Senate
8 March 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. B. Scott) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 621

PETITIONS

Indexation of Pensions

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 78 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate’ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

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

Taxation Reform

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

That in spite of numerous measures taken by various governments, unemployment in the country has not significantly declined.

As a result, supplies of both goods and services have declined; human resources are wasted, capital resources are not used and natural resources are left under-developed.

Both local and overseas experience shows that prosperity is encouraged when taxes, which penalise production are replacedby taxes which provide incentives for productivity. These also provide disincentives to idle speculation such as that which results in so called ‘windfall profits’ from land price increases.

The reduction of Income-tax, Sales-tax and Payroll tax is known to reduce the costs of production and to stimulate demand.

It is also known that when Land Tax or Council Rates are raised on the unimproved site value of land, then the development of vacant land and under-developed slum areas is stimulated.

It follows then, that the gradual replacement of taxes on production with taxes on non-production will create new employment, reduces the costs of production, reduces the rate of interest, the cost of housing and stimulates all industries.

We wish to point out that the replacement of production penalising taxes is a very practical proposal. According to official Municipal Valuations, it is estimated that unimproved Site Values have increased from $37,000m in 1973-74 to $67,000m by 1976-77. This represents $30,000m so called ‘windfall profits’ which was completely unrelated to productive improvements.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should act to relieve unemployment by a Taxation Reform to replace taxes on production with taxes which provide incentives for the increased supply of both goods and services.

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

Petition received.

Compensation: Commonwealth Employees

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

That compensation benefits payable to injured Australian Government employees and Defence Forces personnel under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1 97 1 should be increased as a matter of urgency in view of the financial plight of recipients, particularly those suffering long term incapacity and because of the significant increase in the cost of living which has occurred since compensation payments were last adjusted and

That statutory provision should be made for the automatic adjustment of compensation benefits.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Keeffe and Senator Mulvihill.

Petitions received.

page 621

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 621

QUESTION

MINISTRY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I remind him that last Thursday he stated: . . where there has been any query of the quality of action taken by a Minister or where a question of high principle has been involved, the Minister concerned has stood down voluntarily or has been asked to stand down; a public inquiry and a debate have occurred and, as a result, the matter has been resolved.

I also remind him that on Tuesday he was given, through a series of questions, the opportunity to retract or qualify that answer which was clearly incorrect. I now ask: Does he agree that he has misled the Senate on this issue, particularly in relation to the public inquiries in connection with the resignations of Mr Lynch and Mr Garland and the dismissal of Senator Sheil? Does he consider that his conduct fits the standard of conduct expected of Ministers of this Government?

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-No, I do not agree that I have misled the Senate. I draw Senator Wriedt ‘s attention to my statement during the adjournment debate last night. I think that adequately covers the matter.

page 622

QUESTION

KAKADU NATIONAL PARK

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Is the lease between the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Northern Land Council for the land designated as the proposed Kakadu National Park due to expire on 30 April 1979? If so, and if the proposed Kakadu National Park has not yet been declared as such, will the Minister give his assurance that such designated land will forthwith be declared a national park under the terms of the Ranger agreement and in accordance with the Fox report?

Senator Keeffe:

– I take a point of order. The question is identical almost word for word with one that I asked in this chamber two days ago. I think that is contrary to the Standing Orders.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no point of order. I think the question is in order.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-As to the point of order that was just taken, I know of no question which was directed to the area of the National Parks and Wildlife Service which comes under the Department of Science and the Environment. In answer to Senator Bonner, I am not certain of the facts which he states relating to the expiry of a lease which may have been made or of an agreement between the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Northern Land Council. I will attempt to gain that information for him at the earliest opportunity. If it does expire, as he has indicated, on the 30th of next month, certainly action will be taken to assess the situation. I will bring an answer to Senator Bonner as quickly as possible.

page 622

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION IN QUEENSLAND

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I draw the attention of the Minister for Education to the comments on page 190 of the Tertiary Education Commission’s last report expressing concern that enrolments in para-professional and technical courses in the predominantly State-funded technical and further education sector have fallen every year since 1974 in Queensland, whereas in the same State there has been a rapid growth in similar courses at the associate diploma level in colleges of advanced education which are fully funded by the Federal Government. What is the reason for this? Does it represent an attempt by the Queensland Government to divert students into colleges of advanced education and thus obtain Federal funding, denying the Queensland people the full range of educational opportunities available through technical and further education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not in a position directly to give the reason. It is true that, in the technical and further education area, the Commonwealth Government’s role is one of topping up. As Senator Button knows, basically more than 70 per cent of the funding for technical and further education comes from the individual States. It is a matter of judgment within the States as to where courses may lie. I can only point to the fact that under this Government the expansion of technical and further education has been highly significant and will continue to be so. I will have the question referred to the Tertiary Education Commission. If information can be supplied I will let Senator Button know.

page 622

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT MEETING

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is a Commonwealth of Nations matter. I refer to a meeting of industries Ministers of 26 Commonwealth countries now taking place in Bangalore, India. I ask the question on the eve of Commonwealth Day. The Minister will know that Monday, 12 March, is Commonwealth Day and I hope that he may be making some statement later today in relation to this important observation. I ask: Is Australia represented at this meeting of Commonwealth Ministers? If so, has there been any Australian commitment to the proposed $9m development unit for industries in the least developed countries? If so, can the Minister give any other details relating to this meeting of Commonwealth Ministers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting at London in June 1977 asked that a ministerial meeting be convened to consider the report of the Commonwealth team of industrial specialists. The team was established following a meeting of Commonwealth senior officials at Canberra in May 1976. The ministerial meeting was held at Bangalore, India, from 5 to 7 March of this year. Australia was represented by Mr Macphee, the Minister for Productivity, and by an officer from the Department of Industry and Commerce.

The meeting was called to discuss the report of the team of specialists entitled ‘Commonwealth

Action Program’. The report contains various suggestions for stimulating industrial growth, especially in the smaller and less developed Commonwealth countries. It will be considered in detail by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting at Lusaka in August of this year. As the meeting at Bangalore was a preliminary meeting in preparation for the discussions at CHOGM, the recommendations contained in the report will be examined further before a final decision is made on government action.

page 623

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN OMEGA FACILITY

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. On 22 November last year I asked the Minister a question relating to tests reportedly carried out by Ansett Airlines of Australia on the use of Omega in Australia. The Minister promised to seek a reply. Can I expect an answer? If so, when?

Senator Lewis:

– Yes, you can expect an answer.

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– As I have been assisted by Senator Austin Lewis to say, I am sure Senator Primmer can expect a reply. I regret that he has not had one to date. I will seek information from the Minister for Transport as to when he will be in a position to provide it.

page 623

QUESTION

NABARLEK URANIUM LEASE

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I note a report in the Melbourne Age today that in regard to the signing of the agreement with Queensland Mines Ltd for the development of the Nabarlek uranium lease, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has not yet approved of the agreement and a licence for the Northern Territory Government has not yet been granted. Is the report correct? If so, is there any particular significance in the fact that the agreement has not been completed as a package deal and some administrative actions have yet to be completed?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– As honourable senators are aware, I made a statement in this chamber last night, in common with a statement made by the Minister for Trade and Resources in the other place. That statement confirmed that there are still some technical matters to be concluded. I refer the honourable senator to section 43 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act which indicates that there are limitations on my ability to approve an agreement. Until the statutory requirements have been met the agreement cannot be approved.

page 623

QUESTION

CROATIAN EMBASSY

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, concerns the Diplomatic and Consular Missions Act which was passed by this Parliament more than six months ago. Is the Attorney under pressure from senior Liberal Party officials in Victoria and New South Wales and from members of Parliament from those two States not to enforce that Act? Is it not true that the Commonwealth Police interviewed officials of the so-called ‘Croatian Embassy’ in Canberra on 8 November last year following instructions from the Attorney more than a month earlier? Did the Attorney receive a report on this matter from his Department or from the Crown Solicitor? If so, when? Has such a report recommended that he make application under section 4 of the Act for an injunction to restrain the continuance of this illegal organisation? When, if at all, does the Attorney propose toad?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

- Senator Evans asks a number of questions in relation to this matter. I think they would involve my checking correspondence to make sure that I get a completely accurate answer for him. I will do that and will endeavour to reply at an early date.

page 623

QUESTION

PETROL CONSERVATION

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Did the Minister see the article in yesterday’s Australian relating to the amount of petrol wasted in Australian cities? In that article one expert said that computerised control of traffic lights was the way to increase the speed of traffic flow through a city and to save up to 30 per cent of the fuel that is wasted. As the saving of fuel will become a matter of increasing importance as years go by, will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to consider establishing a set of national guidelines for the installation of traffic lights and making that information available to State traffic departments? If such a set of guidelines is not practical, will the Department consider establishing a group which is expert in the theory and practice of traffic lights and traffic control and making this group available to assist State transport departments? Such a group is certainly needed in Tasmania and in Perth.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I saw the headline in the Australian newspaper while reading over somebody’s shoulder. I must confess that I did not read the body of the article to which the honourable senator has referred. The matter may be appropriately dealt with by the Commonwealth Minister in conjunction with his State colleagues at the meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers. I will refer it to Mr Nixon for investigation and reply.

page 624

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to an item in yesterday ‘s Age in which it is stated:

The treatment of a story on the Beggs family and the Rural Finance Commission by the ABC radio program AM may be investigated by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley.

This follows complaints from the Minister for State Development, Mr Crazier, who claimed the item was politically motivated and transparently biased journalism.

The item goes on to quote Mr Crazier as having said:

Mr Staley assured me he intended to discuss the matter with the chairman of the ABC, Mr Norgard.

I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that Mr Staley is going to raise this matter with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. If it is a fact, and given the Minister’s repeated assurances that the ABC is independent and free from political censorship, on what basis will the matter be discussed and for what purpose?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think the honourable senator has asked me similar questions in the past. I have given a consistent answer to such questions. The Government’s publicly stated position is that there should be program independence for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This complaint, as with any other complaint, will be referred to the Commission. I understand from Mr Staley that that is what he proposes to do in this case. He refers any complaint made to him to the Commission, which is the body in charge of the ABC. Further action, if any, is a matter between the Commission and Mr Crozier.

page 624

QUESTION

BUNKER FUEL

Senator LEWIS:

– My question also is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Senator Chaney seems to be getting all the questions today. It refers to the supply of bunker fuel to ships. Has the Minister seen reports that the cost of C grade bunker fuel for ships has risen from $80 a tonne to around $ 1 10 a tonne and that supplies are critical in Singapore and in some other far eastern ports due to the unsettled conditions in Iran? This has resulted in some shipping conferences that are trading with Australia being forced to increase bunker adjustment factors, and in some overseas ports supplying only regular customers. Have shipping conferences that are trading with Australia sought increased freight rates as a result of bunker adjustment factors? Is there any evidence that foreign ships are making increased demands on Australia for bunkers, to take advantage of our assured supplies of fuel and stable prices? If so, will the Minister take steps to ensure that draw-offs are only consistent with normal bunkering practice?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I must confess that I have not seen the reports to which the honourable senator refers. Obviously the matters he raises are of considerable importance in light of the importance of overseas trade to Australia. I will seek a response from Mr Nixon on the matters that the honourable senator has raised.

page 624

QUESTION

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK OF AUSTRALIA

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Acting Treasurer. How much more than the $40m which has actually been lent has been approved for lending by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia? When will the $80m available to PIBA at 7.8 per cent average interest rate be exhausted? When this $80m is exhausted, will PIBA cease issuing loans? If not, will additional money at 5 per cent be made available from income equalisation deposits? If not, how will PIBA avoid having to charge higher interest rates to its borrowers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator McLaren’s question requires a specific answer from the Treasurer and the Treasury. I will seek the information and let the honourable senator have it.

page 624

QUESTION

INFLUENZA VIRUS

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has there appeared an influenza virus very similar to one which caused a world wide epidemic about 20 years ago? Is this going to be the predominant virus causing disease in Australia this year? If so, what arrangements are under way to ensure appropriate protection for other susceptible members of the Australian community?

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

– Judging by the honourable senator’s voice, I ought to say: Physician, heal thyself. I understand from the Minister for Health that this was the influenza virus, A (HINI), popularly known as the Russian flu. It is the virus causing influenza at present. It appeared during the northern hemisphere winter of 1977-78 and was expected to occur in Australia last winter. A vaccine against this virus and two other strains likely to occur was prepared prior to last winter, but fortunately no major epidemic occurred, although there were a few cases in some areas. I am advised that vaccine for the coming winter will also afford protection against the same virus.

page 625

QUESTION

ADD-ON AIR FARES

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It follows from previous questions about the possibility of lower add-on air fares within Australia following negotiations to provide low excursion international fares. The Minister will have noted the success of the airlines resulting from those negotiations. As it is now six weeks since deputations from Western Australia and South Australia met the Minister, and as the Minister has indicated his support for the low add-on domestic fares, can the Minister give the Senate any information about the progress of talks with the domestic carriers and when we might expect the new add-on fares to be announced? If the Minister cannot do that today, would he be good enough to give the information to the Senate as soon as possible?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It is good to hear Senator Bishop acknowledge the very considerable success that has been achieved by the Government and Mr Nixon in bringing about lower overseas air fares. Honourable senators will recall that a statement was put down in the Senate this week setting out the very considerable increase in traffic since the introduction of the low air fares. Unfortunately I cannot go beyond the answer I gave the honourable senator when he raised this matter previously. The latest information I have from Mr Nixon is that the question of add-on fares is still under negotiation. The Minister for Transport is anxious to achieve a result, but I cannot give a definite date. I will ask Mr Nixon whether it is possible to give a date and I will advise the honourable senator further.

page 625

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that owing to terrorist activities in Rhodesia there has been a flood of black refugees, many of whom are children, into Bulawayo and Salisbury in search of tribal kinsmen? Is he also aware of the tremendous problems being experienced by local authorities in providing sustenance and shelter for these unfortunate victims of Marxist revolutionaries. As all the conditions for majority rule laid down by the United States of America and the United Kingdom have been met by the Smith regime, will the

Government now remove sanctions against Rhodesia and recognise the interim government? Will the Government also cease providing aid to terrorist organisations in southern Africa and redirect such aid to responsible agencies in order that the plight of these refugees can be alleviated.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think all honourable senators who take a keen interest in foreign affairs, particularly the affairs of the troubled African continent, will have noted the increase in terrorist activities there and the effect that that has had upon both refugees and the lowering of living conditions. That is a matter of unhappy record. The other two matters that arise from Senator Jessop ‘s question relate to the heart of policy. I will bring them to the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and will seek an answer for the honourable senator.

page 625

QUESTION

JUDGES’ PENSIONS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Did he propose to a sub-committee of his party that the qualifying period for a judge to receive a pension should be reduced from 10 to eight years? Was the proposal rejected by the sub-committee? Was the reduction of the qualifying period an undertaking given to Mr Justice McGregor before he sat on the royal commission of inquiry into the Queensland electoral boundaries dispute?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– In February 1978 the Government decided upon certain proposed amendments to the Judges’ Pensions Act, which included a proposal that judges who had served at least five years but less than 10 years, which is the existing qualifying period, should receive a pro rata pension if their retirement was due to the constitutional requirement, which was passed by referendum, of compulsory retirement at 70 years of age for High Court judges and Federal Court judges or 65 years of age for Family Court judges. The legislation to give effect to that decision has been in the course of preparation, without its being given any great degree of priority. Recently in the ordinary course of events I took that proposal, amongst others, to a party meeting. Discussions in relation to it are taking place. I do not propose to reveal the details of what takes place at meetings of the party.

Mr Justice McGregor was appointed to the Federal Court in, I think, about October 1977. As a result of the constitutional amendment to which I referred, he would be required to retire at 70 years of age and on attaining that age he would not have completed the 10 years of service which is required under the existing legislation.

As far as I could ascertain from discussions with Mr Justice McGregor, he accepted the offer of appointment to the bench without any consideration of this matter of a pension. At that time I certainly had in mind ultimately making a recommendation to the effect that it would be desirable, as a result of the constitutional amendment, to make some amendments to the Judges’ Pensions Act to provide for a pro rata pension, as is provided, I think, in three States in which there is compulsory retirement. I did mention this fact to Mr Justice McGregor, but that was after he had indicated to me his acceptance of the offer of appointment.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral a supplementary question. As part of my original question, I asked whether there was discussion with Mr Justice McGregor on this matter just prior to his being appointed as a royal commissioner.

Senator DURACK:

– No, the only discussion that I had with Mr Justice McGregor in relation to this matter was when he was appointed to the court, which was in October 1 977.

page 626

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr Deputy President, as a member of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. You will be aware of the great public interest in the motion on abortion funding to be debated in the other place probably on Wednesday, 2 1 March. In view of the fact that the debate might take place in the other place on a day when the proceedings of the Senate normally are broadcast will you arrange for your Committee to consider this matter and to suggest, if so desired, that a rearrangement of broadcast days for the next sitting week could be accommodated, depending upon the Senate being allotted an equivalent number of broadcast hours on either the Tuesday or the Thursday.

Senator Button:

– Are you putting the issue into show business, Senator?

Senator HARRADINE:

– No- j just keeping people honest.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Consideration will be given to the suggestion made in Senator Harradine ‘s question.

page 626

QUESTION

REVIEW OF LEGISLATION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware of a claim by the Senior Lecturer in Administration at the University of Tasmania that the Federal Cabinet has under review the following Acts: the Environmental Protection Act, the Australian Heritage Commission Act, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Act, and the Great Barrier Marine Authority Act? It is also claimed that the specific aim of the review is to downgrade, if not abolish, these vital statutes at the behest of the Australian Mining Industry Council and the reactionary premiers of Queensland and Western Australia. Can the Minister deny or verify these claims?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The letter to which the honourable senator refers is written in similar terms to a number of letters that I have received. Some people in the community have apparently copied the wording and sent similar letters to me, which suggests that certain activity is taking place federally.

The first point raised in the letter referred to by the honourable senator is whether there is review of legislation by this Government. It is fair to say- and I hope this is the case in the area for which I am responsible- there will be constant review of legislation. Notice will be taken of proposals put by individuals, by States or by groups within the community. Legislation will be reviewed so that it is kept in line with modern practice. In the case of at least one piece of legislation care will be taken to see that duplication of expensive processes does not take place between State and Federal governments.

There is no truth in the claim that all the Acts referred to by the honourable senator are the subject of formal review at the present time. I know of no review within my own Department at the moment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Act or the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service Act. The Australian Heritage Commission Act is of course within the portfolio of another Minister. As I understand it, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act has been under review for a number of years. When I assumed responsibility in this field that review continued.

Senator Mulvihill:

– No more Fraser Islands.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Mulvihill, if you are one who sees some dark proposition in a government’s reviewing legislation, I hope you will reflect on legislation that the Labor Party reviewed when it was in office. If it were a responsible government it would be there for the reviewing of legislation.

In relation to the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, there is a review. As part of the review, discussions have been held with States. Arrangements for co-operation in impact assessments have been reached. The Tasmanian Government has put forward proposals. I believe that prior to my assuming this position former Ministers had discussed with the States of Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales, the opportunity for co-operation. I understand that this area is now highly satisfactory. The Government is continuing to examine matters of real environmental significance. Where it is appropriate, this is being done in co-operation with the States.

The letter to which the honourable senator refers is incorrect in suggesting that there is any downgrading at all of environment protection. This Government is devoted to upholding the protection of the environment for the good of the Australian public. Indeed, there is international importance in this matter. I assure the honourable senator that while I hold this position that will continue.

page 627

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICITS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. No doubt Senator Carrick will be familiar with the Prime Minister’s frequently stated beliefs that a household budget is just like a national Budget; that deficits have to be paid back; that nations, like families, must live in hardship while deficits are being paid back; and that deficits incurred under Labor condemned the nation to prolonged poverty, and so on and so forth. Does the Minister know that the aggregate deficit in the three Labor Budgets was less than $6.5 billion and that the aggregate deficit for the three Fraser Budgets stood at $10.7 billion at the end of January and will be about $9 billion at the end of the fiscal year? Does he believe that the Prime Minister’s view of deficits is correct? If so, for how long can we expect to live in poverty while the Fraser Government’s vastly bigger deficits are being paid back?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not know whether the figures listed by Senator Walsh are correct. In any case they would bc irrelevant unless they were related to figures such as the gross domestic product. During the Whitlam Government’s term of office, I remind the honourable senatorthe rest of Australia needs no reminding- the Whitlam Government brought the economy of Australia to its knees. The question asked me about bringing the country to poverty. For two decades this country had the lowest inflation rate in the world, the highest employment level in the world and the highest proportion of home ownership. In three years these were destroyed. Inflation rates went to a record, interest rates went to a record and the concept of home ownership was destroyed.

It is necessary to restore the economy of Australia in order to maintain and improve the living standards of Australia. The Australian Government is doing this. It is recognised by all authoritative persons including members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, overseas authoritative commentators and reliable economists. I remind the honourable senator that the Henderson report on poverty, an inquiry which the former Liberal Government set up, found that poverty increased in Australia during the Whitlam Government’s term of office.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr Deputy President, I direct a supplementary question to the Minster representing the Prime Minister. Does the Minister support the Prime Minister’s belief that a household budget is like a national Budget and that deficits have to be paid back? He has not answered that question.

Senator CARRICK:

-I am grateful for the opportunity to answer that question. In general terms the answer is yes. The administration of a budget involves not only its size but also its management. I agree with the totality of what the Prime Minister has said. If one simply prints money to reduce the deficit, that will increase the money supply and create inflation. I accept that members of the Opposition will agree with Mr Hayden on this matter. He has said this many times. If the management of the Budget is such that the Government can borrow in the nonbank sector and so reduce the money supply, a different set of facts applies. But in all specifics I agree with what the Prime Minister has said.

page 627

QUESTION

HERBICIDE 2,4,5-T

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Government aware of the results of two studies recently released by the Colorado State University and the Miami University’s School of Public Health which show that over six years miscarriages among women in the Oregon town of Alsea rose to the unprecedented rate of 130 per thousand live births in June of each year, just after surrounding forests were sprayed with 2,4,5-T, and that this figure represents almost three times the miscarriage rate in two control areas where miscarriages averaged 45 and 46 per thousand? Is the Minister aware of a telex message sent this morning in which a Health Department spokesman in Brisbane expressed anger about the slowness of the National Health and Medical Research Council in getting the facts on the Alsea incident which has led to additional restrictions being placed on the use of 2,4,5-T in the United States of America? Is it a fact, as has been reported also from Queensland, that the Federal Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, has said that the National Health and Medical Research Council’s pesticides sub-committee will not consider this matter until 2 1 March? If so, will the Government instruct the Council to get on with the exercise of its responsibilities in a less leisurely and more responsible way? Meanwhile, will the Government urgently consider taking action in consultation with State governments to ban the use of 2,4,5-T in or near inhabited areas and in water catchments areas until this matter has been resolved?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the statistics mentioned by Senator Mason. I will need to refer them to the Minister for Health to get his reaction for the honourable senator. I have some information with regard to 2,4,5-T and with regard to the special working party of the National Health and Medical Research Council. However, as the information does not specifically answer the questions raised by Senator Mason, I will see that his question is answered in detail by the Minister for Health without delay.

Senator MASON:

- Mr Deputy President, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the urgency of this matter, could I have that information before the Senate rises today?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I will refer that matter to the Minister for Health and see whether I can facilitate an early reply.

page 628

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. In reply to a question from Senator Lajovic on 22 February the Minister referred to a statement by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority on the principles underlying its policy of freedom of choice in government schools in the Australian Capital Territory. Can the Minister now provide any further information about the implementation of this policy by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority? In particular, can he say whether any practical difficulties have been encountered in its implementation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I understand that in general terms the principle in practice, with one or two qualifications in areas where there might be a lack of space in a school that is chosen, is being carried out well. The philosophy in regard to enrolments is that, within practical limits, students should be able to choose the school and the type of education best suited to their needs. Each school will have the responsibility of catering first for the children in its area, but then will be free to accept as many other pupils who wish to come to the school as may be reasonably placed.

This policy has been established through recognition of priority enrolment areas for all schools. Pre-schools and primary schools cater for neighbourhood areas while secondary schools draw from nominated suburbs. All students within the priority area have the benefit of assured placement at a designated school. Nevertheless parents or students are free to seek enrolment at another school outside the nominated area. The board of the gaining school may consider enrolments from areas outside its own priority area provided that the effects on present and future accommodation capacity have been investigated; no responsibility is accepted or guarantees given in regard to provision of additional school bus transport; and parents seeking to transfer their child are prepared to notify the principal of the school within their own designated priority area of their intention. The option to exercise freedom of choice for enrolment has been widely used. Experience has shown that the policy does not give rise to enrolment problems except that pressure for year 1 1 entry has arisen at two colleges over the last two years, but that is understandable. These situations were resolved by temporarily varying priority enrolment areas for the colleges and by introducing an appeals system to allow full consideration of cases where students claimed disadvantage.

I share the view of the Schools Commission that freedom of choice within government schools would be a desirable extension to all the States of Australia. I commend the pilot scheme of the Schools Commission and I would hope that parents throughout Australia would press individual schools and their administrations to achieve wider freedom of choice and wider participation by parents.

page 628

QUESTION

JUDGES’ PENSIONS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the AttorneyGeneral, follows the answer given by him to the question asked by my colleague Senator

Cavanagh. I ask the Attorney-General: Are there any present Justices of the High Court or the Federal Court of Australia who will be beneficiaries under the proposed amendments to the Judges Pension Act or is Mr Justice McGregor the only present judge who will be affected by the proposed amendments? Secondly, without asking the Minister to divulge the discussion that is taking place within his party room, I ask whether the Government intends to proceed with the legislation in view of the fact that Cabinet has made a decision on it.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– As far as I am aware only two judges, Mr Justice McGregor of the Federal Court, and a judge of the Family Court, will be affected by the amendments dealing with compulsory retirement. This of course will apply only to judges who were appointed since the constitutional referendum of July 1977. As far as I am aware the decision made by the Government in February 1978 applies to two judges, one in the Federal Court and one in the Family Court, and to no other judges. As to what the Government intends to do about the legislation, that is a matter which is still under consideration.

page 629

QUESTION

PROPOSED PETROCHEMICAL PLANT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Has the Minister seen a Press report in which it is stated that for many reasons in the long term national interest the proposed petrochemical plant at Redcliff in South Australia should be built before any other suggested plant, including the all important reason of the balance of payments, as production at Redcliff would replace many products now imported, including caustic soda? I ask the Minister whether he has also seen reports that one of the competitors of Redcliff for the establishment of a petrochemical plant in Australia has ‘a major hand in the import of caustic soda necessary to meet the shortfall between local demand and supply’ and that its proposed petrochemical plant would concentrate more on the production of plastics than on caustic soda. Is he aware that it is estimated that Redcliff would benefit Australia’s balance of payments by an estimated $2,000m over the first ten years of its operation? Will these factors be taken into consideration if the Government does have any influence whatsoever where a petrochemical industry will be established?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It has been my morning for saying that I have not seen Press reports. I have to confess that I have not seen the Press report referred to by Senator Young. The matters raised in his question are very significant factors which would need to be taken into account in making determinations of this sort. I note the qualified nature of the final part of the question that he asked in relation to whether, to the extent that the Government has influence in these matters, it will take these factors into account. I can only say that I will refer the various matters to the appropriate Minister, if he does have some influence in the placing of this plant.

page 629

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the recently reported figures published by the Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research which indicate that a single parent with one child requires $85.30 a week to live beyond the poverty line, and a single parent with two children requires $ 103.50 to escape poverty. In the light of those figures are present social security benefits for single parent families sufficient for the majority not to live in an impoverished state? Will the Government review the present levels of social security benefits for single parent families? Will the Government review the case for a special education allowance for the children of single parent families?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of public statements that have been made recently with regard to the income of single parent families and the difficulties which they have in sustaining the family on this income. I simply say that the standard rate of pension and the supplementary allowances that are paid are the policy of the Government at the present time. At the time of Budget preparation or at any other time it is possible to review rates and benefits that are given. But as I have said many times, the number of people and the burden of the income security system are such that improvement of them would be a very heavy burden imposed on those who have to pay the revenue to make this possible.

Some of the public statements in recent days were inaccurate to the extent that figures that were quoted gave no account of such additional payments as supplementary assistance that is available for those who pay rent or have little or no income. There was also no allowance made in some of the statements that have been made for the wide range of fringe benefits which are available to pensioners. I think there are difficulties of a conceptual nature in setting a policy line. In Australia I would think that we should be looking at what is a poverty line given present circumstances in the Australian context. I think that what has been established and quoted as the poverty line is something which may have doubtful validity because of its origin and the fact that it is based on relativities between expenditures of different families in New York in 1954.

Senator Georges:

– So you are going to establish your own poverty line?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– No. I was going to ask you to help to do it.

Senator Georges:

– I take the view of the expert commission that came down with a report.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– If you listened, you would know that I was saying that the poverty line established by the expert commission- it was the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty which came down with that poverty linewas based on relativities between expenditures of different families in New York in 1954. We have applied an equivalent scale to that. We have attempted to relate that to the Australian conditions in the 1970s. I would think that in this country it would be possible to have some discussion as to a poverty line. It could well be that the poverty line is higher or lower, whichever way we want to look at it, than the one that we use and which is frequently quoted. I just say that I do not think that present circumstances have given us a measure of the difficulties of people living on a low income in this country, related to the Australian conditions. However, Senator Mcintosh has asked for a review. He also mentioned the education allowance which is payable under some of the repatriation benefits and is not paid to civilian single parents in the same way. I state again that such matters are reviewed in the Budget context. I am unable to give any commitment other than that.

page 630

QUESTION

FUEL CONSERVATION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Does the Minister consider that the setting of minimum fuel consumption figures for motor vehicles sold in Australia would encourage higher standards of operational efficiency in engines manufactured and supplied, would greatly reduce fuel consumption and would reduce the need for much of the expensive fuel wasting emission control equipment which is now required or will be required as further control measures come into force soon? Is research being undertaken to improve the efficiency of these engines to decrease fuel consumption and lessen the need for much of the emission control equipment now fitted to new Australian vehicles?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Senator Archer raises some matters which are of great current importance. It is quite clear that the setting of fuel consumptions involving better fuel performance than can currently be obtained from vehicles would obviously reduce fuel consumption, but it does not follow from that that the Government believes it should move to introduce mandatory fuel standards. That has been attempted in the United States. I think honourable senators would be aware of the difficulties which have been experienced in that country with that scheme.

The honourable senator is probably aware that the motor vehicle industry in Australia has proposed, through the Federal Chamber of Manufactures, a scheme under which the industry will commit itself to achieving a 1 5 per cent reduction in national average consumption by 1983 and a 20 per cent reduction by 1987. The Government’s view on this approach, as announced by the Minister for Transport and the Minister for National Development, is that in principle the industry’s voluntary fuel code is an approach preferred to government imposed regulation. The question whether the targets proposed by the industry are the right ones is still being considered.

On the question whether fuel standards would reduce the need for emission control equipment, my advice is that there are substantial costs to the nation from vehicle emission controls and that such costs would be incurred with or without fuel standards. Recent estimates put the additional cost of these controls for 1978 at between $80m and $ 100m, which is a useful guide to the present cost. Obviously these amounts will increase as more emission controls are produced and sold.

Finally, the research undertaken to improve engine efficiency is a normal and totally essential part of the work carried out by individual vehicle manufacturers. I am sure that all motor vehicle manufacturers as a matter of routine, particularly given our liquid fuel prospects, would continue to pay close attention to methods whereby fuel consumption can be improved.

page 630

QUESTION

LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES: CONSUMER PROTECTION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General in his own capacity and as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is the Minister aware of Press reports of land scandals taking place in various States of Australia and, in particular, a statement that a major Sydney land development company might collapse, leaving 200 people liable to lose housing deposits to finance companies? Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the New South Wales Government, Mr Einfeld, has foreshadowed legislation to make finance companies partly liable if development companies collapse? In view of the Government’s stated aim to encourage cooperation between the States and uniformity of legislation for the protection of consumers and to assist not only manufacturers, retailers and financiers but also those who might be interested in land purchases, has the Government taken any steps to encourage State governments to protect consumers in other States in the way projected in New South Wales, to establish what legislation Mr Einfeld has foreshadowed in order that there might be a basis for uniform legislation in all States, to consider any direct Federal steps to protect consumers in the Australian Capital Territory and to encourage other States to follow the New South Wales example?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am of course aware of questions that arise in relation to the sale of land. Regrettably, complaints in that regard always seem to be with us. There are quite considerable provisions in the Trade Practices Act in relation to misrepresentations in land transactions and actions can be taken, and I think have been taken, under the provisions of that Act. I am not aware of any of the legislation being proposed by Mr Einfeld to which Senator Gietzelt has referred. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who is the Minister responsible for trade practices legislation and consumer protection at the Federal level. I think the question insofar as it relates to the Australian Capital Territory may be more appropriately directed to the Minister for the Capital Territory. I will take a note of the question and ensure that it is referred to the appropriate Minister.

page 631

QUESTION

TRADE UNIONISM IN RUSSIA

Senator LAJOVIC:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations been informed by the Australian delegation to the International Labour Organisation in Geneva of a letter from the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics addressed to a special ILO committee? This committee is investigating alleged violations of ILO Convention 87, which concerns the right to form a union of one’s own choosing. The letter from the USSR allegedly warns the special committee against investigating charges that the Government of the USSR has harassed self-proclaimed trade unions and imprisoned their leaders. Can the Minister inform the Senate what action, if any, has been taken about this blatant attempt by a member of the ILO to intimidate and dictate to an independent body which is interested solely in the wei. fare of the working people?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I am sure that the Minister for Industrial Relations, whom I represent, will be particularly interested and concerned about the letter to which Senator Lajovic refers. I will refer the question to him and endeavour to obtain an early answer for the honourable senator.

page 631

QUESTION

SUGAR INDUSTRY

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister aware that the sugar mill suppliers of north Queensland have expressed anger and disappointment because they feel that the Government has let them down? Is he aware that they claim that the Government is not fully cognizant of the severe economic depression in the sugar industry in general? Is he aware that the millers are claiming that the refusal of the Government to grant the industry a reasonable rise in the domestic price of sugar was a severe blow and has caused consternation among the growers? Is he aware that the increase in fuel prices was, to quote the millers: ‘Similar to kicking a man when he was down’? Is the Minister prepared to defend the Government’s position.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I noted some weeks ago that some people in the sugar industry had expressed the wish that a higher price be set for their produce. After holding discussions with millers and the various other people concerned the Government granted a rise which it considered was appropriate. I imagine that some people in the industry would consider that they have been dealt a severe blow if the price they receive was not as high as they would wish. The Minister for Primary Industry may be able to add to those remarks. I think the Government has attempted to do what in the public mind is fair and reasonable in the matter. In relation to fuel prices, I think the honourable senator will agree with me that in some areas events beyond our control are happening and are certainly likely to happen in the future.

I suppose the honourable senator takes it on his own shoulders that while his party was in office the Government took such harsh action in respect of resource discovery as to set Australia back many years. I do not doubt that the honourable senator is being apologetic because while the Whitlam Government was in power it did not seek to continue the search for petroleum. That is now recommencing and needs to be undertaken. It is regrettable that Australia has not the resources to cushion it against the influence of overseas countries that sell fuel to Australia. However, I will put the general question that the honourable senator asks on the Notice Paper and see whether I can get a response from the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 632

STUDENT ALLOWANCES

Matter of Urgency

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 7 March 1979 from Senator Button:

Dear Mr Deputy President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, I give notice that on Thursday, 8 March 1979, 1 shall move-

That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

Inadequacies and injustices in the system of student allowances. ‘

Yours sincerely, J.N. BUTTON Senator for Victoria

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

This motion means that today honourable senators will be talking about student allowances. The Opposition raises this matter now because this week, which is the start of the academic year for most tertiary education institutions, some 200,000 students who are theoretically eligible for allowances will be returning to universities and other tertiary institutions throughout Australia. The points which the Opposition feels it is appropriate to make at this time relate to the inadequacy of allowances made available under various schemes, but particularly under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. The Opposition will also make reference to the fact that the system of tertiary allowances is riddled with discrepancies and anomalies, and that the operation of the system suffers from very severe bureaucratic rigidities which make it time for a review of the way in which the current system of student allowances is operating.

In regard to the position of the Government on this matter, I refer the Senate to a statement made by Senator Carrick as Minister for Education on 6 October 1976 in which he said, when referring to student assistance: the Government . . . emphasises that the main thrust of such assistance should be towards the most needy.

I wish to refer briefly to that statement of the Minister in the context of the information which is available about the socio-economic situation of tertiary students in Australia. The only official study made of the socio-economic composition of the tertiary student body in Australia was undertaken jointly by the Department of Education and the Australian Union of Students in 1974. It had the support and sanction of the Australian Government. That survey revealed something which I suppose is now common knowledge, that is, that the main sources of income for full time tertiary students are, firstly, grants or allowances of the type to which we will be referring in the context of this discussion; secondly, parental support; and, thirdly, paid work. The 1974 survey confirmed earlier findings that over 50 per cent of university students in Australia are drawn from families where the father has a professional occupation. It is in that context that I mention the comment of the Minister that the main thrust of student assistance should be towards the most needy.

Another important and interesting point which emerged from that survey in 1974 was that students from low income backgrounds who reached tertiary education generally nominated teaching as their career choice. I appreciate that a variety of factors now operate make students less likely to choose teaching as their career. In 1974 and for at least two years afterwards many certainly made that choice, and the most logical and reasonable explanation for it is that teaching studentships, as they were then offered by State government, and are still offered in some States generally offered a student more income to enable that student to undertake tertiary education. It is in that context thai the relevance of the current level of allowance comes into question.

I said that I wanted to refer to the Government’s position in relation to student allowances. In addition to the comment made by Senator Carrick about the thrust of student assistance in 1976, it is my understanding that the Government also currently endorses the following principle stated by the Williams Committee regarding TEAS:

The Committee has taken the view that the public purse should not be expected to bear the total costs of tertiary education. In view of the significant benefits which generally accrue to the individual from such education, the student and/or his family should bear pan of these cost. The purpose of TEAS is seen as providing a subsidy to those students and their families who are unable or whom it would be unreasonable to expect to provide all of the costs normally expected to come from sources other than the public purse. The level of subsidy provided should cover only the basic needs of students and their dependants.

I want to assess that statement of what I believe to be still the Government’s position in relation to student allowances in the light of a number of points made in the statement itself, and also in the light of the 1974 survey finding that some 50 per cent of the Australian student population in universities came from families with professional backgrounds. That statement by the Williams Committee, which I believe to be endorsed by the Government, refers to a minimum level of subsidy providing basic needs. In the course of my remarks I want to examine whether in any sense it can be said that student allowances currently cater for basic needs.

The second purpose of TEAS stated in the comment to which I referred was that it was intended to subsidise those students of families who are unable to provide all of the costs normally expected to come from sources other than the public purse. If one looks first of all at the comment of Senator Carrick about the direction of student assistance, and secondly at the comments from the Williams Committee report, in the light of the current situation, in my view some very serious inadequacies and anomalies emerge.

Let me first of all deal with the rates of student allowances payable under TEAS. The maximum TEAS rate today is $45.15, less than the dole by something like $8, the current rate of unemployment benefit being $53.20. The point I make about that is that if one looks at that current single rate firstly in the light of surveys which have been done in relation to that rate and secondly in the light of the Henderson poverty inquiry, then the deficiencies become quite apparent. If one looks at the only survey which has been done on the efficacy of TEAS rates, which was a survey done by the Student Financial Aid Office of the University of Melbourne in August 1978 -

Senator Peter Baume:

– Did it have a vested interest?

Senator BUTTON:

-I am sorry to have to advise the honourable senator that it did not. This has nothing to do with AUS Student Travel Pty Ltd- I did not want to send the honourable senator out of his brain again.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It sounds as though it might have had some vested interest.

Senator BUTTON:

– The survey was in fact undertaken by an officer of the University of Melbourne. In the absence of an independent assessment by someone like the honourable senator, one has to rely on this sort of information. First of all, dealing with students sharing a flat or house away from home, the findings of that survey in Melbourne were that the establishment costs of setting up a home, buying books and items of that kind totalled $550. Assessing weekly costs at something like $60, which is all itemised in a document which I propose to seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard in a moment, the total costs for a student sharing a flat or house away from home were estimated by this survey to be $3,670. The maximum TEAS allowance payable in respect of such a student was $2,348, some $ 1 ,300 less than the estimate in this survey of the requirements of the student.

Secondly, the survey dealt with students living in a residential college. The total costs, including establishment costs of college fees, books, enrolment fees, amenities and service fees of the university came to $1,972. The average cost of accommodation at a residential college of a university is $1,600 and the other costs are the ncessary fees which a student has to pay in order to enter a university and to set up, as it were. The weekly costs were estimated at $52, compared with $60 for the student sharing accommodation. The total costs of a student living in a residential college were assessed at $3,012, compared with the maximum TEAS allowance of $2,348. One can draw from those figures, first of all, the fact that a benefit probably flows to a student who lives in a residential college because the discrepancy between the cost of living and the TEAS allowance for that student is less than it is for the student sharing a flat or house away from home.

The third category which was dealt with in the survey was that of students living at home. Then, in 1978, the establishment costs of those students totalled $272, being amenities and services fees, books and stationery, and the weekly costs were assessed at $40. The total costs of a student in that position were $2,352. The maximum TEAS allowance for a student living at home was $1,523. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a copy of the findings of that survey.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

SURVEY UNDERTAKEN BY MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY’S STUDENT FINANCIAL AID OFFICE, AUGUST 1978.

. Students sharing flat or house away from home.

Senator BUTTON:

-I thank the Senate. I was making the point that, as far as I am aware, that is the only survey which has been compiled by a university and which indicates some of the discrepancies between the positions of students in each of those three categories and the maximum TEAS allowance available to them. It is perhaps not without significance, as the Minister probably knows, that Melbourne University has, consequent I understand upon this survey, organised next month in Melbourne a conference on the adequacy of and anomalies associated with TEAS allowances.

The first point I wanted to make related to the survey of the adequacy of allowances. I referred to the maximum rate for TEAS. One of the factors to which I drew attention earlier was that the maximum rate was, of course, less than the dole. I put it to the Senate quite seriously that this affects students and particularly those students or prospective students who are still dependent upon their parents and who come from low income families. There is a nice judgment to be made in certain circumstances as to whether one takes up tertiary education in the current unemployment situation or whether one, for example, is attracted by higher allowances which are paid to people for doing nothing.

Senator Teague:

– You do not mean to say that students will go on the dole rather than undertake a tertiary course?

Senator BUTTON:

-I am not saying that, senator. I said there was a nice judgment to be made in certain economic circumstances.

Senator Teague:

– But that is what I understand a ‘nice judgment’ means.

Senator BUTTON:

– I am not saying it is a matter of general judgment. I said that in particular economic circumstances there might be a nice judgment to be made which reflects on this level of allowance. That is the simple point I am making. I do not see why a person who undertakes tertiary education in circumstances in which there may be considerable poverty in the family should receive less than his brother, for example, who is on the dole. It is as simple as that.

I want to refer in the context of that comment to one or two other matters. Firstly students are classed for the purposes of TEAS allowances as fixed income earners and they are to that extent greatly disadvantaged by inflation. There is not, and never has been, a twice yearly adjustment of TEAS rates in accordance with the consumer price index as there was with pensions and other social security benefits and, indeed, as there is on an annual basis now with pensions and other social security benefits. A student’s income to that extent is almost continually eroded, apart from an increase, for example, in the last Budget which was set off by an adjustment to the family allowance in respect of students living at home.

The Williams Committee adverted to this problem in its recommendations about TEAS and recommended that the student allowances should be adjusted twice a year in accordance with a student allowance adjustment index. This, of course, has not been done by the present Government. There is no system of regular adjustment, and changes are made really as a result of more or less political pressure at Budget time when student bodies have to clamour with all the other groups which approach a government for special attention. The TEAS allowance has never been properly indexed. It is our view that it should be indexed because it falls into much the same category as those other pensions and allowances which are indexed.

I referred to the comparison of the current rates of TEAS with the survey conducted by Melbourne University. The second comparison I wanted to make in relation to rates was with Professor Henderson’s poverty line for December 1978. I know it is about as popular and as fashionable with this Government to talk about the poverty line as it was to talk to nineteenth century shipowners about the Plimsoll line. That subject was not a highly favoured topic of conversation among crooked shipowners in the early years of the nineteenth century. Likewise, it is not fashionable with this Government, it seems, to talk about the poverty line.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Or for the Labor Party to talk about the thin red line.

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator, you are scraping the barrel today. You must have had a bad night. The single working person poverty line figure established by the Henderson unit in December 1978 was $66.53. For a person not working it was $53.78. The TEAS maximum allowance for an independent student was $45.15 at the same time- again, a considerable discrepancy. I remind the Senate of the comments by the Minister, that the purpose of student allowances is basically to help those most in need. I again remind the Senate of the fact that the socioeconomic population of universities in particular is very much divided between those who come from the professional income classes and those who do not. The level of change of socioeconomic participation rates in Australian society in universities in the last 10 years is something which we can all deplore. Quite frankly, all available evidence suggests that initiatives taken by the Labor Government to try to affect those socio-economic participations rates in universities such as the abolition of fees, have not had the desired and intended effect. I have addressed my remarks first to the question of inadequacies in rates of student allowances. I turn now to another topic, the application of the means test.

The basic assumption of the means testing procedure is that parental assistance is automatically forthcoming to a large group of students. This is not always the case. I do not offer this in some form of partisan political criticism of this Government; it is a difficulty with which a government of any persuasion would have to grapple. I believe there are a number of situations where the level of assistance made available to students is insufficient to support the students, even if parental assistance of some kind is forthcoming. The legal adult age is 18 but under TEAS one is not regarded as an independent adult until one reaches 25 years of age. It is a very anomalous period for students between 1 8 and 25, where the vast bulk of the student population is situated in age terms. For example, some individual students who are classed by the Department as dependent students have a life style which would clearly indicate that they are independent. Accordingly, they suffer real hardship. There are a number of students under the age of 25 years who, for a great variety of reasons, cannot live at home because of parental pressures or other problems in the family. Yet the level of their assistance is still determined by their parents’ income. Whatever one thinks about the desirability of that or otherwise, it is a very real problem for a lot of young people who cannot live at home but who are still regarded by the Department as dependants and not eligible for the full allowance.

There is no provision in the present TEAS scheme for officers of the Department to determine in an adequate way what are needy cases. Many senators will be familiar with the delays which take place in trying to get these problems dealt with. The appeals system which does exist is a very lengthy, drawn out process. I believe they are important points in relation to the application of the means test.

The other important point in relation to that matter is means testing of a spouse’s income. That is certainly an additional area of concern to many people. I refer the Senate to an article which appeared in the Melbourne Age on 12 April 1978, entitled ‘Marrying for Money and an Education’ and which dealt with this matter. The burden of that article was to highlight the financial plight of tertiary students and the extent to which some students are prepared to go in order to become eligible for the maximum TEAS allowance. If students qualify for the married student allowance of $45.15 a week, each partner receives that sum. In effect on that basis the couple receives a double income.

The means testing of a spouse’s income is governed in part by regulation 41 (5) of the Student Assistance Act which provides that the spouse allowance of $31.40 a week is payable only in respect of those weeks in which a spouse has no income at all. For example, dividend income in excess of $300 is taken into account as income for each week of the year and this prohibits the payment of the spouse allowance to the grantee. In effect, this means that a student whose wife receives $7 a week in interest or dividend payments loses $3 1.40 for each week of the year. Therefore, the couple is worse off than it would be if the spouse received no interest or dividend income at all.

Senator Teague:

– But don’t you feel that couples will be sensible and work out their options? Won’t they work out whether it will be of profit to them?

Senator BUTTON:

-That may be so, but is the honourable senator suggesting that one of the options would be to get rid of the dividend income altogether?

Senator Teague:

– I am not suggesting that.

Senator BUTTON:

-I am not quite clear what the honourable senator is suggesting. Perhaps he can tell me what he is suggesting when he makes his speech later in the debate. I am seriously making the point that there are difficulties for people in this situation and there are difficulties in terms of a wife’s independent income. Some sneaky adjustment can be made, but that will not be in accordance with the strict letter of the law. Those are some of the problems which we see as being associated with the means test provisions.

I want to deal very quickly with some of the other anomalies which are clearly present in the TEAS scheme. The first is that to qualify for the living away from home rate allowance because of difficult conditions at home- the maximum rate is also $45. 1 5- the student must verify his or her claim with a signed statement of the problems which exist at home and include not only a statutory declaration from two people but also a detailed floor plan of the family home. That is what is necessary to qualify for an allowance in circumstances in which a student is independent and has to live away from home. The family law courts in this country ceased to request that sort of information four years ago. They no longer have a requirement to provide that sort of information about a domestic situation. That seems to me to be a serious anomaly which probably in many social and family situations represents a considerable disincentive for students to apply for the allowance. In this sense, it can be a discriminatory provision. It is an anomaly which should be looked at and rectified if possible. Once again, I do not say this in any harsh spirit of criticism, because the details of these matters are very difficult. What we are saying in essence is that it is time the TEAS scheme was reviewed in regard to these matters, including the allowance rates, which have been the subject of continuing concern.

Another area of anomaly relates to the assumed capacity of middle income families to contribute to their children’s tertiary education. It is generally assumed that people in the middle income bracket can easily afford to pay for part of their children’s education and living costs. However, I put it to the Senate that in many cases, because of various matters relating to lifestyle, size of family and things of that kind, it is not safe to make that sort of assumption. In many respects, some middle income earners are worse off than families on low incomes in relation to their capacity to support a student. I support that view by making the point that usually students who come from low income families receive the full TEAS allowance. Students from the middle income bracket families are often means tested out of an allowance altogether. If they are not, they are means tested to such an extent that they receive only a minimal allowance. The point I am making is that the cut-off point for the means test should be looked at. The assumption that parental assistance will be forthcoming, given the means test procedure, is often false.

It is said continually that middle income groups are hardest hit by the present taxation scales. In this respect, the gross income of a middle income family, even after the family adjustment, is certainly not a measure of its capacity to pay. I remind the Minister and the Senate that the Williams Committee recommended that the actual income tax paid should be deducted from the gross family income in applying the means test. Perhaps that is not the right measure, but it is different from taking into account only the gross income of a middle income family. This recommendation has not been pursued by the Government and apparently is not accepted by it.

I wanted to deal with one other aspect of student allowances or awards. I refer to Commonwealth post-graduate awards. I do not have time to do that, but I refer the Minister and the Senate to the paper of the Australian ViceChancellors Committee on the taxation of postgraduate awards in which the vice-chancellors pointed to numerous anomalies- Commonwealth awards being taxed and private awards not being taxed, and things of this kind. They suggested the following courses of action: Repeal the present legislation and revert to the previous position; means test post-graduate awards; tax all post-graduate awards; continue to tax Commonwealth post-graduate awards but adjust the amount of allowance; and a combination of all or any of these possibilities. I mention these suggestions in the limited time which I have available. They were made constructively by the Vice-Chancellors Committee and they seem to me, in a sense, to imply what I think is wrong with the present system of Commonwealth post-graduate awards. I commend to the Senate and those people who are interested in this subject a reading of the Vice-Chancellors Committee report. I am indebted to the Senate and to you, Mr Deputy President, for your oneminute indulgence.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · LP

– Perhaps I should start my response to Senator Button by indicating that I respond to this matter of urgency as the Minister assisting Senator Carrick who is the Minister for Education. One of the areas in which he has asked me to take a particular interest is that of student allowances. Therefore, it was appropriate that I should deal with this matter of urgency. I thank Senator Button for the fact that on a number of occasions during his speech he pointed out that he was not making points in a partisan fashion. He acknowledged that there were areas of real difficulty. I must echo that point. The fact is that, in the various arrangements which exist for students, problems and difficulties arise in establishing appropriate criteria. I assure Senator Button that the points he has made will be part of the continuous review which occurs in this area.

Senator Button quoted other sources to support some of the matters that he raised. That was the case particularly in respect of the last point he made. They are matters which can be put to study within the Department. I was minded to express some sympathy for Senator Button and to suggest that this must be a terribly difficult speech for him to make because I remember with, I suppose, some envy the speeches which I was able to make in opposition in which I pointed out that there were lots of admirable ways in which the Government could undertake further and expanded programs. Again I make that comment not meaning to make a crack at Senator Button. The fact is that one of the responsibilities of government is to shape a Budget and the fact is that this Government has laid down certain financial parameters within which all departments must work. They affect the Department of Education as much as any other.

It is interesting to note, having made that comment, that in fact education and student allowances have faired well under this Government and I will be mentioning a little later in this speech some of the comparative figures of the last few years which show quite substantial adjustments to student allowances. Those adjustments, I think, indicate a very great interest on the part of the Government in the welfare of the student population. The various points made by Senator Button which I have said will be referred to the Department include some information which I understand is news to the Department. I am advised for example that the Melbourne survey to which he referred is not known to the Government. However, we are aware of the planned conference at Melbourne University later this month concerning the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and it is intended that the Department will be represented at that conference. It is expected, therefore, that we will have the benefit of what comes out of that conference.

Senator Button referred to the Williams Committee summary of TEAS and criticised what he saw as the Government’s assumption that the TEAS allowance is intended as nothing more than a contribution towards the cost of education of a tertiary student. I did not gain from his speech a clear understanding whether he was asserting that the TEAS allowance should be set on some basis which provides for total living costs on some objectively assessed basis. I was left in some doubt as to precisely what he was saying but I do think that the level of the TEAS allowance does require some supplement to the income of students and that supplement will no doubt sometimes come from family sources and sometimes come from the student’s own earning efforts.

Senator Button:

– Not at the moment. There is not much capacity for earning money at the moment.

Senator CHANEY:

– I think that is not quite true, Senator Button. In fact there are still many students who are able to get part time work to supplement their incomes.

Senator Button:

-It is not as easy as it was in your day, Senator.

Senator CHANEY:

– It is probably not as easy as it was in my day but it is still not impossible. In any event the position is that the TEAS allowance has been very substantially increased over the last few years and any criticisms which are made now could have been made equally strongly over any period in which it has been in existence. I am sure that Senator Button would concede that.

Senator Button went on to suggest that the TEAS allowance should be the equivalent of the dole and that it could be a matter of nice judgment for an individual whether to take the dole or to become a student. I think that he was making a judgment which would not be shared by the majority of the Australian people. The fact of the matter is that a student undertaking tertiary studies is gaining an advantage for himself or for herself which is likely to be of considerable assistance for the rest of that person’s lifetime. Usually that person is doing so at considerable public expense. Since the abolition of fees the student has been receiving the advantage of quite costly education facilities at the expense of his fellow taxpayer, usually equipping himself to earn a higher income than those of his fellow citizens who have not had the same advantage.

Senator Button:

– You are misrepresenting me for the purposes of debate, Senator. I said the comparison was between a student getting that amount and his brother getting the dole. That was the difficulty- the social difficulty- for the family.

Senator CHANEY:

– I still think that the point that I am making is quite valid. The difference between the two is that the brother who is receiving the tertiary education is getting what the Taxation Office has always regarded as a capital asset and what I think all studies show generally results in a substantial subsequent income advantage. For Senator Button to suggest that the student who is getting the benefit of expensive public facilities in an educational institution and getting a tertiary allowance is worse off than somebody who is unemployed and seeking employment I think shows a considerable lack of judgment.

Senator Button:

– You should ask him. He is the bloke.

Senator CHANEY:

– Well, I think that any student in that position who examined the facts would have to agree that he is in a rather better position than a person who is not able to gain the advantage of a tertiary education. The honourable senator referred also to the question of indexation and to the need for regular adjustment. Once again the record of this Government is quite clear, as I will go on to show. There have been substantial adjustments to the TEAS allowance and that is a matter on which I think the Government has no need to be defensive. On the evidence that is available, the point that was made also by Senator Button about the failure of Labor programs to change the socio-economic mix by the abolition of tertiary fees and by the introduction of more student allowances is a matter which ought to give cause for concern about throwing further resources into education as a means of levelling out social inequalities. I think that a great deal more work needs to be done to demonstrate that education does in fact have that effect before it can be argued that the allowance should be increased to serve that purpose. I note that Senator Button made no attempt to assert that that purpose is in fact being served.

The question of the means test is an area in which I think Senator Button’s comments do warrant examination as part of the normal examination review of the allowance system. But the Government does expect parents to continue to meet part of their parental responsibilities with respect to student children. One of the premises on which the whole system is based is that in the majority of cases parents will not regard children who are still students as being no longer their responsibility. Senator Button made the point that independence is not achieved until a person is 25 years of age whereas in fact independence can be established, for the purposes of the allowance on a number bases: Firstly, if a person is over 25 years of age; secondly, if a person is married or has been in a de facto relationship for two years or for only one year if there is a child; thirdly, if a person is a ward of a State or an orphan; or, fourthly, if a person has been in the work force for two years. Of course, a good number of people have been in the work force for two years long before they are 25 years of age. So the situation is not as it was presented by Senator Button and in fact it is open for people under the age of 25 to establish themselves as independent.

With respect to spouse income I think that Senator Button overstated the positions. The spouse allowance is only $3 1.40 per week and is payable in respect of a wife who has no income. Again, the point he raised about the effect of interest does not square with the facts as I understand them. My understanding is that an amount of up to $300 may be gained from interest and investment before the allowance is affected and so, where there are simply small amounts of additional income involved, the problems which Senator Button raised do not in fact arise.

This particular area is being reviewed and to date the review has disclosed that there are difficulties in the way of alternatives that might be considered but in any event that review is not yet complete. The main point which I think needs to be raised on behalf of the Government with respect to student allowances is that, during the period in which the Government has made a central plank of its approach to government the requirement that it must exercise economic restraint, the Government has substantially increased expenditure on student assistance schemes each year since 1976. The figures for overall expenditure demonstrate that. In 1975-76, total expenditure was $ 154.5m. In the following year, it was $ 186.8m. In 1977-78, it was $205m and, in 1978-79, it is estimated that the expenditure will amount to $228m. In the three years of this Government the total increase in expenditure was 2 1 per cent in the first year, 9.6 per cent in the second year and 1 1.4 per cent in the third year. It is true that there was no increase in TEAS allowances last year, apart from the transfer of the $5.25 family allowance from the parent to the student. But that has occurred before in the history of these allowances. It occurred under the Government of which Senator Button was a supporter.

Indeed, in the 1975 Budget there were no increases for the following year. The present Government approved substantial increases in 1976, to apply in 1977. During a period in which the Government has concentrated on restraining expenditure it has maintained the open-ended nature of these schemes. Any student who qualifies can get an award, subject only to a means test. During that period there has been a considerable increase in the number of students which has of course contributed to the increase in cost. Since 1 976 the number of students receiving these allowances increased from 131,078 to 145,000.

I would now simply select some of the key figures which indicate the considerable improvement which has been effected in these areas since the present Government took office. Looking at the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, which is of course in numerical terms the most substantial scheme we are considering, in the last year in which the allowances were set by the Labor Government, 1976, the living allowance for a student at home was $1,000. That has been increased under this Government to $1,523. In the last year set by Labor, in the 1976 educational year, the living away from home allowance was $1,600. Under this Government is has been increased to $2,348. That is a substantial increase. The amount provided for a spouse has been increased significantly. It has more than doubled. In 1976, the last year set by Labor, it was $ 1 5 a week. It is now $3 1 .40 a week. I think that indicates a very real concern on the part of the Government for the married student. It is a remarkably larger payment than was paid under Labor. I do not recall Labor senators making speeches in 1975 demanding increases from their Government or indeed complaining in 1 976.

Senator Teague:

– But there was much clamour about the country at that time.

Senator CHANEY:

-There was. Of course the response came in the following year when we brought down our Budget in which substantial increases were awarded. The living allowance under the Post-Graduate Awards Scheme increased from $3,250 in 1976, the year in which the levels were set by Labor, to $4,200 in 1979. There has been an increase in the allowance for a spouse from $ 1 5 to $3 1 .40 a week.

Senator Ryan:

– But now you are taxing it.

Senator CHANEY:

- Senator Ryan is interjecting that that is made taxable. That is true. The allowances have been made taxable. But of course a student who is relying solely on this allowance will pay little or no tax. In fact, there will be no tax paid this year and very little in the future. It is only those students who have additional income who will be paying any substantial amount of tax. I do not believe that there is any justification for students who are in receipt of additional income being treated differently from other taxpayers. People earning the same income by the sweat of their brow, I believe, ought not to be taxed any more heavily than those students who are receiving a benefit by attending a tertiary institution. They are receiving this income at the expense of other taxpayers. The justice of that situation is quite straightforward.

Allowances under the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme have been substantially increased. There has been an increase in the living at home allowance from $1,000 to $1,523 and an increase in the living away from home allowance from $1,600 to $2,348. All of these allowances have been substantially increased during the life of this Government. It can still be claimed, as claimed by Senator Button, that they provide less than a full living allowance for the student, but I would simply point out that that is a claim that could always have been made about these allowances since their inception, in some cases by the Labor Government. It seems to me that the principles set out by the Labor Government in the establishment of TEAS are principles which have virtually been continued unchanged by this Government.

I have other figures which set out further increases in allowances. But I think the major figures are the ones which I have mentioned. I should perhaps mention, because it is of particular interest to myself, that the Aboriginal Study Grant Scheme is again one where there have been substantial increases since 1976. The living allowance under that scheme has gone from $32 a week to $47.25 a week, an increase of nearly 50 per cent. The other area of allowances which I think should be mentioned is the considerable increase in numbers over recent years. Of course, that is significant because it means there has been a considerable increase in the total cost of the schemes. Since 1974 when TEAS was instituted there were nearly 57,000 students benefiting. In 1978 88,719 students were benefiting. So over this period from 1974 to the current time the number of students availing themselves of schemes and gaining benefits from schemes has increased considerably. I think it might be a matter of great satisfaction to everybody that there are more students getting these benefits. Quite clearly it makes it more difficult to focus the benefits on those who are needy, which I think was one of the suggestions made by Senator Button, when allowances are so broadly available to such a large number of people.

I think this matter has been brought a little inappropriately before the Senate as a matter of urgency, in the sense that it is a matter which obviously cannot be reviewed as a matter of urgency. It reminds me of the procedure we followed last year of bringing matters forward as matters of public importance. I do think that the state of educational allowances in Australia is a matter on which the Senate would generally agree. It is a matter which warrants debate and consideration in this chamber. I do not believe it has been established that we have here a problem of great urgency. We have a problem in which there are some discrepancies and we have some problems which need attention. The Government’s undertaking in the Senate is that these matters will receive consideration by the Government.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) for his contribution, although I would suggest to him that he let senators on this side decide what we regard as a matter of urgency. He can regard what he likes as a matter of urgency. It is amazing how much enthusiastic comment we get from the other side about how the Opposition might run its Caucus, how it might run its party and how it might operate. Nevertheless I want to make only one comment on what the Minister said. He said he selected figures, and he used that word carefully, to compare the attitude of the Australian Labor Party and the attitude of the present Government. Perhaps one of the subsequent speakers may follow up by relating his figures back to the cost of living. Senator Button has looked at the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowances. I understand that Senator Ryan is going to continue with that. I am going to touch only slightly on TEAS and look at a number of other matters. Before I do that I would like perhaps to give a little background which I think is necessary when we are considering the philosophies of the Labor Government and the present Government and the way each has approached this matter of allowances.

We all know that the provision of assistance was introduced in 1943 with the Commonwealth Financial Assistance Scheme for the payment of fees and living allowances. Of course, all of that was means tested, both to the recipient and the parent. In 1951 the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme catered for between 1,700 and 3,000 people. The Martin report about that time suggested that there should be development of advanced education. So, we had the University Scholarship Scheme which looked after 6,000 recipients and the Commonwealth Advanced Education Scholarship Scheme which looked after 1,000 recipients. Of course, as we all know, this was based solely on academic merit. It is most interesting for those of us who have an interest in technical education to see that the Commonwealth Technical Scholarship Scheme was introduced in 1965. There was a general feeling at the end of this time that perhaps the Government was catering for an elitist group. There were certainly many criticisms around the country. So the Student Assistance Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr Beazley in 1973. 1 would like to read a couple of extracts from the brief speech the then Minister made at the second reading stage. In discussing the Bill he said this:

It complements this Government’s decision to abolish fees in tertiary and post-secondary technical institutions and the effect of both these actions will be to ensure that hardship or poverty do not prevent a student from taking advantage of the opportunity for further study.

Later in the same speech he had this to say:

There is a clear need for flexibility in administration of student assistance schemes and I know that honourable members will be aware of the many and varied problems which students must face, and the difficulties and indeed injustices which may occur because of too rigid an application of rules and conditions.

Towards the end of the speech he said:

The schemes covered by this legislation will provide assistance for probably more than 125,000 students in 1974. The Bill does not cover all the Government’s schemes of student assistance. We intend to introduce further legislation for isolated children, Aboriginal students and students receiving benefits under the Government’s new secondary allowances scheme. Students should be going through a period of life when they have the leisure to think as well as the need to study. An age of speed does not easily lend itself to the creation of great new productive ideas. The function of education in a world in crisis is to develop people who can fashion a new and inspiring civilisation- people who have the moral and intellectual qualities, and the sensitivity to produce a renaissance.

He introduced this scheme which, of course, at that time dealt basically with senior secondary scholarships, postgraduate awards and tertiary education. He said that the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme was a major step taken by the Government in its program to produce a revolution of access to education. So there is an indication here of a difference of attitude in the philosophy of education, as between the Labor Government and the present Government.

I do not want to go into the detail of TEAS but I do draw attention to the fact that about this time there were a number of criticisms of it. I read from a report prepared by the Legislative Research Section of the Parliamentary Library as follows:

A number of specific criticisms and proposals for reform of the scheme were advanced by the Australian Union of Students. The AUS maintained that improved accessibility to tertiary education was dependent not only on’. . . the widening of admissions policies, provision of a diversity of courses, etc. but was also dependent’. . . on Inc degree of financial support that a student can gain while undertaking a course’. The AUS viewed the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme as ‘. . . a major advance in student financing in this country . . .’, but felt that it required . . . considerable alteration and restructuring if it is to cope with the changes education will experience in future years’.

As a result of the criticisms, and recognising that there were some difficulties, the Minister set up the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, which came out with a number of recommendations. I will just briefly read through the major recommendations. They were as follows:

One student allowance to cover students’ needs over one year, not one academic year. Allowance adjusted twice yearly. Dependents’ allowances adjusted in line with corresponding special service benefits. No change in conditions governing eligibility for living away from home except independent status granted where parents refuse support or where it is unsuitable for the person to stay at home. The means test for dependent students applied on the gross income of both parents with deductions allowed for actual income paid for one parent in the two-parent family. Maximum income which would attract maximum allowance would be related to yearly equivalent of average male weekly earnings.

There were some other recommendations but they are the major ones. I raise them only to point out that they have not been followed by the present Government; not one of these recommendations has been implemented. Obviously it was agreed by Beazley at the time he set up the Committee that the scheme was introduced quickly and that he was aware of the inadequacies. So he set up the Committee to investigate. These major recommendations have not been implemented. It would follow that obviously the present scheme is inadequate on that score alone.

My colleague Senator Button has covered the financial inadequacies of TEAS and there is no point in reiterating them. So I would like to look at a number of other areas. I am pleased that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) raised the Aboriginal Secondary Grant Scheme which is of interest both to him and to me. He will recall that in 1976 a report was produced by Professor Betty Watts. It recommended the continuance of the scheme with some modifications. The scheme has continuedthis is a good thing and we commend it- but the modifications suggested by Professor Betty Watts have not been implemented. Because of that very fact, in this area again there must be some area of inadequacy. Postgraduate courses have been mentioned this morning and were the subject of questions yesterday. Much was made of the fact that there was an increase in the amount of money paid to Ph.D. students but there was no mention of taxation until it was raised on this side of the chamber this morning. There was no mention either, although an interjection to this effect was made yesterday, of the decrease in the numbers of Ph.D. students. There might be some comments to be made about this. Surely we do not see here a return to the Menzies days of pork-barrelling whereby we give assistance to a small number and say: ‘Look, we are doing wonders in the field of education’. Surely we must have a different approach to this. This is the wrong approach to student assistance.

I would like to look briefly at non-tertiary education in the sense of non-university education. There was an initial cutback in assistance to the pre-apprenticeship group and the preemployment group. Some suggestions have been raised that some schemes which have been developed lately are a substitute for unemployment benefits in an attempt to say: ‘Although there are no jobs available we will train people for them and call these training schemes good things’. This sort of cosmetic approach is not sound thinking in education. There is no real assistance in retraining, particularly for the man who wants to change his job. If a man wanted to change his job to achieve job satisfaction he would be in extreme trouble.

I would like to raise another matter now. It is unfortunate that Senator Davidson is not present in the chamber because as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which investigated isolated children he would be particularly interested in what we have to say here. He has spoken in this place on many occasions about the need for the Government to increase its assistance to isolated children. The Senate will recall that in July 1976 that Committee put down a report. The Committee reported that it found many injustices and that isolated children were badly disadvantaged when compared with children in the town. The Committee made certain recommendations. By mentioning Senator Davidson’s name one will know that there is no need for me to comment that these recommendations were fairly conservative. They were certainly not radical. I will just read a number of the recommendations from the report. Recommendation No. 5 was:

The Commonwealth Government review its educational policy in the Northern Territory to ensure equal educational opportunity for both Aboriginal and European children.

Recommendation No. 8 was:

Funds be made available through State education authorities in the form of increased per capita grants to registered residential establishments to subsidise the cost of upgrading and maintaining the existing hostels in country areas.

Recommendation No. 1 1 was:

The payment of benefits under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme be continued and that levels of assistance and application of the means test for additional allowances be reviewed annually so that allowances are paid at a rate commensurate with education expenditure.

Recommendation No. 12 was:

The Government examine the taxation deductions presently allowable for educational expenses incurred by parents with a view to increasing the maximum deduction allowable.

Recommendation No. 28 was:

The Commonwealth Government, as a matter of urgency, investigates whether State Governments have enough SSB transceivers to meet the needs of all schools of the air and grants to the States whatever amount is needed to remedy any deficiency.

Recommendation No. 32 was:

The Commonwealth Government review annually the basic $200 payment of the correspondence allowance to compensate for the effects of inflation and that the criteria of approved expenditure governing payment of the second component of the allowance be reviewed regularly.

As Senator Davidson has said a number of times in this place, not one of those recommendations has been accepted by the Government to help those children in the country. In this area it is quite clear that injustice has occurred. Let me conclude with a number of simple examples which will strike a chord in the hearts of most of those who are listening. The first is the high cost of text books in secondary schools. I do not think I need to dwell on this. We know that text book costs for fifth and sixth formers are about $150. If we get no assistance in this area, surely the poorer families are going to be at an extreme disