Opposition should be so concerned about the problems of this industry when one recalls the way in which the Labor Government treated the industry in the three years when it was in power. As Senator Teague has already indicated, the excise on brandy was increased by 23 1 per cent from $3.08 per litre of alcohol to $10.21 in that short period in office. In the seven years prior to the Labor Government’s advent to office in 1972 there had been no increases at all and until this year’s Budget there had been no increases by this Government.

As has been pointed out, the Government has been particularly solicitous of the wine grape growing industry and the Budget provides for no increase in excise duty on wine, which is another important aspect. In addition to the dramatic increases by the Labor Government in brandy excise that Government also dealt a severe blow to the whole of this industry by its removal of the provisions of section 31 A of the Income Tax Assessment Act relating to tax payable on wine defined as trading stock. That was a problem imposed on the whole of the industry by the Labor Government. I mention that only because of the rather surprising contrast with the solicitude which Labor senators claim to have discovered earlier this year for the wine grape growing industry and particularly the grape growing industry in the Riverland area of South Australia.

I was particularly impressed by the contributions made in this debate by Senator Jessop and Senator Teague because they have endeavoured to make an objective approach to the problems of this industry. They have taken a keen interest in the problems of the industry. At the same time they have endeavoured to assess them in an objective way while giving proper consideration to the purposes of this legislation and the role that it plays in the whole of the Government’s Budget strategy. Some criticism has been levelled particularly at Senator Teague because he is said to have changed his mind in relation to this matter. Senator Teague demonstrated in a very thoughtful speech tonight that he has a capacity- which Ls sadly lacking on the part of Opposition members- to analyse very carefully the arguments that have been put to him and he would not just accept, as honourable senators opposite seem to do, anything that was put to him. He analysed what was put to him and he demonstrated this capacity in the speech tonight which he delivered with great care and very telling effect. I know that what I an saying will fall on deaf ears on the other side of the chamber, but there is an inability on the part of honourable senators opposite ever to consider anything objectively or to consider rational argument. Fortunately, there are in this Senate people, particularly on this side as exemplified by Senator Teague, who can consider matters objectively. Senator Teague did so very effectively. Both Senator Jessop and Senator Teague have made important contributions to this debate. They have indicated that in their view one way which may help to solve the problems of the industry would be to strike differential excise duties on locally produced brandy and on imported brandy. Naturally it would have to be an excise which would provide a significant benefit to the brandy producers in Australia.

The Minister has said on behalf of the Government that we are awaiting with interest the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on potable spirits. The Government believes that that will be the suitable time to give full consideration to the question. The point has been made effectively by Senator Jessop and Senator Teague in the debate that a differential excise rate will be carefully considered by the Government in the light of the survey of the industry and the report of the Industries Assistance Commission.

I emphasise that the excise duty, which apparently seems to be not quite appreciated by some Labor senators, has been operating since the Budget was introduced. It is not being imposed by this legislation although this legislation is required to give it full legislative effect. The excise has been in operation now for 14 weeks, so it is not a question of doom and destruction following a decision made in the Senate tonight. That is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. Although the excise has been operating, the industry has not suffered the doom and destruction that Senator Elstob seemed to think would follow the passage of this legislation tonight. The evidence which has been made available to the Government and to the officers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs who are in a better position than anybody else to know the facts, indicates that in the short period for the excise has been operating there has not been any significant change in the consumption of spirits as a result of the Budget measures. That comment applies to both whisky and brandy, which has been the subject of concern.

Senator Bishop:

– Why don’t you give the figures?

Senator DURACK:

– The figures will come out when the statistics are produced. I am simply saying that on the evidence that has been obtained that is the position. When the Industries Assistance Commission report comes forward in due course and after there has been a further period of time to assess the matter fully, we all will be in a better position to understand the facts. It will be interesting to see whether the Opposition will face the facts that are provided by the learned and careful analysis that we expect to receive from the Industries Assistance Commission. I will lay any odds that we will have the same old tired, hackneyed speeches from Senator McLaren, Senator Bishop and others on this matter. They will indicate no further preparedness or capacity to objectively face these matters, as Senator Teague so amply demonstrated in his analysis of the arguments that he has made in the few weeks since he was first faced with this problem. The Government hopes that this measure which, as I have said, is an important Budget measure dealing with a whole range of matters, will have the support of the Senate this evening.

Senator McLaren:

– We will not call for a division as long as it is recorded that the Opposition opposes the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have circulated four amendments relating to the Schedule, which reads:

page 2524

QUESTION

AMENDMENTS OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE PRINCIPAL ACT

Item 1- Omit ‘$0,394’, substitute ‘$0.52 ‘.

Sub-item 2 (a)Omit ‘$ 10.2 1 ‘, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2 (b)Omit ‘$ 10.2 1 ‘, substitute ‘$18.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2 (c)Omit ‘$10.2 1 ‘, substitute ‘$18.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2 (d)Omit ‘$ 10.2 1 ‘, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75 ‘.

Paragraph 2 (E)(1)- Omit ‘ $ 1 0.2 1’, substitute ‘$18.75’.

Paragraph 2 (E)(2)- Omit ‘$10.21 ‘, substitute ‘$18.75’.

Sub-item 2 (F)Omit ‘$ 10.29 ‘, substitute ‘$18.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2 (G)Omit ‘$ 10.33 ‘, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2(H)- Omit ‘$10.29 ‘, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2 (o)Omit ‘ $ 1 0.64 ‘, substitute ‘$19.25’.

Sub-item 5 (a) - Omit ‘$ 10.25 ‘, substitute ‘$18.75’.

Sub-item 5 (b)Omit ‘ $ 1 0.64 *, substitute ‘$ 1 9.2 5 ‘.

Sub-item 5 (c)Omit ‘$10.25’, substitute ‘$18.75’.

Paragraph 6 (a)(1)- Omit’$9.68’, substitute ‘$12.38’.

Paragraph 6 (a) (2)- Omit ‘ $9. 83 ‘, substitute ‘$12.53’.

Paragraph 6 (b)(1)- Omit’$9.73 substitute $12.43

Paragraph 6 (b)(2)- Omit ‘$9.88 ‘, substitute ‘$ 12.58 ‘.

Paragraph 6 (c)(1)- Omit ‘$ 1 9.22 ‘, substitute ‘$24.6 1 ‘.

Paragraph 6 (c)(2)- Omit ‘$ 19.36 ‘, substitute ‘$24.75 ‘.

Sub-item 7 (a)Omit ‘$ 1 6.34 ‘, substitute ‘$20.90 ‘.

Sub-item 7 (b)Omit ‘$16.56’, substitute ‘$21.12’.

Sub-item 8 (a)Omit ‘$19.31’, substitute ‘$24.70 ‘.

Sub-item 8 (b)Omit ‘$19.36’, substitute ‘$24.75 ‘.

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment, viz:

Leave out-

Item 1 - Omit ‘$0,394 substitute ‘$0.52 ‘. ‘.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I wish to speak briefly to the amendment moved by Senator McLaren and to make one or two observations concerning the grape growing industry in South Australia. I pay tribute to the comments of Senator Teague in relation to the industry and in particular his own degree of involvement in the discussions that have taken place with the industry, the State Government and other bodies since this matter first became a subject for public discussion following presentation of the 1978 Budget. During the debate which immediately followed the Budget brought down on 15 August I made my position quite clear. I indicated that I supported the Budget in total. I do not demur in anyway on that issue and thoroughly support the Government and its objective to bring down inflation and restore the economy. I believe that the Budget/in its entirety is central to that aim. The objective which Senator McLaren has in mind in moving these amendments tonight is merely to embarrass the Government supporters who have represented, as have members of the Australian Labor Party, the interests of the South Australian people by taking these matters forward to the Federal Government and ensuring that the Government fully recognises the problems in certain parts of South Australia. I find nothing inconsistent in that matter, except as to policy.

Senator Elstob mentioned during his discussion on the second reading speech of the Bill that he felt that action had to be taken immediately in order to save jobs in this area. Action was taken immediately by this Government in respect to the grape growing industries of South Australia. We know that the Government consciously avoided the imposition of taxes on wine in the Budget. In fact, wine was the only alcholic beverage saved from the impact of taxes. Consequently, the Federal Government is concerned now to ensure that the wine industry finds its own way out of its problems in South Australia. Brandy manufacture is not the solution to the problem of absorbing the huge surplus of grapes that we have had in recent years, and in particular last year. That has been demonstrated clearly in studies made by the Government and other persons. It is well recognised in the industry that the one way to absorb the surplus of grapes is to ensure that the wine industry becomes more profitable and takes in more grapes in 1979 than it did last year.

Senator Elstob:

– There are specially grown grapes for brandy.

Senator MESSNER:

-Senator Elstob has had his go. The honourable senator mentioned in particular the doradillo types of grape which are limited largely to a very narrow area of brandy production. I can not identify one grape grower in the Riverland who relies wholly on doradillo grapes for his income. All grape growers have a mix of grapes on their blocks and consequently will feel the tremendous benefit of the upsurge in sales which has come about since the Budget by virtue of the Government’s conscious determination not to impose a wine tax and to face up to the real problems of the Riverland in ensuring that grapes are absorbed into the market. That is an essential and fundamental element but apparently is totally unrecognised as such by the Opposition. If we turn the argument around and ask the Opposition senators how they would feel about the imposition of a tax on the wine industry, which is the corollary of what they are proposing-

Senator McLaren:

– You put that on before and we took it off.

Senator MESSNER:

– I do not have to answer that sort of nonsense. The fact is that they reduced the wine tax with one hand and took that benefit away with the other in the imposition of a further tax by reducing the effect of section 3 1 A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. They know that. They imposed a huge excise on brandy in 1973.

Let us not be diverted from the real issue. The real issue is how to get the grape growing industry going, as a preliminary act to the discussions that the Government will undertake in the full public eye, as any government should. I believe that what the Whitlam Government or any other form of Labor government would have wanted to do was to discuss the whole question of the industry under the eye of the Industries Assistance Commission. As we know, there are presently two inquiries going forward. One on grape growing and the other on the potable spirits industry. The essential element of this Government’s policy, having consciously not imposed a wine tax to assist the industry in this difficult vintage of 1 979, will be to ensure that there is a thorough consideration of the long term problems of the industry when those IAC reports come down. Consequently we, as representatives of the South Australian electorate, will be making sure that the Government sees the problems of the Riverland in their proper context. I support what the Government has done to ensure that the Riverland is looked after in respect of the wine industry as a whole.

Senator McLaren:

– We will not call for a division, as long as our support for the amendment is recorded.

Question resolved in the negative.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I move:

We intend to call for a division on this amendment. In speaking to the amendment, I would like to make some remarks about what Senator Durack had to say. He told us that evidence was available to the Government that the increased excise on brandy, with which the amendment deals, has had no detrimental effect on the industry. Prior to that he had said that the Government would await the Industries Assistance Commission report before giving relief to the industry. It is very hard to put those two statements into proper perspective. It would appear that the Government had before it all the evidence it needed.

Senator Durack also said that both Senator Elstob and I went back long before the Budget. Of course we did. We did that because the evidence about which we were talking was the evidence that had been given to the Government about the problems in the industry. The industry was then seeking some relaxation of the then excise, but the Government did not take any notice of the representations made to it. What did it do? It increased the excise by 83 per cent. It is no argument to say to us senators on this side of the chamber who have put the case for the industry most forcefully that we are going back into the past. Of course we are. What we are trying to prove to the Government is that the industry did not make representations to it only after it imposed the excise. The industry made representations to the Government as long as 1 8 months ago, through the South Australian Minister of Agriculture, pointing out the problems that existed in the industry, acquainting the Government of all the problems that were evident then, under the old excise, and asking for some relief from that. The Government turned a deaf ear to the industry representations and did just the opposite by increasing the excise.

It is all very well for people like Senator Messner to criticise us members of the Opposition for what we did when we were in government. I think I covered that in my speech during the second reading debate. I said that certainly we did make some increases in the excise, but this Government has made a further massive increase. That does not get the Government off the hook in any way at all. Senator Messner went on to talk about section 3 1 A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. I have explained that also and have pointed out that Mr Lynch, when he was Treasurer, gave a solemn promise to the industry that he would restore that provision to the Income Tax Assessment Act. But he did not do that.

I was very disappointed in Senator Teague when I listened to his speech during the second reading debate, because I thought that he had studied the problems of the industry; that the remarks that he made, a copy of which was published in the Murray Pioneer of 21 September, were truthful and honest; and that he was truthful and honest in his belief that the industry was in trouble because of this imposition. We have only to read it to see that there is one part that is very important. He said:

There must be a remedy. In the War of Independence for the United States of America some fundamental principles of democracy were enunciated. One of these principles which arose from a government imposed tax on tea, hence the celebrated Boston tea party, was ‘no taxation without representation ‘. This principle is at risk here.

Of course it is at risk here, because here we have Government senators making speeches criticising the Government because of this brandy excise, sending copies of their speeches into the very heart of the Riverland of South Australia where the people are suffering because of it, making themselves out to be very good fellows and making out that they are concerned; and then corning in here when the Bill is before this chamber and saying that they are going to support the legislation. They tried to get off the hook by talking some academic nonsense which has not yet been proved. Senator Teague is an academic. This a problem that we have with Government senators on many occasions. When they are put to the test they go to water. I do not think I need to say any more.

Government Senator- Ha ha!

Senator McLAREN:

– If honourable senators opposite want me to do so, I can say a lot more, because I used only about a quarter of the material that was provided to me by the industry. I think that when copies of what I have said here in this chamber tonight, and certainly what

Senator Teague has said, are distributed to the people in the Riverland they will probably do a dozen somersaults and some of them will fall into the River Murray with disgust, having read his maiden speech which he circulated through the Riverland. I have moved the amendment and all honourable senators are acquainted of it.

Question put:

That the request (Senator McLaren’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Douglas Barr Scott)

AYES: 25

NOES: 34

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have two more requests to move. As we lost the division on the most important request I seek leave to move these two requests together.

Leave granted.

Senator McLAREN:

– I move:

  1. That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment, viz:

Leave out-

Sub-item 2 (D)-

Omit ‘$ 10.2 1’, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75 ‘.

Paragraph 2 (e)(1)-

Omit ‘$10.2 1 ‘, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75’.

Paragraph 2 (e)(2)-

Omit ‘$ 10.21’, substitute ‘$18.75’.

Sub-item 2(F)-

Omit ‘$ 10.29 ‘, substitute ‘$1 8.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2(G)-

Omit ‘$10.33 ‘, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75 ‘.

Sub-item 2(H)-

Omit ‘$ 10.29 ‘, substitute ‘$18.75’.

Sub-item 2 (o)-

Omit ‘$10.64’, substitute ‘$1 9.25 ‘.

Sub-item 5 (a)-

Omit ‘$ 10.25 ‘, substitute ‘$ 1 8.75 ‘.

Sub-item 5(b)-

Omit ‘$10.64’, substitute’$19.25’.

Sub-item 5 (C)-

Omit ‘$ 10.25 ‘, substitute ‘$18.75 ‘.

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment, viz:

Leave out-

Paragraph 6 (a) ( 1 )-

Omit ‘$9.68’, substitute ‘$ 12.38 ‘.

Paragraph 6 (a)(2)-

Omit ‘$9.83’, substitute ‘$ 12.53 ‘.

Paragraph 6 (b)(1)-

Omit ‘$9.73 ‘, substitute ‘$ 12.43 ‘.

Paragraph 6 (B) (2)-

Omit ‘$9.88’, substitute ‘$12.58’.

Paragraph 6 (C)(1)-

Omit “$ 1 9.22 ‘, substitute ‘$24.6 1 ‘.

Paragraph 6 (C) (2)-

Omit ‘$ 1 9.36 ‘, substitute ‘$24.75 ‘.

Sub-item 7 (a)-

Omit’$l6.34’, substitute ‘$20.90’.

Sub-item 7 (b)-

Omit ‘$16.56’, substitute ‘$21.12’.

Sub-item 8 (a)-

Omit ‘$ 1 9.3 1 ‘, substitute ‘$24.70 ‘.

Sub-item 8(b)-

Omit ‘$ 1 9.36 ‘, substitute ‘$24.75 ‘.

It is not the intention of the Opposition to divide on these requests. However, we want our opposition recorded. Before I sit down I would just like to say that I will certainly be distributing the Hansard speeches of this debate in the Riverland of South Australia as quickly as I can to acquaint the people in that area of the fact that Government members say things in the electorate which they cannot back up when it comes to a vote. The position is that the Australian Labor Party is on record when it was in government of honouring promises to the grape industry. Supporters of the present Government are on record as making promises and criticising the Government but when they have the opportunity to stand up and be counted they back off. My colleagues have just reminded me that there is not one Liberal senator from South Australia in the chamber at the moment. The four South Australian Labor members are here at the moment taking an intense interest in the Bill.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Will they all be here tomorrow night? Will you be here tomorrow night, Senator? I want an answer.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Baume is chiding me. My record of attendance in this place stands up against that of anyone. In the eight years I have been here I think I have missed only three days.

Question resolved in the negative.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I want to speak to clause 4 of the Bill, the clause which proposes to increase the crude oil levy. I waited until now to speak to this clause because I wanted to allow Senator McLaren to move his requests pertaining to the increases in the excise on tobacco and various alcoholic beverages. Clause 4, to which I want to speak briefly, relates, of course, to the increase in the crude oil levy and the immediate movement towards full import parity for domestically produced crude oil. I note in passing that this is contrary to the declared intention of the Government in 1977, particularly the declared intention of Mr Anthony.

I note that in a speech in Adelaide on 16 November last the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman), asserted that ‘some progress has already been made in restraining the rate of growth of consumption of liquid fuels’. That statement was made in the context of the Government’s crude oil pricing policies having had some effect on the growth or consumption rate of crude oil. I want to refute that totally fallacious assertion. In fact, it is refuted by the Government’s own estimates, in the 1978-79 Budget Papers, of the revenue which will be derived from the excise on refined petroleum products. The 1978-79 Budget Papers, as can be seen from Budget Paper No. 1 at page 167, forecast an increase in the consumption of petroleum fuel subject to excise of 5 per cent in this financial year when compared with that for the previous year.

If we look back over the past four years we see that the actual rate of increase in the volume of consumption has been 4.9 per cent. If we look back over the previous six years we see that the actual growth rate in consumption has been 4.87 per cent. So the Government’s own revenue estimates for this year reveal that the Government is forecasting a growth rate in the consumption of petroleum fuels greater than that of either the last four or six years. Notwithstanding that fact, the Minister for National Resources had the audacity six or seven days ago to say that some progress had already been made in restraining the rate of growth in the consumption of liquid fuels. That statement was fraudulent.

I refer now to the question of the crude oil levy, or excise, as it relates to primary industry in particular and to the economy in general. First, for the information of those who claim to be, as does the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, primarily or overwhelmingly concerned with restraining the rate of inflation, the Government ‘s decision to move immediately to full import parity adds about one per cent to the consumer price index. That is a completely avoidable addition.

The rationale, in general terms, for the Government’s oil price policy has already been discredited by the Government’s own statement. The Government has said that the policy is designed to conserve a scarce resource and to encourage exploration. I have already dealt with the first of these aims. The Government’s own forecasts show that it expects absolutely no reduction in the consumption of petroleum products as a consequence of the very substantial increase in prices that will flow from clause 4 of the Bill. The second expressed aim, that of encouraging exploration, is and always has been fallacious. Ever since September 1975 full import parity has been guaranteed for any new discoveries of crude oil.

A third, equally fallacious argument that is sometimes put up by Government spokesmen is that the movement to full import parity is justified because it will increase the economically recoverable reserves from those fields that have already been discovered. The Government’s own expert committee in this area, the National Energy Advisory Committee, stated in its report, which was issued last year, that the net addition to recoverable reserves as a result of the movement to higher oil prices would in fact be negligible.

Assorted primary producer organisations have argued that there ought to be exemption for primary producers from this increased crude oil levy. Regardless of what merit that claim may have- I do not believe that it has much merit- it is quite clear that those who are putting forward that argument have failed to understand the Government’s policy. The Government decided this year, in contradiction of its decision in 1977, that it would move immediately to full import parity. In 1977 it decided that, progressively, the price received by Australian producers would move towards full import parity and that by 1980-81 something more than 51 per cent of Australian domestic crude oil production would be priced at import parity to the Australian producer, principally Esso-BHP. In the 1978-79 Budget the Government brought down a policy of immediate import parity pricing for Australian consumers while retaining the policy in the 1977 Budget of progressive movement towards something more than 50 per cent of import parity for Australian producers.

In other words, the levy that is being imposed by the clause of the Bill that we are discussing is progressively to be passed over to the Australian producers of crude oil, principally Esso-BHP. By 1980-81, Esso-BHP will receive full import parity for something more than 50 per cent of its total production, and the margin of 45 per cent, or whatever the figure might be, the difference between the price that Esso-BHP receives and that which is actually paid by Australian refiners will equal the residual crude oil levy. But the Treasurer (Mr Howard) said in his Budget Speech that as soon as possible after 1980-8 1 the price of crude oil to Australian producers would move to full import parity. In other words, according to the Treasurer, it is already established as firm government policy that by 1980-81 most of this crude oil levy will have been transferred to the Australian producers of crude oil and as soon as possible thereafter the entire existing crude oil levy will have been transferred to the Australian producers of crude oil and that government revenue, which in this financial year is to amount to some $680m, will have been transferred entirely to the Australian producers.

From those facts it is clear that for thoseunfortunately they include most of the primary producer organisations in Australia- who are arguing for exemption for primary producers from the crude oil levy, even if their representations were successful, and, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) has already made perfectly clear, they will not be, the exemption gained would be a temporary benefit only because the levy from which those organisations are seeking exemption is self-terminating.

My final point is that these organisations, instead of applying their energies to a futile quest to obtain exemption from the crude oil levy provided for under clause 4 of the Bill, ought to be applying those energies, and their political leverage, to the implementation of a resources tax. The reason why we have this crude oil levy is that the Prime Minister lacked the courage to carry through the policy, announced by the Government in 1 977, of applying a resources tax to the windfall gains of Australian producers of crude oil and to other highly profitable Australian mining enterprises.

As the Prime Minister himself stated on the radio program AM on 16 August, the morning after the presentation of the Budget, in response to a question as to why the Government had dropped the resources tax which it had itself forecast in 1977, the Prime Minister 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 reason why we have this enormous increase in the price of crude oil, as provided for in clause 4 of this Bill, is that this Government, and particularly this Prime Minister, has lacked the courage to pursue the policy announced in 1977. The Prime Minister likes to present to the public an image of being a very tough Prime Minister. The facts speak otherwise. Whenever the Prime Minister is confronted by significant opposition, from IBM Australia Ltd, from the industry lobby or from the Premiers of Western Australia or Queensland, he goes to water. National Country Party Ministers and members are particularly culpable, particularly in the context of the effect of this decision on agriculture. At all levels, particularly through State governments, they have been, and still are, aggressive opponents of a resources tax. In their anxiety to please the mining lobby they have abandoned their farming constituents. The reason we have this tax, this imposition, which will increase the consumer price index by one per cent this year and which will increase costs in agriculture by at least $120m, is that this Government and the Prime Minister lack the courage to implement the policy they announced last year. It is a substitute for the resources tax and on behalf of the Labor Party I want to stress our very strong opposition to clause 4 of this Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2529

REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2529

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1978

Second Reading

Consideration resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2529

AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CORPORATION BILL 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Webster) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Obviously I do not wish to delay the Senate but I take this opportunity, the motion for the first reading of what I believe is the last group of money Bills, to speak about various matters. I simply wish to record my concern that I was not notified of two changes in arrangements that occurred this week in the Senate. I understand the Government’s problem in getting all of its legislative program through the Senate but I make the point that it would be appreciated if I were notified in advance of any changes in the program or, alternatively, if there are any major statements to be brought down about which we have not been notified. I make that point.

The other simple point I want to make relates to the question of unemployment. Because of the constraints of time I did not seek to enter the debate on the matter of public importance raised in the Senate yesterday. However, I issue a warning because of something Senator Chipp said. I warn the Senate that it is no use looking at panaceas of the type that were put up to solve the problem of unemployment. We must recognise that unemployment requires social and economic solutions because it is caused by social and economic problems. The simple fact of the matter is that in Australia there are too many people seeking too few jobs at a time when jobs are being slashed by automation and technological change. To consider panaceas such as the abolition of penalty rates without first getting absolute guarantees that they will create full-time jobs is not looking at the problem in a proper and effective manner. I believe it is essential that we look at the problem so that all those people who are looking for full-time jobs can obtain them. After all, there are 291,000 people in Australia receiving the unemployment benefit and they are the ones for whom we should be looking for jobs. 1 am sorry to delay the Senate but I raise those points for consideration.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

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

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

Second Readings

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

-I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Dried Fruits Export Charges Amendment Bill 1978

The Bill introduces amendments to the Dried Fruits Export Charges Act 1924 that are consequential to the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Bill 1978. 1 commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Bill 1978

This Bill and the associated Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Bill provide for a statutory scheme for equalizing the market returns received for dried currants, dried sultanas and dried raisins sold on the domestic and the export markets. The scheme will commence with the 1979 season. I should first like to deal briefly with the reasons for this measure. The production of dried currants, dried sultanas and dried raisins is a significant horticultural industry and an important component in the social and economic structures of the irrigation areas along the Murray River. Annual production is about 60,000 tonnes, one-third of which is marketed in Australia.

In ordinary circumstances, the return from Australian marketing has been much more attractive than the return from export marketing. For the main variety, sultanas, for example this difference in return has in the past decade or so averaged about $200 per tonne. Recognising the problems for orderly marketing created by this, the industry itself through its national body, the Australian Dried Fruits Association, has for over 50 years operated a voluntary system of equalizing the returns from domestic and export outlets. All dried fruit packing houses but one participate in this voluntary system. Without an industry commitment to equalization, the industry’s marketing circumstances carry the inherent risk of substantial diversions of fruit from export to the more attractive but limited Australian market, beyond the capacity of that market to absorb and still maintain a reasonable level of return to growers. Should that happen, the likely endresult would be a significant fall in overall return to the industry and a corresponding fall in grower incomes.

The Association has become increasingly concerned that the voluntary commitment to equalization will not withstand a developing climate of competition between dried vine fruit packers in South Australia, where the one packing house not participating in voluntary equalization is located. The Association has therefore asked that the Government secure equalization by placing it on a statutory footing. Having regard to the possible adverse consequences for grapegrowers, including growers in the related wine grape producing industry, and for important regional communities if overall industry income were diminished because of the abandonment of equalization, the Government has acceded to that request. The administration of the statutory equalization scheme will rest with the restructured statutory authority for this industry, the new Austraiian Dried Fruits Corporation. The Corporation is the subject of a separate bill.

In outline, the statutory scheme will operate as follows: The equalising process will be applied separately to each variety in each season. An equalization levy is imposed on the production of each variety in a season. Fruit that is exported will be relieved from the levy as will also fruit which for some reason does not pass into commerical channels as packed fruit for human consumption. The moneys thus collected on fruit of a season destined for the Australian market, which will become due for payment after the fruit has been sold, will be held in varietal accounts in an Equalization Fund maintained by the Corporation. Levy is payable by the producer, but a liability to make the payment rests on the packer since the normal industry arrangement is that proceeds of sales come back to the producer through the packer’s hands. The rate of levy to apply to a variety in a season will be prescribed after taking account of a recommendation from the Corporation. The intent of the scheme is that the Corporation will assess early in the season the expected average return at the packing house level from export sales of the variety and the rate of levy will be the amount by which the anticipated average return from the domestic market for the variety exceeds that assessed average export return.

The effect of the levy is thus that a season’s fruit of a variety will achieve on the Australian market an initial return at the packing house level comparable to the anticipated average level of return from the season’s exports of that variety. The moneys in the separate varietal accounts of the Equalization Fund will be distributed by the Corporation in two ways. First, since returns from the several different export markets vary, some part of these moneys may need to be earmarked to ensure that all exports receive in fact the assessed average export return for the variety. At the close of a season’s export sales each exporter will submit details of his sales of a variety for calculation of his ‘average return’ from exports of the variety. Where the exporter’s average is above the assessed average export return he will be required to contribute the excess to the varietal account of the Fund. Where his average is below the assessed average export return hie will receive a supplementary payment from the varietal account of the Fund. The main distribution of fund moneys, however, will be in the form of an equalization payment on the season’s production of a variety, whether that production is for the export markets or for the domestic market.

Advances against an equalization payment will be made regularly throughout the season as levy moneys build up appropriately in the Fund’s varietal accounts. The equalization payment is payable to the producer of the fruit, that is, the dried vine fruit grower, but packers will have a right subject to appropriate authorization by the producer, to apply such moneys in their hands to discharge producer indebtedness to them, including indebtedness arising from costs and charges associated with the packing of a producer’s fruit.

An important feature of the scheme is provision for the exemption of fruit from levy. One class of fruit which will be exempted from levy by regulation in due course is dried vine fruit produced at certain packing establishments from fresh grapes by a relatively costly process of dehydration in tunnels. Small quantities of such fruit are produced to meet the requirements of speciality markets and because of the cost of the process it is not appropriate that the return for it should be equalized with dried vine fruit produced in the traditional manner- Fruit exempted in this way is not entitled to an equalization payment and exports, if any, would not participate in the export accounting arrangement. In particular circumstances a variety may be completely exempted from levy in a season. Where this occurs the equalization mechanism is in effect put into abeyance for the variety for that season, as no equalization payment would be payable, and the system of transfers between the Fund and exporters would not operate.

There are three sets of such particular circumstances: Where production of a variety falls to a level close to Australian market requirements; where the differential between domestic return and assessed average export return becomes marginal, that is, less than $20 per tonne; and where the assessed average export return exceeds the domestic return. It is fortuitious that the first season of statutory equalization, 1979, could produce circumstances where the export return exceeds the domestic return. This has come about through the substantial failure of the 1978 Californian crop with every likelihood that export prices in 1979 will be at an extremely high level. It has been represented to me from some quarters that this is a good reason to defer the introduction of statutory equalization. However, whether or not marketing circumstances in 1979 will necessitate the application of the equalization mechanism to that season is a matter for formal recommendation by the Corporation in due course. The possibility that, through chance factors, very high export prices may be obtained in a particular season does not really remove the essential problem that statutory equalization is designed to meet. The measures have, through the Association, substantial support within the industry. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Bill 1978

The purpose of the Bill is to impose a levy under certain conditions on dried vine fruits produced in Australia on or after 1 January 1979 to meet the objectives of the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Scheme. The rate of levy for a variety is to be fixed each season by regulation after consideration of a recommendation from the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Bill 1978

The Bill provides for the establishment of an Australian Dried Fruits Corporation to replace the Australian Dried Fruits Control Board which has been in existence since 1925. It is intended that the Corporation be in operation on 1 January 1979.

When early in 1977 the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) announced the membership of the Board for its ensuing three-year term he foreshadowed a review of the Board’s constitution and functions, to be undertaken in consultation with the national industry organisation, the Australian Dried Fruits Association. The Minister intimated at the time that he would be looking to the Association to bring forward proposals which reflect changed conditions in the industry. The proposals in the Bill are put forward as a consequence of that review and the Association’s recommendations.

In respect of its constitution, the Corporation is to have fewer members than the Board it replaces, namely, eight as against eleven. Four members will represent growers. These will be selected for appointment by the Minister from a panel of nominees submitted by the Association. Two members, also ministerial appointments, will be persons specially qualified by reason of experience in marketing or promotion of dried fruit or other products or experience in commerce, finance, economics, science or industrial matters. In making these appointments the Minister will consult with the Association and with any other bodies that he considers appropriate. The two remaining members will be a member to represent the Commonwealth and a Chairman. These also will be appointed by the Minister. All the members will be appointed as parttime members and the term of office will be three years.

The corporation will continue the control and promotion of exports presently carried out by the Board and will also have the additional function of administering the statutory equalisation scheme which is dealt with in a separate Bill. The Corporation will also have a power to engage in trade subject to Ministerial approval, and subject to any conditions specified in that approval. Such conditions would lay down the manner in which proceeds from any Corporation trading would be brought within the compass of the equalisation Scheme.

The Corporation is empowered to borrow, with the approval of the Treasurer for promotion and for the exercising of its power to engage in trade. If appropriate, the Treasurer may on behalf of the Commonwealth, guarantee such borrowings. The Corporation will be financed, as was the Board, by the charge on exports of dried vine fruit.

In summary, the revision provides for a smaller and more compact body, with a wider range of skills and expertise available to it, and widened powers and functions. As part of the restructuring, the administrative provisions of the legislation reflect the up-to-date lines adopted for other recently restructured marketing authorities. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned.

page 2532

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

As honourable senators are aware, there are three principal elements concerning the payment of medical benefits under the new health insurance arrangements which commenced operation on 1 November 1978. Persons may register for Commonwealth benefit purposes only or insure with a registered medical benefits organisation for basic medical benefits which, with the Commonwealth medical benefits, will cover 75 per cent of schedule fees with a maximum gap of $10 for each service. A further alternative is for people to insure under other medical benefit tables, including optional medical benefits tables offered by organisations. As I indicated in my second reading speech when introducing the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, these tables, which must conform with guidelines determined by the Minister for Health, enable registered organisations to offer a variety of medical benefit packages, including deductibles.

The Government is very disappointed and surprised at the recent action of the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia in manipulating the optional medical benefits table concept to restrict the payment of medical benefits for certain of its contributors, particularly chronically ill persons. The Government is committed to taking positive actions to safeguard the medical and hospital benefit entitlements of contributors who have been, or may be, affected by any similar action taken, or proposed to be taken, by HCF or any other registered medical benefits organisation.

Before outlining in detail the provisions of the Bill before the House, I would like to inform honourable senators that the Government’s new health insurance arrangements are working exceptionally smoothly, except for a small, but most important, group of contributors, who are subject to the medical benefits exclusions rules of registered organisations. While providing flexibility within the arrangements for organisations to determine benefit packages, it was not contemplated that organisations would use this new flexibility in a way which would enable them to abrogate their responsibility to pay medical benefits for those long-standing contributors in most need of medical benefits coverage.

Section 73BE of the National Health Act provides for the Minister for Health to give directions to registered medical benefit organisations, including directions with respect to the scope and level of benefits available to contributors. The Bill, in Clause 4, expands section 73BE to enable directions to be given by the Minister to ensure that all or any of the objectives specified in new sub-section 73BE (2) be achieved. The objectives specified in the Bill are as follows:

The first objective is to prevent discrimination in the payment of medical benefits for medical services rendered on or after 1 November 1978 which is, in the opinion of the Minister for Health, improper discrimination. This term is defined in Clause 3 of the Bill and, briefly, is discrimination relating to the following matters: Chronic illness; age of the patient; limitation on the level of medical benefits payable under organisations’ rules because of the frequency of the rendering of professional services or the aggregate of amounts of benefits payable; or any other ground prescribed by regulations. Medical benefit exclusion rules vary considerably among organisations. However, rules concerning the grounds I have just mentioned, with the exception of age of the patient, are considered to be those most frequently applied.

The second objective is to prevent registered medical benefits organisations from changing, after 1 November 1978, the way in which they administered rules for contributors before that date. This applies to rules which reduce or cancel medical benefits for medical services rendered on or after 1 November 1978. 1 am sure honourable senators will accept that, as a principle, persons affected by new or restructured tables under the new health insurance arrangements should be able to maintain their full medical benefits entitlements which existed prior to 1 November 1978. A direction, pertaining to this objective, ensures the maintenance of that cover.

The third objective which may be achieved by Ministerial direction is to ensure that persons, insured with a registered medical benefits organisation, do not, through the application of benefit reduction rules, have the level of insured benefits reduced below the basic medical benefits level. The fourth objective is directed to a situation which has arisen where some registered hospital benefit organisations are refusing to pay hospital benefits for persons whose hospitalisation is considered by those organisations to be unnecessary. Such grounds are principally on the basis that, in the opinion of the organisation, because of their age or condition these persons should be more appropriately accommodated in, say, a nursing home. The power of the Minister to direct, as specified in clause 4, new paragraph 73BE(2)(d) of the Bill, will enable him to ensure that contributors to hospital benefits funds who are admitted to hospital are not denied hospital benefits at the basic level. It will be noted that the date of application in relation to this objective is 1 May 1978. In a Press statement made on this issue on 30 April 1978 by the Minister of Health in New South Wales and the Commonwealth Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) it was stated that when evidence on these nonpayments of benefits was received, action would be taken to safeguard patients. The Hospitals Contribution Fund, which was the particular organisation involved, then announced it would review its decision. On 1 May 1978 Mr Hunt issued a further press statement stating that certain outcomes would be awaited before considering further measures. Since that period there have been a number of representations on the issue. Therefore 1 May 1978 is the appropriate date for the implementation of this objective.

The Bill also ensures that the position of persons affected by any action taken by a registered organisation, before a direction takes effect, in relation to an objective specified in the Bill, can be safeguarded. Provision is made to enable the

Minister to require the organisation to reconsider all claims for medical benefits made before the direction takes effect and deal with those claims as if the direction had been in force at the time the claim had originally been considered. The Bill further provides for the Minister to place a copy of any direction under new section 73BE ( 3 ) before each House of Parliament. The direction does not take effect until the period of 15 sitting days specified for disallowance has passed.

It is known that some organisations’ rules provide for cancellation of membership of contributors. To safeguard continued membership for those persons who, for example, are chronically ill persons, clause 5 of the Bill provides a new section 73BFB, which entitles a person who believes cancellation of his membership to the medical benefits fund constitutes an ‘improper discrimination’ against him, to request the Minister to direct the organisation concerned to reinstate the person. Where the Minister is of the opinion that improper discrimination has occurred the Minister can direct the organisation concerned to reinstate the person without loss of entitlement.

Section 73E of the National Health Act provides for the Minister for Health to determine guidelines relating to optional medical and hospital benefit tables. Benefit tables satisfying the guidelines, and criteria specified in the National Health Act, are declared, by the Minister, to be optional tables. There is some doubt that the existing provision enables the Minister to vary the guidelines after a declaration has been made. The amendment, in clause 6, enables the guidelines to be varied and further, enables the Minister to revoke a declaration following a variation to the guidelines. Again the Minister’s revocation of such a declaration is to be placed before each House of Parliament and does not take effect until the period of disallowance of 15 sitting days has passed.

The Bill, in clause 8, amends section 78 of the National Health Act. The amendment is twofold. Firstly, it removes any doubt that the power of the Minister to consider changes made by organisations in relation to the matters specified in subsection 78 ( 1 ), also includes power to consider a change which makes provision for a new table of benefits to be offered by the organisation. Secondly, the amendment prevents the Minister from approving a change to organisations’ rules which provides for a new table of benefits, or alters or affects contributions for benefits, if in the opinion of the Minister the change brings about an ‘improper discrimination’. Decisions by the Minister under section 78 are subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The final amendment in the Bill is in clause 9. Under new Section 73BFB provision is made for the Minister to make a direction to a registered organisation to reinstate a contributor whose membership has been cancelled on grounds of improper discrimination. This direction will also be subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

It is hoped that, in the administration of their medical and hospital benefits funds, registered organisations will act responsibly and with concern for contributors. The Bill before the Senate confers on the Minister for Health powers of direction to safeguard membership and benefit entitlements of contributors. While the matters subject to direction are specified in the Bill as a clear indication of the Government’s intention to preserve contributors rights, it is hoped that organisations will administer their rules in a manner which will result in the activation of the Ministerial powers of direction only being required in exceptional circumstances. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

page 2534

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (CHRYSOTILE CORPORATION) BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to permit the provision of assistance to New South Wales for 15 months to the end of 1979 in respect of the continued operation of the Chrysotile Corporation of Australia Pty Ltd asbestos mine at Barraba in New South Wales. Since the Government first gave consideration to the Industries Assistance Commission report on short-term assistance for the asbestos mining industry, and to assistance proposals made by the New South Wales Government, it has emerged in further detailed discussions that the company’s bank, the Commercial Bank of Australia, is also willing to make a contribution. After further consideration in the light of this situation, the Government announced it would offer assistance by way of an interest-bearing loan of up to $ 1 .4m in relation to the company’s operations. This assistance is intended to be provided by means of a repayable grant to New South Wales under section 96 of the Constitution. It would be provided progressively over the 1 5 months to the end of 1 979.

The Commercial Bank has indicated willingness to accrue interest on loans to the company over this period while the State Government has stated it is prepared to provide certain funds to assist Chrysotile Corporation and also to waive royalties during the period concerned. On the basis of the bank accruing interest, it appears that the Commonwealth ‘s offer to provide $ 1 .4m to the State for on-lending, matched by funds of at least that amount from the State together with the waiving of royalties, would enable the company to continue in operation.

It was in the light of the willingness of the Bank and the State to assist the company that the Commonwealth made its offer of assistance. The Government was mindful of the effect the mine’s closure would have on employment opportunities in the region surrounding Barraba, as well as of the degree of assistance by the State and the bank, in reaching a decision to contribute to the total assistance package. The proposed assistance is intended to tide the company over until it resumes a positive cash flow. In particular, the proposals will facilitate the company’s plans to introduce new recovery equipment during 1979, which is expected to add substantially to its revenue.

Detailed agreements between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, and between the State and the company and the Bank, are to be drawn up to give effect to arrangements on the basis agreed between the various parties. The agreements are to include provisions to ensure that Commonwealth interests are properly protected.

Detailed requirements will be set out to cover such matters as limits on amounts to be paid, means of minimising cash deficits, comprehensive auditing procedures, and maintenance of employment levels. There will also be provision for the amounts paid by way of assistance to be repaid with interest out of future cash flows if the prospects for recovery of the viability of the company’s operations are realised. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 2535

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT GRANTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The legislation now before the Senate proposes to amend a Labor initiative aimed at encouraging Australian industries to expand their exports and to move into markets which would help increase the volume of production and thus increase the prospect of Australian manufacturers and providers of services enjoying the benefits of economies of scale.

The purpose of this legislation is to remove the old dual rate basis for the payment of grants. At present the rates are 85 per cent and 60 per cent and the rate applicable depends upon whether the market is a new one or an established one. If passed by the Senate, the Bill will operate for the period from 1 July 1978 to June 1982. It is understandable that the Government should want to have the scheme operating over a long period so that exporters have some certainty that if they plan to increase export sales, the incentives will remain. In some areas it is relatively simple to increase exports but in others a great deal of work is involved and there are substantial lead times.

When the Bill was passing through the House of Representatives, my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lionel Bowen, intimated that some of the amendments which the Opposition is proposing might be acceptable to the Government as they overcome some administrative difficulties. The Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) indicated that some of them would be acceptable but that the requirement to pass the Bill before the Parliament rose precluded its being reprinted and the amendments being incorporated. I hope that we will receive an assurance from the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) that early in the new year after the Minister in the other place has examined the amendments, they might be incorporated in amending legislation introduced during the new year.

I now want to deal briefly with some of the problems that we see in this Bill and which will be the subject of amendment in the Committee stage. The first relates to the new section 14 where it is provided that a grant will not be payable unless the amount of export earnings in the year in which the grant is made exceeds $25,000 or, if the whole of that amount consists of payment for the sale of disposable industrial property rights or eligible knowhow, $10,000. A problem arises if an exporter falls in between these two amounts. A person might fall into the category of $10,000 plus, but the Bill is so drafted that he has to have export earnings of one amount or another. As an illustration, if a person had $10,000 worth of industrial property rights plus $1 for another item over and above that, he could lose the whole entitlement because it was not related strictly to the $ 10,000.

There are also difficulties with the interpretation of clause 10, the proposed section 14 (5). I shall not go into the details because they were dealt with adequately in the other place during that debate. I shall move an amendment at the Committee stage. The matter does deserve attention to clarify the criteria which are applicable for eligible expenditure.

We also have some concern about the limit of $25,000 applying after three years. The report of the Board shows that there have been a total of 2,941 grants under $5,000 in 1976 and 1977. Thus many businesses are getting very much less than the limit of $25,000. This matter needs to be rectified otherwise the Government is running contrary to its expressed policy of attempting to assist small businesses. It is also important that in many markets small businesses are an important means of opening up the sales of new goods and services and it would be unwise to penalise them.

The Opposition is also concerned about the provisions of clause 17 which deals with the making of misleading statements. This is a legal point also about which an amendment will be moved.

There are a number of matters which the Opposition would have liked to have dealt with in relation to the administration of this legislation and indeed the general approach to the encouragement of Australia’s exports. A number of these matters were dealt with in debate in and on the (Export Finance Insurance Corp.) Bill and the Export Expansion Grants Bill only two nights ago.

Two points are important. The first is that the schemes for the encouragement of exports and the development of our overseas trade seem to be developing in an unorganised fashion and urgent consideration needs to be given to their co-ordination. The second is really related to the same. While there is a great deal of argument to support the grants being made for a period of five years, we must always be conscious that we have competitors in other exporting countries who are constantly reviewing their own export incentive schemes. The Australian Government should keep a very close watch on the changes which are made and if necessary, be prepared to bring this legislation back again for review within that five-year period, if it is considered necessary.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its support of this measure. The Government certainly is interested in some of the comments that have been made by Senator Wriedt and, I think by Mr Lionel Bowen in another place with a view to improving certain aspects of the Bill. We will certainly look at them carefully. I am grateful that the Opposition has taken the co-operative attitude that at this stage of the sittings it would be preferable to have the Bill passed by the Parliament and not delayed by amendments. During the recess we will look at the suggestions that have been made with a view to considering whether we should make the amendments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Amendments relating to clauses 9, 10, 17 and 19 have been circulated in my name. The clauses read in part:

Clause 9.

Section 13 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (2) the following sub-section: (2a) A claim relating to a grant year shall be submitted within 3 months after the end of that year, or within such further time as the board allows. ‘.

Clause 10.

Sections 14 to 18 (inclusive) of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections are substituted:

  1. ( 1 ) Grants are not payable to-

    1. a State or the Northern Territory; or
    2. an authority or association declared by the regulations to be a body to which grants are not payable.
    1. A grant is not payable to a person in respect of eligible expenditure incurred by that person at a time when that person was not a resident of Australia.
    2. Where a person, other than an approved body, received, or became entitled to receive, grants in respect of eligible expenditure incurred by him during any 3 or more grant years preceding a particular grant year, a grant is not payable to him in respect of eligible expenditure incurred by him during that grant year unless the amount of his export earnings in that grant year exceeds $23,000 or, if the whole of that amount consist of consideration for the disposal of eligible industrial property rights or eligible know-how, $10,000.
    3. A reference in sub-section (3) to eligible expenditure shall be read as not including a reference to eligible expenditure incurred in relation to the supply of eligible tourist services.

Clause 17.

Section 39 of the Principal Act is amended-

  1. by omitting sub-section ( 1 ) and substituting the following sub-section:

    1. 1 ) A person shall not-
  2. knowingly obtain or attempt to obtain a grant that is not payable;
  3. obtain or attempt to obtain a grant by means of a statement that he knows to be false or misleading or by means of a book, record or document which to his knowledge contains information that is false or misleading; or
  4. make to the Board, or to a person having duties or functions for the purposes of this Act, a statement that is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.’; and

Clause 19.

After section 40 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: 40a. ( 1 ) In this section- decision’ has the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975; decision of the Board’ means a decision of the Board under this Act in connection with the claim in relation to a grant entitlement in respect of the grant year that commenced on 1 July 1978 or of a succeeding grant year.

I dealt with the matters in the course of my speech at the second reading stage. I do not think there is any need to elaborate on them. I seek leave to move my amendments together.

Leave granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I move:

  1. 1 ) Leave out clause 9, substitute the following clause:

    1. Section 1 3 of the Principal Act is amended:
    1. by inserting after sub-section (2) the following subsection:

  2. A claim relating to a grant year shall be submitted within 5 months after the end of that year, or within such further time as the Board allows. ‘; and

    1. by adding at the end thereof the following subsection:
  3. In exercising its powers under sub-section (4), the Board shall specify the information it requires in such a manner as is reasonable to enable the claimant to comply with the request.’.’.

  4. In clause 10 in proposed section 14(3) leave out all words after ‘him’, third occurring, to the end of proposed sub-section ( 3 ), substitute ‘ during that grant year unless-

    1. the amount of all his export earnings in that grant year exceeds $25,000;
    2. in respect of export earnings consisting of consideration for the disposal of eligible industrial property rights or eligible knowhow, such earnings exceed $10,000; or
    3. in respect of earnings in relation to the supply of eligible tourist services, such earnings exceed eligible expenditure. ‘.
  5. In clause 10 leave out sub-section (5) of proposed section 14, substitute the following sub-section:
  6. A reference in paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) to earnings from eligible tourist services is a reference to payments made by persons normally resident outside Australia, whether such payments are made inside or outside Australia.’.
  7. In clause 17, in proposed section 39(1) (c), omit ‘is’ substitute ‘he knows to be, or should reasonably be expected to know to be’.
  8. In clause 19, in proposed section 40a ( 1 ), in the definition ‘decision of the Board’, after ‘year’ second appearing, add ‘and includes a refusal to consider a claim under subsection 13 (4) or 13 (5)’.
Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is not prepared to agree to the amendments at this point because it would jeopardise the passage of the Bill during these sittings. We are prepared, as I have already indicated, to give consideration to them. If we believe that any of them are justified, which may well be the case, certainly in one or two instances at least, although we will consider all of them, we will introduce them as amending legislation at a later stage.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2537

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I present the report of the Australian delegation to the thirtieth ordinary meeting of the Council of Europe. The report is also being presented in the House of Representatives by the other member of the delegation, the honourable member for Newcastle, Mr Charles Jones. In that place he will be moving that the report be printed.

page 2537

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The purpose of the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Amendment Bill 1978 is to amend the Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Act 1978 which was passed earlier this year. That Act authorised the Treasurer on behalf of the Commonwealth to guarantee overseas borrowings by Qantas to the extent of $US80m or its equivalent to finance the purchase of two Boeing 747 series aircraft. Qantas then sought the Treasurer’s guarantee for a borrowing of $US80m under the provisions of that Act. However, circumstances intervened and Qantas was unfortunately not able to finalise the terms of that borrowing before taking delivery of the aircraft. As luck would have it, Qantas in its inimitable style was able to make temporary arrangements from its own funds which had been earmarked for other purposes but which were at that dme temporarily available. Qantas used these funds to make the payments owing on the aircraft in anticipation of the funds being recouped in due course from the proceeds of the original $US80m loan which it was then negotiating.

I think that it is worth while digressing for a moment to pay tribute to the excellent work that Qantas is carrying out on behalf of the Australian people and the Australian Government. It is a very well established airline which has been recognised all over the world as being a first class airline, and it does yeoman service on behalf of the Australian people. When one of its principal adversaries, Mr Laker, sees fit to pay tribute to Qantas, it is worth while the Parliament noting that tribute. However, there is some legal doubt as to whether section 4 ( 1 ) (a) of the Act as originally drafted provides for the giving of a guarantee in the circumstances which I have outlined. Thus the Bill seeks to amend the original Act to put the question beyond any doubt.

In passing one might mention the apparent incongruity of the situation in which an enterprise purchases certain goods without having at the time completed arrangements for the borrowing of funds for that purpose. We have to accept that the arrangements that Qantas entered into were made in good faith, but it is worth while hoping that those sorts of circumstances will not develop in the future. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill because we recognise that the prevailing circumstances were beyond the capacity of Qantas to comprehend at the time.

I intended to talk specifically about the dilemma that must obviously face Qantas as an instrumentality and as our national airline and about the confusion that exists, I am sure even in this Parliament, about the various statements that have been made by those in the industry, and particularly by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), about what has happened with international air fares. But suffice to say that just to draw attention to it would probably satisfy my concern at this stage. I appreciate that whilst we want to say many things we are acting under a certain amount of constraint, particularly this evening, having regard to some of the previous debates that have taken place. In the interests of brevity and of expediting the work of the Parliament, and recognising that whilst we deplore the situation that always seems to happen at the end of every session, the Opposition will be content to make the point that we hope that in the intervening break a tired Minister for Transport might clarify the position about international air fares.

Senator PUPLICK:
South Australia

– I rise to comment briefly on this legislation and to take a little further some of the comments that I made at an earlier stage in this place about Qantas Airways Ltd and the nature of its advertising, particularly as it relates to the Boeing 747 jets for the purchase of which this Bill is providing a loan guarantee. I must take slight issue with a remark of Senator Gietzelt ‘s when he commented on the excellent work which Qantas has done on behalf of the Australian people and the Australian Government. There is one area to which I shall advert tonight in which I think Qantas is doing a positive disservice to the Australian Government and the Australian people. It involves the question of overseas advertising, particularly in Great Britain. Qantas had this to say in its 1976-77 annual report:

Qantas Airways Ltd, which has completed 57 years of operation, is wholly-owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Its function is to develop and operate international air services as the Australian flag carrier.

Of course, that is perfectly correct. That statement reveals two things. Firstly, it reveals that Qantas is wholly owned by the people of Australia. Secondly, it reveals that the airline has a responsibility to operate as the Australian flag carrier in a particular fashion. At some earlier stage I drew attention to the nature of advertisements that were being placed in Great Britain as part of Qantas ‘s promotional campaign. I referred to the advertisement featuring a wellknown English character actor dressed up as a convict. He was supposed to be a steward on a Qantas aeroplane. The advertisement bore the caption: ‘You can tell a Qantas steward by his uniform’. I also drew attention to an advertisement which showed a flock of sheep being loaded into a Qantas aeroplane and one which showed a Boeing 747 aircraft with Foster’s cans as their fuselage. Another advertisement featured that inimitable Australian, Bruce the Flying Doctor. I had occasion to draw attention to the fact that I think Qantas is indulging in an advertising campaign in Great Britain which is positively demeaning, positively degrading and certainly doing considerable disservice to Australia’s image in Great Britain and Europe. I also had occasion to discuss this matter in a television program with Mr Harry M. Miller, who appeared that time in his capacity as a member of the Qantas board of directors. I quote from a report of this television interview that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph in September, which said, inter alia, after Mr Miller and I had both put our points of view:

The studio audience did not agree.

When asked by Mike Walsh if anyone agreed with Mr Miller that the ads were funny, they all said no.

And a Qantas steward and hostess in the audience said British reaction to the advertisements was derogatory.

They’re laughing at us- not tongue-in-cheek- but down their noses, ‘ the steward said.

I had hoped that some attention would be given to this matter and some changes in attitude would occur, but that has not been the case. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 1 October an advertisement appeared once again showing the Boeing 747 aircraft to be purchased on the basis of the guarantee of $80m that clause 3 of this Bill is now providing. The text in the Sydney Morning Herald, under a little picture of the aircraft with the beer can fuselage, says:

It is part of a Sim campaign in the British Press. The text says there you are, ‘at the mercy of Australia’s own airline. Lager all the way, and then more lager, you’re probably thinking. ‘ The advertisement goes on to assure travellers that because alcohol causes dehydration, Qantas also serves orange juice, tea, coffee and soft drinks.

The style of advertisement to which I have made reference continues. Some interesting figures are contained in the 1977-78 annual report of the Australian Tourist Commission, which was tabled in the Parliament only this week. They give the reasons why people in Great Britain, to whom this advertisement is directed, travel to Australia. I want to refer to the figures for a few moments. The report indicates that of the total number of people from Great Britain who are visiting Australia for any reason- some 82,000 people in 1977-44,000 people are visiting relatives, 13,000 are on holidays, 12,000 are on business, 5,000 are in transit, 400 are attending conventions and 8,000 are doing so for other reasons. In other words more than half of the people coming to Australia are coming here to visit relatives. Previous agencies and advisers to Qantas undertook a survey in May 1977 of what was likely to impress potential British travellers. A market research report on qualitative research on proposed Qantas advertising reads:

It should be borne in mind that it is the women especially who take the initiative in keeping in touch with the family and in planning the trip. This means that the advertising should not antagonise women- for example it should avoid anything which might reinforce Australia’s reputation as a beer-swilling, male-orientated society.

Very often (especially where women are concerned) neither the saving nor the cheapness (of fare) idea comes across. The word ‘beer’ inhibits communication because it conjures up a negative in the image of Australia, namely they are all ‘ boozers ‘. Not only does this not appeal to women but the comparison is often taken to mean ‘you ‘11 have a great boozy time in Australia’ (and this in any case is not what the VFR market -

That is, the visiting friends and relatives market- is about). The comparison is the opposite of enlightening- it detracts attention which results in lack of communication.

Qantas continues to persist in this style of advertising. As Senator Gietzelt has said, Qantas has a very commendable and outstanding record in terms of air safety. The last set of figures I saw published on airline safety listed some 68 airlines. The 10 airlines with the best safety record were: TAP, which is a Portuguese airline; Qantas Airways Ltd; Delta Air Lines; American Airlines; SAS; Trans-Australia Airlines; Japan Airlines; Continental Airlines; United States Airlines, and Ansett Airlines of Australia. Since that date, TAP has had a major international loss. So one would gather that Qantas quite clearly has established the reputation of being the safest airline in the world. Yet the advertising for Qantas in Great Britain does not concentrate upon that. It concentrates upon the most offensive and obnoxious type of advertising that could possibly be imagined.

Qantas would not dare do this at home. The Australian Financial Review of 25 October 1978 carried an article about the airline’s new Australian advertising campaign. The article is headed: ‘Qantas rejects the “ockers” and recaptures the knockers’. It is a story about the expenditure of Sim plus on pumping up the national pride of Australians in a soft cell holiday campaign, totally rejecting its UK style of ‘ocker’ advertising. The article goes on to indicate the way in which Evonne Cawley and a number of other prominent Australians, including such people in the entertainment business as Peter Allen and Colleen McCullough, are becoming involved in a campaign to provide a soft sell for Qantas in Australia, encouraging Australians to travel more with their own airline. Despite this, there is some decision to persist with a British style of advertising campaign which I believe is entirely inappropriate. The Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) was good enough to respond to my criticism in October about Qantas advertisements. In the text of his letter he indicated that Qantas operates as a public company as free as possible from government intervention. He said that he does not attempt to influence the airline in its commercial decisions, so he would not attempt to influence the airline in its decisions about its advertising material, which is essentially a matter of the policy for the board of directors. I accept that. But Qantas itself has made the point that its responsibility is to act as the Australian flag carrier and to maintain certain standards. We know that Qantas receives an enormous amount of legal and financial protection from the Government. The Australian Financial Review of 12 October, under the heading ‘Sir Lenox Qantastic victory’ and dealing with the new airline policies announced by the Minister for Transport, indicates the position quite clearly. The editorial concludes:

The new policy is a triumph for Sir Lenox Hewitt and his brand of protectionism for Qantas. In the long run it may be at the expense of Australian international air travellers.

One could raise a number of matters in this regard when speaking about Qantas. I simply want to put on record once again the assertion that the extent to which Qantas, in terms of the way in which it conducts its advertising campaigns in the UK, does no good to the -

Senator Georges:

– You have no sense of humour.

Senator PUPLICK:

– Anybody who can listen to Senator Georges for a prolonged period has a well-developed sense of humour. The way in which Qantas ‘s advertising is conducted in the United Kingdom is not a humorous matter; it is a matter of a public company denigrating the Australian national airline. I think it makes no contribution to promoting increased tourist traffic from the United Kingdom to Australia, through the visiting friends and relatives section of the travel market, which is what Qantas is supposed to be commercially in operation to do.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I too feel that the debate on this Bill should be the occasion to mention a matter which is giving a good deal of concern to employees of Qantas Airways Ltd who are members of the Flight Stewards Association. The Government has spent, through Qantas, a substantial amount of money on advertisements published in the United Kingdom. These advertisements depict a Qantas flight steward as a leering criminal in convict dress beneath the headline ‘Can you identify an Australian steward by bis uniform?’. The employees concerned are excellent ambassadors for Australia wherever they go. This has been borne out time and time again in cases before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. They are an asset to

Australia’s national airline. In fact they are employees who should be respected. It is repugnant that any Australian employer should seek advantage by holding his employees up to public ridicule and contempt. That applies even more so in respect of a statutory authority. I wonder whether the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) is prepared to comment, on behalf of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) on that aspect as well as the other aspect of the advertisement, that is, putting undue emphasis on the beer swilling aspect of Australia’s public image.

The question of dues has arisen also. If any people responding to those advertisements expect to get free beer on a Qantas economy flight ticket they are in for a shock. Passengers with economy class Qantas tickets do not get free beer as do such passengers on certain other international airlines. Whilst I am on this subject, it has been announced by the International Air Transport Association, which has 108 members, that it has given up its authority to regulate inflight meals, drinks and entertainment and will henceforth confine itself to such non-competitive matters as safety standards, security and ticket exchange arrangements. Can the Minister tell the Senate whether Qantas intends to make the beer really flow free on economy class, as some other airlines do, and, what is more important, make no charge for in-flight services such as the provision of earphones and the like.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– In reply- I thank Opposition senators particularly for the speedy consideration of this Bill which, as Senator Gietzelt has pointed out, is a Bill to remedy a technical problem about the guarantee which this Parliament agreed to give earlier this year in respect of the borrowing of $80m. I note the comments which have been repeated in the Senate tonight by Senator Puplick and the fresh comments which have been put to me by Senator Harradine. I will pass those on to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and seek some response from him. I can only say that it is with great relief that I notice that Senator Mulvihill is not here to complain about the use of koala bears in the American advertisements and the fact that the kangaroos painted on the outside of the aeroplanes have to fly in the cold where there is no pressurisation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2541

AUSTRALIAN DRIED FRUITS CORPORATION BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– At the outset I think I ought to lodge a protest at the procedure which has been followed not only on this legislation but also on some eight or nine Bills today. Legislation which did not even appear on the Notice Paper of the Senate which came out this morning will be rammed through this Senate.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It won’t wash, you know.

Senator WALSH:

– This is supposed to be a House of review, according to a number of people on the other side. When eight or nine Bills are rammed through this place without serious consideration- Bills which did not even appear on the Notice Paper which came out this morning- one would have to be particularly naive, particularly gullible or particularly stupid to accept that in any meaningful sense this is a House of review.

Having been approached today, quite spontaneously, by dried fruit producers- people whose names were not known to me, people I have never spoken to before- who were protesting not about the intention in the four Bills which are before the Senate but about the fact that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has failed adequately to consult with the producers concerned, I feel that I must register a protest on their behalf in addition to the protest that I have already stated on behalf of members of the Senate collectively.

The Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Bill is a Bill to establish the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation. The Corporation will replace the Australian Dried Fruits Board. The Corporation will perform a similar function to that carried out by the Board. The membership of the Corporation will be more limited than the membership of the Board. A question which I would like to raise at this stage, one to which I invite the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) to respond, is whether it is usual in determining the membership of corporations of this nature for a panel of names to be submitted by the relevant producer organisations from which the Minister selects the members of the corporation. So far as I can determine this Bill contains no provision for the appropriate producer organisation to submit a limited number of names from which the Minister finally will select the four producer representatives on the body.

I move now to the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Bill and to the two Bills which are consequential upon it. The purpose of this legislation is to establish marketing arrangements for dried fruits which are conceptually identical with those which already apply to manufactured dairy products and to eggs. The legislation seeks to maintain prices on the domestic market at a level higher than the prices which normally apply for export markets. The machanism used in pursuing this objective is a levy struck on all production within Australia, and that levy is refunded, in this case to fruit packers who export the product. Effectively, the export of dried fruits under this legislation may be subsidised- but not necessarily- from the levy revenue collected from all growers or administratively from all packers. I say ‘may be collected’ rather than necessarily will be collected’ because whether effectively a subsidy will be paid on exports depends on the prevailing export price level and whether that is above or below the prices prevailing on the domestic market. That decision will be made by the Corporation from time to time.

The Opposition has some reservations about this policy. I personally favour the market share or two-price pool arrangements suggested by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report on the industry under which, for the normally higher priced domestic markets, each Australian producer would have a quota which would receive the domestic market price and any above quota production would be marketed at export parity price. This sort of marketing arrangement provides the potential for growers to increase their income without Australian consumers or anyone else being worse off. However, we recognise that some administrative complexities are entailed in this sort of arrangement and it could well be, given that the industry in total is not a large one, that the administrative complexities of applying the Industries Assistance Commission marketing arrangements or the arrangements proposed under the legislation will become almost a matter of indifference.

Although the Opposition has some reservations it has decided not to oppose this Bill. Nevertheless, I have a few other complaints to make. Firstly, this legislation was introduced into the House of Representatives last Wednesday night- eight nights ago. This begs the question: Given that the Minister forecast 18 months ago that legislation pertaining to this matter would be introduced, why did the legislation which is to be passed by the Senate tonight appear only eight days ago? I have had complaints from growers on this point because they became aware of what is contained in the legislation only two or three days ago. Despite that fact, the Parliament will pass the legislation tonight. The Opposition has not had adequate time to consider it. Even Government members who have received complaints and representations from growers have not had adequate time to consider it. For 1 8 months we have known that the legislation would be introduced but the Minister did not introduce the legislation into the House of Representatives until last week. This suggests that the present Minister for Primary Industry is so preoccupied with handling his personal business affairs and difficulties that he just cannot devote the time that is required to do his job. This emphasises the justification of the repeated calls by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) that this Minister should be replaced by someone else until his private business affairs have been properly sorted out. It is quite clear from his behaviour in this matter and in another matter which I will raise in Question Time tomorrow that he has not devoted or has not been able to devote the time to his duties as the Minister for Primary Industry which that office demands.

In his second reading speech the Minister asserted that the amendments and the marketing arrangements which are proposed under this package of Bills had been recommended by the Australian Dried Fruits Association. While that statement is not untrue it tells less than the whole truth. The Australian Dried Fruits Association disregarded a recommendation from the producer component body of that organisation, or from the producers themselves, that some different marketing arrangements should be applied. So while the Minister was not exactly misleading the Parliament, he certainly was telling less than the whole truth. There is not the unanimity of opinion on the wisdom or appropriateness of this legislation that the Minister’s second reading speech suggested there was.

I understand that in the Riverland area in South Australia alone some 600 ethnic or nonAngloSaxon producers of dried fruits have not been consulted at all on this matter. Although I do not know the number, there is no doubt that a significant number of producers in the Sunraysia district are in the same position. I would like to know whether the proceeds of the levy imposed under the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Bill will be paid into a trust fund prior to redistribution to producers or, technically, to packers within the industry. I would also like to know whether for the time that the levy is in a trust fund interest will acme to the trust fund and ultimately, of course, to the producers or the packers who have contributed to it.

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

– in reply- It does my heart good, as I am sure it does the hearts of every member of the Government good, to hear Senator Walsh speak on primary industry matters. The Government must gain great following because of it. Senator Walsh, whenever he speaks on primary industry, uses derogatory terms about one of the most excellent men in the Federal Parliament, the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair. Senator Walsh usually ends his speeches by asking about the Minister’s business affairs and indicating what he hopes to do. I have said in this place before that those members who attack the performance of Ministers will be required one day to put their own financial affairs before this Parliament. Some of the revelations might be particularly interesting.

Senator Walsh in one breath said that the Bills are being rushed through the Senate, that he has had no time to look at them and he complained about this and some other matter. In the next breath, in what appears to be a paradox- the Hansard record will show this- he said that it has been known for the past 18 months that this legislation would be introduced at this time. Yet he complains that he has not had time to investigate it. If he had read the second reading speech with any clarity he would have noticed this statement:

The Association has therefore asked that the Government secure equalisation by placing it on a statutory basis.

The legislation that we see tonight is the result of close consultation with the industry, in particular with the Australian Dried Fruits Association which represents over 90 per cent of the growers and all but one packer. These groups have requested the Government to produce this legislation. We note that the Opposition is unhappy with it. I certainly believe that that should be conveyed to the industry and those concerned. The industry has been well aware of this legislation for at least 12 months. The proposed scheme is along the lines of the voluntary scheme which has operated under all types of governments in this place and has operated for at least 50 years. I note the comments of Senator Walsh.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-With reference to the Dried Vine Fruits Equalization Levy Bill, I ask the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) whether the funds collected under this levy will be, as is the normal procedure, paid into a trust fund. I also ask him whether the moneys paid into that trust fund will receive interest while they are in the trust fund and prior to their distribution to, technically, the packer but, ultimately, the producer of dried fruits.

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

– The answer is yes, they do accumulate interest.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2543

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1978 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1978

This Bill provides grants for 1 979 to the States through Commonwealth specific purpose payments in respect of government and nongovernment schools. In addition, the real level of 1978 funding, provided through Schools Commission programs, is maintained by adjusting recurrent grants for increases in salaries and wages which have occurred throughout the present grants period. On 17 October, I announced that the Government had accepted the recommendations contained in the report of the Schools Commission for 1979. The report had been prepared pursuant to the guidelines to the Schools Commission for the 1979-81 triennium which I announced in the Parliament on 9 June 1978. The approved cost of the 1979 programs, in estimated December 1 977 prices, is $63 1 .6m.

In the Bill, provision is made for the continuation in 1979 of the same programs that have operated under the present legislation for both government and non-government schools. The general resources programs are general recurrent grants, including short term emergency assistance for non-government schools catering for country children, and building and equipment grants. The specific purpose programs are for child migrant education, disadvantaged schools and students in disadvantaged country areas, special education for handicapped children including children living in institutions, services and development and special projects.

The conditions applying to short term emergency assistance grants to non-government schools catering for students from the country have been modified in the Bill. In 1979 systemic schools will be eligible for assistance. In addition, grants may be made where a school catering for country students finds itself in an emergency situation for reasons not directly related to those enrolments. These changes will allow more adequate consideration to be given to the situation of such schools facing temporary difficulties.

Until now the child migrant education program has operated as a part of the general recurrent grants program. From 1979 it will be a separate program and the main purpose of the program, namely, the teaching of English as a second language, is emphasised in this Bill. The Bill provides for the introduction of the new multicultural education program in 1979. Both government and non-government schools will benefit from the program which, in 1979, will focus on the teaching of community languages. The two new schemes for the encouragement of school-level evaluation projects and for the promotion of choice within government schools are to be administered as sub-programs of the special projects program. The adjusted grants of $205,500 for each scheme are incorporated within the overall allocation of $3,908,000 for the special projects program.

Details of the 1979 allocations for individual programs and States are given in Schedules 1 to 9 of the Bill. The grants specified in these schedules have been adjusted to June 1978 prices except for the non-government schools general recurrent program which includes some allowance for estimated future cost increases. After these adjustments the estimated cost of the 1979 programs is $662.3m. The grants for 1 979 will be further adjusted in subsequent legislation for cost movements to the end of 1978 and for increases in the salaries and wages components of recurrent grants during 1979. The Bill also adjusts the salary and wages components of recurrent grants for 1978 from December 1977 prices to June 1978 prices. In accordance with established practice, the non-government schools general recurrent program also includes final provision for cost increases to the end of 1978. The additional cost of these adjustments is $8.7m. Amending legislation will be introduced in the 1979 autumn sittings of the Parliament to finalise the adjustment of 1978 grants. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1978

The purpose of the Bill is to provide financial assistance to the States for universities, colleges of advanced education, and technical and further education. It will be recalled that the guidelines for assistance to tertiary education in the 1979-81 triennium provided for the introduction of fixed recurrent funding for the triennium. This Bill provides grants for the three sectors for 1979 and recurrent grants for the university sector for 1980 and 1981. Recurrent grants for 1980 and 1981 for advanced education and technical and further education will be provided by legislative amendment in the 1979 autumn sittings after the Government has considered supplementary advice from the Tertiary Education Commission, in relation to advanced education, and the Report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training in relation to TAFE.

The amounts provided for each of the three tertiary education sectors for 1 979 are:

Recurrent grants totalling $591m have also been provided for universities in respect of 1980 and 1981. Recurrent grants to each State for advanced education in respect of those years were set out in my statement to the Senate on 19 October 1978. The amounts provided are based upon the programs of the Tertiary Education Commission for the 1979-81 triennium which I announced in the Senate on 19 October 1978.

The amount provided for technical and further education includes the first component of the additional $50m for capital works in that sector which was announced in the Government’s Guidelines for the Education Commissions 1979-81 Triennium. The announced programs were in December 1977 cost levels; they have been adjusted for cost movements to June 1978. The Bill provides amounts for institutions in lieu of assistance previously provided by the Commonwealth through fees assistance and other grants. These amounts, which are in addition to the guideline programs, are payable to the National Institute of Dramatic Art and to a number of universities in respect of professionally oriented law courses. It does not include approved grants for institutions which are funded from within the tertiary programs through the annual Appropriation Acts.

As announced in the Senate on 19 October 1978 a shortfall in expenditure of the 1978 capital program will enable additional university and college of advanced education capital projects to commence in the second half of 1979. These projects will be added to the legislation in the 1979 Autumn Sittings when the savings have been realised. The grants will be adjusted in subsequent legislation for cost movements in accordance with the Government’s Guidelines for the 1979-81 triennium.

The Bill also modifies certain conditions relating to grants to provide additional flexibility in the expenditure of these grants. These changes are designed to assist the institutions to utilise the grants as effectively as possible. The modifications do not reduce the States’ responsibilities to account for their expenditure of the grants. In addition to appropriating grants for the 1979-81 triennium, the Bill amends the States Grants (Tertiary Education assistance) Act 1977 to supplement approved 1978 grants for cost increases between December 1977 and June 1978. The additional funds provided for cost supplementation are $6. 8m for universities, $3.4m for colleges, and $lm for technical and further education. It also amends the States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Act 1976 to allow for the transfer of $782,000 between capital and recurrent programs for Queensland in 1977 to enable colleges of advanced education in that State to meet unavoidable increases in superannuation contributions. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– The Opposition does not oppose the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1978. The Bill provides for payments to the States of grants in respect of current expenditure on schools, in respect of capital expenditure on schools, and in respect of other school programs for the year 1979. The total payment made by the Commonwealth is in excess of $600m. It is appropriate to say that the needs of Australian schools were assessed by the Schools Commission in accordance with its charter, and in its most recent report the Schools Commission indicated that, although it assessed the needs, the guidelines on a one per cent increase in real terms imposed by the Government and the directions given by the Government to the Schools Commission imposed severe limitations on the capacity to fulfil real needs.

It should be noted that the expenditure allocated to capital is down in real terms at a time when there is a rundown of activity in the construction industry and when many schools still have real needs in terms of buildings and physical resources. The Government has virtually abdicated responsibility for government schools to the State governments and within the non-government sector has allocated increased funds to the level 1 schools- the wealthy private schools- and comparatively small funds to the level 6 schools, which are the poorer Catholic parochial schools. In this regard the Government has departed substantially from the needs principle. That is to be regretted.

The statement issued by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on the 21 November under the heading ‘Progress in Education’ ignores some of the Government’s commitment to inequality in the Australian schools system. While criticising the thrust and direction of Government policy in relation to schools, the Opposition regards this legislation as essentially machinery to provide for the payment to the States of Commonwealth funds for schools, and accordingly it is not opposed to the Bill.

The States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill 1978 provides funding to Australian universities for the triennium and funding to the colleges of advanced education sector and the technical and further education sector for the year 1979. It is a machinery Bill, which the Opposition does not oppose. It is interesting to note that funding for the colleges of advanced education and the TAFE sector for the years 1980 and 1981 is not provided, because their funding will be considered for these years after consideration of the Williams Report on Education and Training and after the receipt of other advice by the Government. This suggests that recurrent finance for universities will not be affected by the Williams Committee report. If so, the Government appears to be prejudging the report of the Williams inquiry.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, I think he is reading his speech.

Senator GEORGES:

– As a matter of fact I am just reading from notes. If the honourable senator wants me to expand on the notes I could possibly extend my speech to 45 minutes or even 50 minutes.

Senator McLaren:

– Are they copious notes?

Senator GEORGES:

-Yes, they are fairly copious notes. As the Minister indicated, the amounts provided are based on the Tertiary Education Commission’s report for the 1979-81 triennium, subject of course to the overriding factor of Government guidelines.

The Opposition commends the provisions of the Bill providing for additional flexibility in expenditure, particularly in a no growth situation such as the universities are now suffering. There is a need for greater flexibility in expenditure arrangements, subject of course to proper accountability for that expenditure. I conclude by saying that the Opposition does not oppose the legislation.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its co-operation, and I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

SALES TAX ASSESSMENT (Nos 1 TO 9) AMENDMENT BILLS 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This package of nine Bills furthers the steps already taken by the Government to tighten up tax avoidance schemes. The Opposition’s views on this matter have been well stated in this chamber only just recently. As the subject matter of this legislation is similar and those views have been expressed, I do not intend on this occasion to repeat what was said before. I simply indicate that the Opposition will not be opposing the legislation.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2546

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The opposition does not oppose the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978. 1 have no desire to hold up the Senate. I wish to make only a few general remarks. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) will note that my legal colleague, Senator Cavanagh, is in the House tonight and he will wish to make some comments of a specific nature on one section of the Bill. I will confine myself to some general remarks.

This Bill, like so many before it, has the general aim of increasing the powers of the Minister for Health to regulate the voluntary health funds in this country. It is with some amusement that whenever an amendment Bill of this type comes up I remember the days in 1974 and 1975 when, as a supporter of the then Government, I spoke on many occasions on amending legislation introduced to give the then Minister for Health the powers to control the voluntary health funds. This legislation was, of course, regularly opposed and defeated in this House by the then Opposition. In fact the gentleman who at the moment is making vast sums of money out of the serialisation in the newspapers of a very dull book used the repeated defeat of that legislation, among other legislation, as a reason for a double dissolution of the Parliament. Of course, after that double dissolution the new Government immediately passed the legislation. Of course the Government realised then as it realises now that the voluntary health funds in this country are controlled by and contain some of the slipperiest and shadiest characters in the business. As the Minister for Social Security pointed out in the second reading speech which she made on behalf of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), among the shadiest and slipperiest are the gentlemen from the Hospital Contributions Fund, who in order to avoid their responsibilities recently tried to exclude large numbers of disadvantaged members from receiving benefits.

It has been an unfortunate fact that the voluntary health funds in this country have repeatedly, time and time again, tried to avoid their responsibility and tried to exclude various groups from receiving benefits at the same time as constructing large buildings, buying aeroplanes and other things. Governments of both persuasions have had to amend this legislation repeatedly to bring these funds under control, to make sure that they carry out their responsibilities to their contributors and to bring them into line with various government policies.

I make the same prediction about this Bill as I made about the other health amendment Bills which have been introduced this year. This legislation will be back again next year for further amendment to enable the Minister yet again to curb the slippery and shady characters who will continue to manipulate the national health legislation of this country as much as they can to avoid their responsibility. We will be watching to make sure that the new powers given to the Minister will in fact be used by him when they should be used and not left on the shelf when they should be used, as they sometimes are because of the undoubted influence that some of these funds have over the coalition parties. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. We realise the necessity for it. Therefore I will not further delay the legislation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I regret the need to speak at this hour. Nevertheless, following the discussion that the Senate had on 25 October concerning a particular clause of certain health legislation, a few things should be said. Although my contribution, which concerns section 73E of the National Health Act, would perhaps be better made in the Committee stage, it may take longer to outline than the stipulated time in the Committee stage would permit. I mention it at the second reading stage also in the hope that the Minister may be able to reply before the Committee stage is reached, although she could not do so on 25 October when I first raised the matter.

First let me say that 1 resent any suggestion that I am someone’s legal friend. I have never claimed to have any knowledge of law. I have detected problems in legislation which, on occasions, have been legal in nature, but I was able to do so only because I had done my homework and had studied the legislation. The Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, having read a speech that I made in this chamber last week, today brought down a recommendation which would suggest that the Parliament is not competent to make a logical decision unless it has someone looking over its shoulder and guiding it. It is to suggest setting up a committee to provide that guidance which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is fortunate enough to have at the present time.

The last thing I wanted during my term in the Parliament was to be a member of a rubberstamp House that had no purpose in the Australian community. I have always fought for the prestige of the Senate in the belief that it is a House of review and should review legislation. I have come to the conclusion that if a recommendation were brought down concerning an alteration to an Act- whether it be done by me, by some legal member of the House or by the committee that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee may desire to establish- the relevant Minister in this chamber would be unable, under this Government, to accept it, even when it is pointed out that the Act is wrong.

Last night, following the debate on the Maternity Leave (Austraiian Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1978, the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) told me that what I had said was right. I said: ‘You would not accept an amendment in the House; what are you going to do about it?’ He said: ‘I hope that it will be rectified in the next series of amendments to the Act’. That is an admission that although I had brought up something in the Act that should have been altered, and the Minister knew it should be altered, he had not the power to do so.

The question now before us was debated on 25 October. On that occasion I protested about taking business away from Parliament and giving it to Ministers. If authority is taken from Parliament and vested in the hands of the Executive, there is no justification for paying us a salary just for sitting here at a late hour of the night kidding ourselves that we are doing something, as members of parliament, for the country. Section 73E was embodied in an amending Bill which was assented to as recently as June of this year. That section permits the Minister to give guidelines concerning hospital and medical benefits paid by various associations. Under the amendments made in June that was done by regulation. This House was given the power to supervise regulations. However, on 25 October 1978 we discussed and carried an amendment which, in regard to the prescription of guidelines under regulations, took that power away from the Regulations and Ordinance Committee and from the Senate and gave the sole right to the Minister, with the proviso that the Rules Publication Act 1 903 did not apply in relation to a determination under sub-section (2) of section 73E.

Therefore, the guidelines were to be drawn up by the Minister, who would notify the hospital benefits organisation and would not report to the House. The guidelines were not to go before a committee. The Rules Publication Act provides that a rule made by a Minister must be published in the Gazette and made available for purchase. In regard to those guidelines we exempted the Minister from the need to make them available to the public. Some secret arrangement was to be entered into whereby the Minister could make his guidelines and convey them to the particular organisation only. Parliament was not to know a thing about them.

It is peculiar to note that the taking of power from the Parliament that has taken place under this Government seems to be happening in relation to the activities of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). Honourable senators will recall that in the debate in this chamber on abortion in the Australian Capital Territory the Minister for Health did not want to accept the decision of the Australian Capital Territory Legislation Assembly. Indeed, all of the restrictions that have been imposed on this Parliament recently seem to have emanated from the activities of his Department.

Concerning the amendment before us, it appeared at first blush that someone took notice of my remarks the other night and made provision for a submission to Parliament with the right of Parliament to disallow, but when one examines it one finds that there has been no alteration in the section of which I complained. I refer to clause 6 of the Bill, which reads:

  1. Section 73e of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after sub-section (6) the following sub-sections: “(6a) Where the Minister makes a determination under sub-section (2) that revokes or varies guidelines in force under sub-section (2) or fixes further guidelines under that sub-section, that determination does not affect any declaration by the Minister under sub-section (5) that was made before the making of that determination, but the Minister may , by instrument in writing, revoke that declaration if he is satisfied that, by reason of the making of that determination, the table to which that declaration relates no longer complies with the guidelines in force under sub-section (2) with respect to hospital benefits tables or medical benefits tables, as the case may be.

I shall try to give honourable senators some understanding of what that means. Sub-section (2) of section 73E reads:

The Minister may, by writing signed by him, determine guidelines with respect to hospital benefits tables and medical benefits tables.

Sub-section (5) provides that where the Minister is satisfied that a hospital benefits table of a medical benefits table includes certain benefits he shall declare that the table is an optional hospital benefits table or an optional medical benefits table, as the case may be. In short, he sets out guidelines, but optional facilities may be provided. That is subject to the declaration he makes under sub-section (2). The guidelines are subject to secrecy and non-publication or nonpresentation to the Parliament. Proposed subsection (6B) states:

The Minister shall, as soon as practicable after revoking a declaration under sub-section (6a)-

This is where he has revoked an optional benefit because the guidelines under sub-section (2) have made the optional benefit no longer applicable. Therefore he revokes it. Proposed subsection (6B) continues:

  1. notify the registered organisation concerned accordingly; and
  2. cause a copy of the instrument of revocation to be laid before each House of the Parliament.

The only thing he is required to lay before each House of the Parliament is advice that under sub-section (5) he has revoked the optional benefits. Under section 73BE (2) he has made new guidelines which we are not allowed to know about and the public is not allowed to know about. That relates to an optional benefit that he permitted under section 73E (5). Therefore, the only thing that is laid before this Parliament is the declaration of revocation. We do not know why he has revoked the benefit or anything about it. It becomes a greater mystery. Proposed sub-section (6C) states:

Either House of the Parliament, within IS sitting days of that House after a copy of an instrument of revocation has been laid before that House under sub-section (6b), may, in pursuance of a motion upon notice, pass a resolution disallowing the revocation.

We say that he should not do this but why he should not we do not know. We do not know the reason he has done it; we only know that he has done it. That is all he is required to lay before the Parliament. We do not know why he has issued the instrument of revocation but we have the right to know. Proposed sub-section (6D) states:

If either House of the Parliament passes a resolution in accordance with sub-section (6C) disallowing a revocation, the revocation takes effect on the day immediately following the last day upon which such a resolution could have been passed.

Proposed section 73E (6E) states that if, before the expiration of 15 sitting days, the House is prorogued, the matter may appear on the Notice Paper for the first day of the next sitting. This is a funny procedure and it is causing me some concern. There is a history of which you, Mr President, will have some knowledge. It was always the case that statutes provided that determinations or declarations made by a Minister had to be placed before both Houses of Parliament. There was generally a provision that the same procedure would be followed as would apply in the case of a regulation or ordinance which is laid before the Parliament. That brings in the application of the Acts Interpretation Act. Fifteen sitting days are allowed for objection to a regulation or ordinance and another 15 sitting days are allowed for the purpose of discussing it or adjourning it. But if, after the second 15 days, it has not been discussed or the discussion has not been finanlised, the regulation or ordinance becomes non-operative. This forced upon the Government the responsiblity to ensure that the regulation or ordinance was discussed and that the Senate made a decision within a specified time.

While the Senate has the right to disallow within 15 days, by way of a notice of motion, there is no necessity to bring forward the notice of motion for discussion within the 15 days. The Government, by use of its numbers can adjourn debate in the case of a declaration under this section until after the 15 sitting days. The declaration then becomes operative. Therefore, there is nothing we can do about the matter if the Government has the numbers. This is different from the procedure applying in respect of regulations and ordinances.

This procedure also was followed in respect of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. In respect of that Act the instructing officer from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs appeared before the Labor Party Caucus committee to explain the Act and I said to him: Why is this? The Government can adjourn this matter until after the 15 sitting days’. This related to a proclamation by the GovernorGeneral that it was in the national interest to mine uranium. He said: ‘Well Senator, I do not know; I will look into it.’ When the matter came before this House and we argued the question no alteration was made. I saw that instructing officer at Batchelor in the Northern Territory. He said: I fought for you to try to get that aspect in. I agree that it is not right. ‘ I said: ‘Why did you not succeed?’ He replied: ‘The Minister did not accept it. I think the reason was that the draftsman was away on holidays. We could not ascertain the reason he included this particular wording.’ Therefore, whether it be right or wrong, the draftsman controls the Minister. If I was correct in my assumption, the wrong could not be righted because the draftsman was on holidays and they could not contact him.

This procedure has been used again. Again, there is no obligation on the Government to bring this matter before the House. Although we do not know what is being revoked, we can still say nothing about it if the draftsman is not available. This indicates that the institution of the Senate will fall down and collapse if the draftsman dies. There is no other explanation. In the case of an Act such as the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which requires a proclamation by the Governor-General to be laid before this House, we have the right to disallow that proclamation, but the Government has the right to adjourn discussion until 15 days have elapsed and because the Senate has not disallowed it within 15 days the proclamation is valid. In that particular case, I requested the Chairman of Committees to take this matter up with the Standing Orders Committee. The Standing Orders Committee considered the question and reported back during my absence when I was unable to ask why my suggestion was not a valid solution to the problem. The Standing Orders Committee amended Standing Order 66A to read:

The following business shall be placed on the Notice Paper as Business of the Senate and shall take precedence of Government and General Business for the day on which it is set down for consideration, viz.:

A Motion for leave of absence to a Senator;

b) A Motion touching the qualification of a Senator;

A Motion to disallow, disapprove, or declare void and of no effect any instrument made under the authority of any Act which provides for the instrument to be subject to disallowance or disapproval by either House of the Parliament, or subject to a resolution of either House of the Parliament declaring the instrument to be void and of no effect. For the purpose of this Standing Order, instrument includes regulation, ordinance or part thereof, rule, by-law, order, declaration, determination, notice, and modification or variation of plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environs.

So the Standing Order, as amended, is wide enough to cover and take precedence of other business. However, when the matter comes on for discussion, there is still nothing to prevent the adjournment of the debate on the matter until a subsequent date. While section 73E gives the Minister some power to present the report to the Parliament, Parliament has the right to disallow the Minister’s declaration. There is not in the legislation the essential ingredient that unless the matter is resolved within 15 days, the Minister’s decision will be disallowed. Therefore, we have been presented with only a token and are asked to accept it. There is no justification for it. I do not know whether my previous remarks on this matter had any influence on the draftsmen, but this provision is either the result of the stupidity of the draftsmen or a cunning and deliberate attempt to fool the Senate into believing that at last it has power over something over which, in effect, it need not have power.

Friday, 24 November 1978

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I have listened to Senator Cavanagh ‘s remarks and have had discussions with both the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and the departmental officers, and I would like Senator Cavanagh ‘s suggestion, which certainly raised doubts in my mind, to be taken to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee for that Committee to look at it. This is something that I believe Senator Cavanagh has brought to the attention of the Senate -

Senator Evans:

– It is not within the powers of that Committee.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, but you could refer it to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee.

Senator WALTERS:

– I do not mind whether it is referred to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, so long as it is referred. I would like some further action taken on the point that Senator Cavanagh has raised tonight.

Senator Evans:

– The power is in the hands of this chamber to do something about it tonight. That is what we are here for, Senator.

Senator WALTERS:

-The intention of the Minister was that a review be allowed. I am quite sure that the intention of the Bill was that a power of review be given to the Senate over any discretion of the Minister.

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier Senator Cavanagh suggested that the Standing Orders Committee should look at this matter. I shall have a close study made of what Senator Cavanagh has said tonight with a view to deciding what action should be taken to achieve the situation which the honourable senator seeks.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I should think that you have gone as far as your powers will permit, actually.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, but as I say, I shall have a close study made of the matters raised in your speech tonight.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

Might I make a small contribution in this debate to clarify what appears to be some misunderstanding, at least on the part of Senator Walters, of what are the powers of the respective committees of this chamber with respect to the kind of problem to which Senator Cavanagh has so graphically drawn our attention tonight. What he has drawn out attention to is a provision in legislation delegating authority to a Minister without making sufficiently adequate provision for the control by this Parliament of that authority once exercised. The machinery for control which is available to this Parliament and which ought to be incorporated, as Senator Cavanagh has pointed out, in legislation of this kind, is a provision for the tabling and disallowance of all relevant aspects of the ministerial discretion in question. That is the solution to which Senator Cavanagh draws our attention.

The Regulations and Ordinances Committee, in the exercise of its power to scrutinise regulations and, informally, instruments in writing which are perpetrated by the Executive, from time to time draws to the attention of the Senate deficiencies in the principal parent legislation. It is not the function of that Committee to perform that particular role and, indeed, that is the reason why the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, in its report which was tabled today in this Parliament, recommended very strongly the case for the establishment of a further joint committee of this Parliament to scrutinise Bills for various deficiencies of exactly the kind that Senator Cavanagh has drawn our attention to tonight. I refer here to deficiencies in the sense that the Bill might unduly impinge upon civil liberties and to, what is more relevant to present purposes, deficiencies in the undue excessive and uncontrolled delegation of authority to the Executive.

The most that any committee could do if a matter like this were referred to it and the most that a joint committee could do, if one of the kind that the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has recommended were already established, would simply be to report back to this chamber the deficiencies in the legislation in question. That is exactly what Senator Cavanagh has done tonight. He has singlehandedly and unilaterally carried out that function which the rest of us so rarely perform, that is, of looking at the detailed terms of the Bill. He has singlehandedly performed the function that I hope this new committee would be set up to do, and he has brought to the attention of this chamber and to the Minister what appears to be a fairly clear deficiency in the legislation.

There is nothing further to be achieved by referring this matter to another committee of the kind suggested by Senator Walters, be it the Regulations and Ordinances Committee or one of the other standing committees, or indeed the new joint committee if we can wait around long enough for that committee to be set up, because the job has been done for us by Senator Cavanagh. It is up to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and to this chamber to react accordingly to the suggestion that Senator Cavanagh has made. In the spirit in which Senator Cavanagh has spoken on this issue, and if what he said is right, it would appear to me and to the Opposition to be a case of gross neglect of the Government’s duty in this respect. This would apply equally to Government members if they were simply to follow the Minister in this respect and allow this legislation to go through in its present form without it being amended in the way in which Senator Cavanagh has pointed out it should be amended.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition and the Senate for the speedy passage of this Bill. As was said by Senator Grimes on behalf the Opposition, there is no opposition to the Bill. In the discussion following Senator Grimes’ comments, we heard from Senator Cavanagh about his concern for the policy behind the Bill. I simply say at this stage of the sitting that it is a Bill that responds to the needs of the community. We understand the needs of the people and their interests and that amendments are required to the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 3). We believe that these amendments will give protection to those against whom discrimination could have been practised.

The Government is here to look after the needs of the consumers and it is important when deficiencies in legislation such as those that are covered by these amendments come to light, that they be rectified as speedily as possible. As I have said, we are here to respond to those needs.

I think that the speech made by Senator Cavanagh was a very thoughtful one. It is a speech that should have the proper consideration of those who draft legislation to put into effect policies of government, particularly policies as important as a health policy. The Bill is required. It is a Bill that I am pleased to hear is not opposed by the Opposition and I commend it to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to prolong this debate. I have never got any satisfaction out of replies from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). I have sympathy with the Minister because she is in the position that another Minister was in last night of knowing that something is wrong and not being able to do anything about it. This belief that there is power in a Minister in this Government is false. The stupidity of a draftsman has led to a mistake and we must live with it, unless the Senate is prepared to do something about it.

Unfortunately I bring up this matter on a Bill which the Minister has said is important to the people but which needs alteration. But we cannot vote against it. I am sure that if the Bill were not so important to the community, the Opposition, along with Senator Walters and Senator Peter Baume, who I see nodded some approval, would vote against it; and because of the concern shown by the President we might get something done. It is one of those Bills which we cannot vote against at the moment but which we may vote against at some time.

This matter simply emphasises the fact that there is no power in a Minister of this establishment. Only when we get a committee that can instruct us about legislation before it gets to us in the way that the draftsman is instructing us now will we get proper legislation. The members of such a committee possibly would be more knowledgeable and have more concern for the civil rights of individuals.

I use as an illustration section 73E solely because when we discussed the principal Act in October we were concerned with that section. Under this Government an alteration to an Act does not last too long, because in June of this year we altered section 73E, in October of this year we altered section 73E and now in November we are altering section 73E again. The thing of which I complain is contained also in section 4 of the Act, which says that a Minister may make a declaration under section 4b, which has certain objects as set out in the legislation. The Act then sets out the procedure for presentation to the Parliament, and that is the end of it; there is no need for the Parliament to discuss it.

I forgive the Minister for the inability to reply. I know the difficult position she is in and the difficulty of the Government she is serving. I think she has done a reasonable job. As we are into the final days of fraternity and good greetings, I do not want to make life unpleasant tonight. She looks attractive.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2551

NEW SOUTH WALES GRANT (CHRYSOTILE CORPORATION) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is the second Bill to come before the Senate in this session providing short term assistance for an Australian mine. The previous Bill involved the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company Ltd in Tasmania. Basically, this legislation is similar to that involving Mount Lyell. There is a tripartite arrangement in which the Australian Government will commit up to $1.4m from 1 October this year to 31 December 1979. The New South Wales Government, in addition to providing funds, is also agreeing to waive temporarily mining royalties. The mine’s major creditor, the Commercial Bank of Australia, has agreed to allow interest on loans to accrue over the period. All this is being done in spite of an Industries Assistance Commission report recommending that, as the outlook for asbestos was not good and the mine could not be operated profitably, there were no grounds for assistance.

The Barraba mine is in the electorate of New England and one might be excused for believing that the fact that it is in the electorate of New England might have had some influence on the

Cabinet’s deciding against the Commission’s recommendation. Although Barraba is only a small town, it is not quite so isolated as Queenstown on the west coast of Tasmania and does not have the same peculiar geographical features and location which affect Queenstown. It is not far from Tamworth, which is a city of 30,000 people, and to the west of Barraba is a rapidly expanding cotton and graingrowing area. I mention these factors because common to both cases of assistance is the serious question of adjustment and the relocation of the miners and their families in the event of the mine closing. This was one of the major factors surrounding both the Australian and Tasmanian governments agreeing to assist the Mount Lyell mine. I note from the second reading speech that it is also a factor in this case.

The Opposition has always been concerned that, whilst there is a great deal of discussion about restructuring and relocation of industries, very little is done to look at the detail and assess the human implications. The Barraba case presents a special opportunity to the Australian Government to proceed with some important work in the field of relocation and adjustment. I understand that the Kellog Rural Adjustment Unit at the University of New England has approached the Government to undertake a study, in conjunction with the local government bodies in the area, of the effects of the possible closure of the mine and the policies and specific measures which should be adopted in the event of the mine having to close after December 1979 when the Australian Government assistance ends. In my view, this is an excellent opportunity to have work done which might result in formulation of practical readjustment and relocation policies, and I trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to facilitating any work which the Kellog adjustment unit might want to do in this specific case. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– We are pleased to have the passage of the Bill. It is a Bill that resulted from the Government’s decision to provide assistance. The Government took account of the willingness of the Commercial Bank of Australia and of the State Government to assist the Chrysotile Corporation and the relatively low cost to the Commonwealth of its assistance in the light of their proposed contributions. The Commonwealth was naturally mindful of the effect that the mine’s closure would have on employment in the town of Barraba. This was one of the factors, together with the Bank’s willingness to assist, which resulted in the Government’s decision to provide this assistance in co-operation with the State Government.

I believe that this Bill will give an opportunity for time to be found for this company to work again and to provide the very much needed employment in that area. We took account of the region generally and the opportunities for employment that are there. I believe that this Bill can be commended to the Senate for the purpose for which it has been drafted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2552

ADJOURNMENT

Land Transaction

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not propose to speak at great length but I want to make reference to what appears to be a Victorian-type land scandal in Queensland.

Senator Puplick:
Senator KEEFFE:

– As long as there are not too many interjections, I will not delay honourable senators unduly. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that, while local government is short of funds, a local government authority in my State of Queensland is prepared to make a fairly substantial donation to one of the Ministers in the Queensland Parliament who happens to be one of its friends. I refer to the Albert Shire Council, which has made a donation of land to Mr Russell Hinze, the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, which will yield to Mr Hinze in hard, cold cash approximately $200,000. Under section 19 of the Queensland Local Government Act, a local authority may effect a sale in such a manner as it thinks fit where it is of the opinion that land owned by it is valued at less than $500. Some of this material was covered in an article which appeared in the National Times for the week ending 25 November 1978.I understand that the article has been examined and, to shorten a long story, I will seek leave to have a fairly large section of the article incorporated in Hansard.

On 14 September 1973, the Albert Shire Council signed over to Mr Russell Hinze a block of land and furnished a statutory declaration to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties showing that the price of the land was nil. Mr Hinze received this land in return for a promise to perform certain duties for the Albert Shire Council. However, the land was in fact worth $1,000. I will give the name of the body which did the valuation. An independent valuer, A. R. Andrews Real Estate, valued the land at $ 1 ,000.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, please be careful that you do not make any imputations.

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, I am trying not to. I am just trying to give the facts of the case. Stamp duty of $12.50 was paid on the transfer by Mr Hinze through his solicitors, Primrose, Couper and Cronin. This indicates a purchase price of $1,000 as the stamp duty at that time was charged at the rate of 1 .25 per cent. What I am saying is that local government in this area has given to Mr Hinze a block of land worth $1,000. The shire concerned is the Albert Shire Council. Its action is in violation- that is the accusation I make; there is nothing reprehensible about that- of section 19 of the Queensland Local Government Act.

The gift of this land was significant because it was the trigger to put a fortune in that Minister’s pocket. The land adjoins another piece of land which was regarded as a road although it was scrub covered. Probably it had served as a stock route years before. This road was closed and transferred to the owner of the adjacent block, who was again Mr Russell Hinze. The first block was approximately one acre in size and the second block was approximately 10% acres in size. That land has been converted by Mr Hinze into 16 blocks and placed on the market at a value of $12,500 each. If all the blocks are sold he will net about $200,000. The whole transaction is set out in an article in last week’s National Times. To save the time of the Senate, which is bogged down with work, I seek leave to incorporate the article in Hansard. I understand that it has been shown to you, Mr President, and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle).

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

THE UNUSUAL HISTORY OF A QUEENSLAND LAND DEAL

By Denis Reinhard

RUSSELL HINZE, Queensland’s bombastic Main Roads and Local Government Minister, has acquired 4.76 hectares (11.76 acres) of prime Gold Coast hinterland real estate from the Crown.

Hinze now stands to net at least $100,000 from a residential subdivision of property currently “ called Coomera Heights Estate which consists of 16 one-acre blocks on the market from $ 12,500.

Public records indicate he obtained the lands in two ways. First, through a family gift and, second, through an extraordinary sequence of transactions speedily concluded in 1973 and 1974 with the Albert Shire Council and the State Lands Department, both subject to control by National Party figures.

It should be pointed out that Hinze was a member of the Albert Shire Council from 1952 to 1958 and Council Chairman from 1958 to 1967. He entered State Parliament in 1966 and became Minister for Local Government and Main Roads in October 1974. Hinze is now campaigning for the Queensland premiership (see profile).

The Hinze land is situated 25km north of Surfers Paradise just inland from the Brisbane-Gold Coast Highway at the mouth of the Coomera River valley.

Since February, Norman Rix, a Southport real estate agent and fellow-member of the Gold Coast’s National Party establishment, has been marketing the 16 blocks as “without doubt the most beautiful rural land available in the valley.”

The subdivision was obtained by Hinze in three distinct phases. The history of acquisition is recorded below and its separate sections according to how they were acquired are identified in the accompanying maps as A, B and C.

The first section, A, was obtained through a family gift. In November, 1963, Hinze ‘s mother, Georgina, transferred to him a parcel of three blocks (shown on map as A, D and E) totalling 109.7 ha (272 acres). Block E is the site of the family farm.

The transfer document noted Georgina Hinze ‘s receipt of 10 shillings and her passing the land to Russell James Hinze “in further consideration of the natural love and affection I have towards my son. “The State Treasury assessed gift duty of £775.

A decade later on November 7, 1973, Hinze sold block D (55.4 ha, 136.9 acres) for$147,000 to Oxenford Estates Pty Ltd, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the, highly-geared Mainline Corporation. Under an option agreement, Oxenford Estates had already begun development of block D.

This left Hinze with block E- the family farm-site- and block A (4.257 ha, 10.5 acres) situated on a low hill, wedged between a road junction.

Hinze obtained block B on September 14, 1973, when officers of the Albert Shire Council signed it over to him.

The two council officers who signed the transfer of block B to Hinze were his successor as shire chairman, Cr Hugh Muntz and Shire Clerk Norman Gampe, who had been a council officer when Hinze was chairman. Block B (408 ha, 1 .0 1 acres) was an elongated triangle atop the hill at the road junction and adjourned Block A which was part of the Hinze gift.

It had once been intended as a church site but since 1929 had been vested in the Shire of Coomera and its successor, the Shire of Al ben.

By memorandum of transfer E700486 lodged at the Brisbane Titles Office on January 30, 1974, the Albeit Shire Council transferred its “estate and interest in the said piece of land-(block B) to Russell James Hinze.

Contractual payment was specified in the memorandum as “the terms of a verbal agreement between the parties hereto whereby the above described land is to be transferred to the transferee free from all encumbrances. “

A period of four months had elapsed between the affixing of the Council’s corporate seal over the council officers’ signatures and the document’s lodgment by Hinze ‘s solicitors, Primrose, Couper & Cronin.

Titles Office clerks who process hundreds of transfer documents daily told The National Times they had “never seen anything like it before.” There are a number of aspects about this transfer

Section 19 of Queensland’s Local Government Act allows a local authority to “effect a sale in such a manner as it thinks fit” where it is of the opinion that the land in question is valued at less than $300.

A statutory declaration furnished to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties by Shire Clerk Norman Gampe show the sale price as “nil.” In short, Hinze received this land in return for a promise to perform certain duties for the Albert Shire Council.

These nebulous duties relate to Hinze ‘s verbal agreement with the Albert Shire Council officers. They are set out in a letter to the Commissioner of Stamp Duties from solicitors Primrose, Couper & Cronin which reads: “By verbal agreement many years ago the Albert Shire Council agreed to transfer to R. J. Hinze certain property at Coomera in exchange for which Mr Hinze would dedicate certain land to the Albert Shire Council for road purposes.”

But an independent valuation of $1,000 arrived at by Southport auctioneer and approved valuer, A. R. Andrews Real Estate, is contained in a letter also furnished by Hinze ‘s solicitors to the Commissioner of Stamp Dudes.

Stamp duty of $12.30 paid on the transfer suggests a purchase price of $1,000 since stamp duty was then charged at the rate of 1 .25 per cent.

While Queensland’s Valuation of Land Act requires that notification of a property disposal be made to the Valuer-General within 30 days, notification by Hinze ‘s solicitors took place more than one year after the transfer.

This document also showed the sale price as nil.

A local authority is also empowered to contract with the owner of adjoining land where the council land to be sold “is of insufficient area or of a shape that cannot be developed satisfactorily as a separate allotment”

Though the Council block had an elongated tip there was sufficient area for, say, a community building.

The long association of Russell Hinze ‘s name with the Coomera Valley both as resident farmer and Shire Councillor was well recognised by, among others, the planners of the Oxenford Estate subdivision- which is displayed on the map as Section D, sold by Hinze to the developers in November 1973.

A landlocked lagoon and surrounding grassy slopes on the estate edge closest to the Hinze farmhouse driveway was set aside as the “Russell Hinze Park”. Beside a raised epoxy laminated name board, now crumbling with the passage of time, a brass plaque is affixed to a boulder.

It bears the following inscription:

page 2554

QUESTION

RUSSEL HINZE PARK

Named after Russell Hinze, MLA, in recognition of outstanding public service. Dedicated by Cr Hugh Muntz Chairman, Albert Shire Council, as a wildlife refuge and blessed by Father H. R. Moxham Anglican Priest, Parish of Southport, in the name of St Francis of Assist, patron saint of animals and birds.

Hinze obtained block C by using road closure provisions of Queensland ‘s Land Acts. Block C was regarded as a road although it was a scrub-covered area of land, probably serving as a stock route in past years.

On 9 June 1973-three months before Hinze became the owner of block B, a notice had appeared in the Queensland

Government Gazette notifying an intention to close a certain road under Section 368 of the Land Acts.

Those considering their interests affected were invited to transmit their objections in writing’ to Lands Minister W. A. R. Rae. The road to be closed was block C (4.35 ha, 10.75 acres) adjacent to the council land (block B) which Hinze was soon to have transferred to his name.

Under the Land Acts, as holder of the adjoining land Hinze could apply to have a title issued to himself for land comprising the closed road area.

A further notice, under the Lands Minister’s name appeared in the Government Gazette of 6 April 1974, proclaiming the closure of the road area. Five weeks later Russell James Hinze was issued by the Governor-in-Council with a deed of grant of land totalling 4.758 ha- the area of the Albert Shire Council’s former Block B plus the closed road area (Block C).

The deed of grant issued under Section 9 of the Land Acts records no cash outlay by Hinze for the acquisition of this new title. That in itself is not unusual provided that an adequate quid pro quo is received by the local authority and it is this which our inquiries have been unable to ascertain (see questions below).

Officers of the Lands Department suggested to The National Times that Section 368 is not normally used for grants of closed roads since Section 365 is specifically designed for the sale or lease of closed roads and that when Section 368 is used for road closure grants in conjunction with Section 9 it is normally for the adjustment of small slivers of land which may pass to adjoining property owners for little or no payment.

In short, Hinze, owning block A as part of the ten shilling deal with his mother, has now acquired blocks B and C in unusual transactions the cost of which to Hinze our inquiries have been unable to ascertain. But from public documents available to The National Times it appears that Hinze may have obtained blocks B and C for no cash outlay at all.

This gave him a total area in A, B and C of 9.02 ha (22.3 acres) of prime subdivisional land.

The National Times has unsuccessfully sought access to the Land Administration Commission file on the road closure grant to Hinze.

Inquiries have revealed that until 20 October, the file, R. C. 23583, was held at a government storeroom at Eagle Farm in Brisbane. However, on that date the file, which might clarify certain details of transactions relating to the Crown’s valuation of block C, was retrieved from the archives and forwarded to the commission secretary.

We have been able to ascertain that six days later the file went to commission chairman Mr Leonard Lawrence. On 30 October Adrian McGregor from The National Times’ Brisbane office phoned Mr Lawrence’s office seeking access to the file. He was told an attempt would be made to locate the file and his call would be returned.

On 31 October, McGregor again telephoned the commission chairman’s office and was immediately switched to Mr Lawrence who declined to give access to the file. Asked whether it was a coincidence that the file had been removed from the archives, Mr Lawrence replied that ‘records are constantly on the move within the department. ‘

Mr Lawrence advised that the file was not available for public scrutiny since ‘all road closures are a matter of confidentiality between the department and the client’.

Mr Lawrence then asked what interest The National Times had in the road closure file, to which McGregor answered, ‘You may or may not know that the file concerns Russell Hinze’.

When the Land Administration Commission chairman replied, ‘Yes’, McGregor then asked whether The National Times could confirm certain details from the file through the chairman. Lawrence replied that ‘there is no point in calling us further, because it is a private matter and not for the public’.

When, by mid- 1974, Hinze had full ownership of the former Crown land there was at least one obstacle to subdivisionzoning.

The Albert Shire Strategic Plan published in November, 1972, zones the Hinze land for minimum subdivision of 10-acre blocks.

On the same plan the future Oxenford Estate is designated for close settlement. That situation changed in February, 1976, with promulgation of the Albert Shire’s first town plan, and the inclusion of the proposed Coomera Heights Estate in a zone allowing one-acre subdivisions.

Hinze submitted his first proposal for subdivision eight months after obtaining Crown land but it wasn’t until 17 February, 1978, that the subdivision plans were ‘sealed’ and fully approved by the council.

On 4 February the first of a series of half-page, two-colour advertisements appeared towards the front of the Gold Coast Bulletin newspaper.

Nine months later only two of Hinze ‘s 16 blocks have been sold.

On Friday, 3 November, The National Times delivered seven questions to Mr Hinze ‘s Brisbane office in an attempt to clarify aspects of his land transactions, in particular whether there was any cash outlay involved when he acquired blocks B and C.

In a letter dated 4 November, Mr Hinze told The National Times the questions had been forwarded to his solicitors, Short, Punch and Greatorix, and that he would write again in due course’.

Last week The National Times contacted both Mr Hinze ‘s office and his lawyers but was unable to obtain answers to the questions before publication.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Senate for giving me these few moments. This is a matter a very great importance. It is causing very many problems in my State and I hope that, as a result of some sort of inquiry, the problems will be resolved.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.25 a.m. (Friday).

page 2556

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Energy Research: Government Funding (Question No. 154)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

In the light of the recommendations of the First Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry calling for increased energy research and development, and the Government’s stated policy of fostering energy research and development, will the Minister ensure that a detailed breakdown of funding levels of various forms of energy research and development is made available and publicly circulated, so as to inform people of the type and level of research into energy research and development being carried out in Australia.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I will shortly be tabling a survey entitled ‘Energy Research and Development in Australia, 1976-77’. Information will be provided on the financial and manpower resources devoted to energy R&D, the sectors performing the R&D, and the objectives to which it is directed.

My colleague the Minister for Science has responsibility for Project Score, a comprehensive national survey of research and experimental development covering all areas of research. I understand this information will be available shortly for the 1976-77 period and will contain R&D activities classified according to sector of performance, national objectives, types of activity, cost, source of funding and manpower.

Together these surveys will give information on Australia’s energy research and relate it to the overall national research effort The survey results will be publicly available and will be distributed to interested organisations including private companies and Government organisations.

Energy Consumption (Question No. 163)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What percentage of Australia ‘s total annual energy requirements is used for

    1. Industrial heating purposes;
    2. b ) commercial heating purposes; and
    3. domestic heating purposes.
  2. What percentage of Australia’s annual oil requirements is used for the purposes listed in ( I ).
  3. What percentages of Australia’s annual gas requirements is used for the purposes listed in ( 1 ).
  4. What are the corresponding figures for each of the above for each of the six Australian States.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) Detailed current statistics for the specific purposes requested in the honourable senator’s question are not available at this time. The analysis of the results of a survey of the end use of energy now nearing completion will, however, provide the information being sought. That analysis will be released later this month.

Trade Unions in Peru (Question No. 619)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 August 1 978:

What is the prevailing political climate in Peru in regard to the attitude of the Government to the trade union movement in that country.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Freedom of Trade Union activity in Peru is ensured under the ‘Social Guarantees’ provisions of the 1933 Constitution (Article 62) together with the right of collective bargaining (Article 43 ) and the prohibition of labour contracts which restrict the rights of workers (Article 44). Article 70, however, authorises the suspension of certain Constitutional guarantees by the executive power “when the security of the State demands it”.

More specifically the right to strike was established by executive decree in 1913 and reaffirmed in 1959 when Peru ratified Convention 87 of the ILO. Government employees, however, are prohibited from striking. In theory industrial disputes must be referred to the Ministry of Labour for consideration before strike action can be taken but this is not always followed in practice. The right to strike was suspended when a State of Emergency was declared in July 1976 but was reinstated on 28 August 1977.

Individual unions may combine to form Federations and these may in turn form Confederations provided they are recognised and registered by the Government. There are currently three major Trade Union Confederations recognised: the Confederation General de Trabajadores del Peru (which claims the support of about 38 per cent of unionised workers), the Confederation de Trabajadores del Peru (30 per cent) and the Centra de Trabajadores Revolucionarios Peruanos ( 1 2 per cent).

Veterans’ Affairs: Statutory Corporations (Question No. 737)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Defence Service Homes Corporation.
  2. Section SOB of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 requires the Defence Service Homes Corporation to prepare and furnish to the Minister an annual report of operations under the Act, together with financial statements in a form approved by the Minister for Finance. The report and financial statements, together with the report of the AuditorGeneral, are required to be laid before each House of Parliament within 1 S sitting days of their receipt by the Minister.
  3. and (4) The last audited financial statements and annual report meeting the requirements of (2) above were tabled in Parliament on 21 November 1978.
  4. Defence Service Homes Corporation.
  5. The final report of the Defence Service Homes Corporation for 1976-77 was delayed because the associated financial statements could not be prepared until the form of those statements had been approved.

Prime Minister’s Overseas Visit (Question No. 779)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of hiring a DC8 aircraft to fly the Prime Minister from London to Paris to Rome, including the cost of an overnight stop-over in Bonn before proceeding to Rome.
  2. Why was the original plan for the Prime Minister to travel by Qantas from Frankfurt to Singapore rejected.
  3. What was the cost of: (a) accommodating the Prime Minister’s official party at the Rome airport hotel; and (b) installing communications facilities in the hotel during the Prime Minister’s five-hour dinner engagement with his sister.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) On the European sector of the visit a DC9 charter aircraft and not a large DC8 as mentioned by the honourable senator was used for security and timetable reasons. From London, overnight stop-overs in Paris and Bonn were involved before joining up with the Qantas flight in Rome. The cost of travel on the European sector for all twenty-two members of the travelling party is expected to be $22,4 1 4.
  2. The choice was between flying from Bonn to Frankfurt and travelling by Qantas then via Rome; or flying direct from Bonn to Rome. On security grounds, officials travelling with the party advised that the charter aircraft should travel direct to Rome.
  3. The purpose of the visit to Rome was not, as the Senator ungenerously suggests, a dinner engagement, but simply to make a connecting flight by Qantas to Singapore. Accommodation in the ordinary sense was not provided.

Community rooms were made available for general use by the Prime Minister’s party and the press. Expenses of this nature are provided for in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79 under the Department of Administrative Services for Visits Abroad of Ministers (including personal staff) and Others.

Home Savings Grants (Question No. 804)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

  1. Will the number of Federal Government Home Savings Grants for Queenslanders fall from 7000 in 1977-78 to HOO in 1978-79.
  2. Will all young couples who applied for grants after 27 July 1978 and whose grants were approved, be forced to wait until July 1 979 to receive the grant.
  3. Will approximately 7000 Queenslanders now have to wait a full 12 months before receiving the grant.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1) In 1977-78, 7266 applications from Queenslanders for Home Savings Grants were approved. A larger number is expected to be approved in 1 978-79; some 2 1 92 applications were approved between 1 July 1978 and 5 October 1978.
  2. Grants approved in respect of applications lodged after 27 July 1978 will not be paid before July 1979. Grants approved in respect of applications lodged from October 1978 will be paid approximately nine months after lodgement. All applications approved will be paid strictly in order of lodgement.
  3. No. Persons who lodged their applications before 28 July 1978 have had to wait only while their applications were being processed. Persons who lodged their applications on or after 28 July are advised when their applications are approved how long they will have to wait for payment of their grants. Payment will be made in July 1979 for applications received on 28 or 31 July or in August or September 1978. Payment will be made approximately nine months after lodgement for applications received after September 1 978.

Uranium Ore Dumped at Snake Creek (Question No. 881)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Is the uranium ore dumped at Snake Creek, South of Darwin, still at Snake Creek, or has it been removed to some other area. If the latter, how was the ore disposed of.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I am informed by my Department that the uranium ore referred to is still located at Snake Creek and that appropriate warning signs have been erected at the entrance to the area and at the area where ore is stockpiled. See also Senator Webster’s reply to a question without notice from Senator Jessop (Hansard, 6 April 1978, page 893).

Ex-servicemen: Chronic Bronchitis (Question No. 924)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1978:

  1. How many ex-servicemen with an acceptance for chronic bronchitis as a sole disability do not receive a war pension, but treatment only.
  2. What is: (a) the average; and (b) the minimum, rate of war pension granted when payments are applied.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Statistics are not kept in the form requested by the honourable senator. To extract them would require a search of departmental records which would be a considerable, and expensive, manual effort.
  2. (a) See ( 1 ) above; (b) $3.85 per week.

Uranium Mining: Joint Ventures (Question No. 969)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

  1. Who are the joint venturers in the uranium lease managed by Central Pacific Minerals, west of the Yuendumu in the Northern Territory, and what percentage is held by Australian interests.
  2. Is the Atomic Energy Commission endeavouring to sell its share in the project. If so, will any purchase be restricted to an Australian interest, or will the Atomic Energy Commission ‘s share be sold to overseas interests regardless of a possible Australian minority holding.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Partners in the Ngalia Basin exploration joint venture managed by Central Pacific Minerals are Agip Nuclear Australia Pty Ltd, Urangesellschaft Australia Pry Ltd, Central Pacific Minerals NL and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Australian interest in the joint venture is about 26 per cent.
  2. In 1976, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission advertised its share in the joint venture for sale to an Australian interest. No offers were received. Consideration is being given to further action which might now be taken by the Commission to dispose of its interest in the exploration joint venture.

Australian Housing Corporation (Question No. 977)

Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

Has the Australian Housing Corporation reported for the financial years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. If not, when is it expected that it will report for these years.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Australian Housing Corporation was reconstituted as the Defence Service Homes Corporation on 13 December 1976. On 21 November 1978 the following reports were tabled by the Acting Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs:

Australian Housing Corporation- annual report 1975- 76;

Defence Service Homes Corporation- annual report 1976- 77;

Defence Service Homes Coporation- interim report 1977- 78.

Arrangements will be made for the presentation and tabling of the final report for 1977-78 after the form of the financial statements has been approved by the Minister for Finance and the Auditor-General’s certificate has been received.

Phosphate Fertiliser Imports (Question No. 978)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

How much phosphate fertiliser (22 per cent P2O5 equivalent) was imported in each of the months since June 1974.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

As imports of phosphate fertiliser are classified under that general heading and not recorded according to their phosphorous pentoxide content the information sought by the honourable senator is not available.

The product weight in tonnes of manufactured phosphate fertiliser imported into Australia in the period in question is as follows:

Home Help Services in Victoria (Question No. 981)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 7 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) To what percentage of the costs of home help services in Victoria did the Commonwealth 2:1 subsidy under the States Grants (Home Care) Act 1969 apply before 1 July 1978.
  2. What percentage of the costs of home help services in Victoria has been covered by the Commonwealth since 1 July 1978, when the 1: 1 subsidy was introduced.
  3. What guidelines operated in relation to the Victorian subsidy before I July 1978, and what guidelines have operated since.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Prior to 1 July 1978, and by agreement between Victoria and the Commonwealth, 70 per cent of Victoria’s expenditure on home care services was reimbursed $2 : $ 1 under the States Grants (Home Care) Act.
  2. From 1 July 1978 the Commonwealth will reimburse the State of Victoria all of its expenditure on home care services on a basis of $1 : $1.
  3. There has been no change to the guidelines which specify that to attract Commonwealth subsidy, expenditure on home care services should be wholly or mainly in respect of services for aged persons.

Prior to I July 1978, Victoria’s expenditure on home care services was not wholly or mainly in respect of services for aged persons. Accordingly, an agreed proportion only attracted the Commonwealth subsidy.

Following representations from Victoria that expenditure on home care services would in future be wholly or mainly in respect of services for aged persons, it was decided that all expenditure from 1 July 1978, would attract the Commonwealth subsidy.

Tobacco Imports (Question No. 987)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1978:

  1. How much tobacco was imported into Australia each year from 1973 to 1977: (a) under the Customs By-Law which applies a penalty rate of duty to products which do not contain at least SO per cent Australian leaf; and (b) at normal rates of duty.
  2. What rates of duty apply in each case.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Tobacco imported at penalty rates
  1. 1 ) (b) Tobacco imported at normal rates
  1. Rates of duty and period in force.

Furniture Removals and Storage Industry (Question No. 994)

Senator Chipp:

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

  1. Is the furniture removals and storage industry seriously dissatisfied with certain aspects of its dealings with the Department of Administrative Services in respect of removals under the responsibility of the Transport and Storage Division (Furniture Section).
  2. Does this dissatisfaction include discontent with: (a) procedures for settling disputed claims; and (b) a failure to enforce a reasonable time limit and other appropriate safeguards on persons claiming loss or damage due to removal.
  3. Will the Minister investigate the industry’s complaints, with particular reference to legal responsibility for loss and damage during removal and the interpretation of the concept of negligence as applied by the Department.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) My Department annually processes in excess of 32,000 movements of furniture with associated storage of goods, and enters into contracts with 125 removalists to carry out these tasks. In administering an area of operations of this magnitude, it is to be expected that queries will arise from time to time.

A member of the industry has raised with me the points referred to in the honourable senator’s question and I am having the matters examined. In addition, a departmental working party was recently established to review practices and procedures for the provision of furniture removals and storage services by my Department. The matters raised by the honourable senator are among the items listed for attention by the working party.

Paraguay: Australians Held in Custody (Question No. 1024)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 9 November 1978:

Were any persons possessing an Australian Passport or Travel Documents held in custody in Paraguay following the assassination of the Uruguayan Ambassador in 1 976.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Josip Kovac, holder of Australian travel document No. 25712 issued Madrid on 11 March 1976 and Australian Passport No. H151081 issued Canberra on 27 November 1972, was detained in Asuncion for a period of 18 days in

June 1976. According to Mr Kovac’s account he was released and detained again on 7 July. He was released between 10 September and 9 November when he called at the British Embassy. So far as is known Mr Kovac is still in Asuncion.

Mineral Export Policy

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 25 October 1978 (Hansard page 1565) Senator Wriedt asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice regarding mineral export policy. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I responded to similar questions in the House of Representatives on 25 October 1978 (Hansard, pages 2257-8) and 26 October 1978 (Hansard, page 2334). Since that time there have been discussions between the then Acting Minister for Trade and Resources, Mr Garland, and the Western Australian Premier and his Minister for Industrial Development on 28 October 1978. Moreover, on 6 November I had useful and productive discussions with the Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland. At those discussions it was agreed that closer co-operation between the Commonwealth and States is needed in the interests of achieving the maximum benefit from resource development consistent with the national interest. Arrangements are accordingly being made for further discussions to be held between the Commonwealth and States at the Ministerial and officer levels. These meetings, which are expected to be held shortly, will review mineral export guidelines and their method of application to ensure that trade and investment is encouraged.

Australia Energy Commission: Safety Checks

Senator DURACK:
LP

-On 25 October 1978, Senator Primmer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development the following question without notice:

Is it a fact that staff ceilings have placed in jeopardy a wide range of safety checks at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission research establishment at Lucas Heights? If so, what action does the Government contemplate taking to ensure that full and proper safety standards are maintained?

The Minister for National Development has discussed the effects of the staff ceilings with the Chairman of the Commission. He has been concerned, as has the Minister, that there should be a minimum disruption to the continuing high priority tasks of the Commission, consistent with the overall policy of the Government in relation to restraints in public spending.

There will be no compromise on the safety of the Commission’s operations. The Commission continues to attach the highest priority to maintaining its high safety standards and, as in the past, the effect of any staff losses in essential areas of safety will be adequately covered by redeployment from other areas.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781123_senate_31_s79/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant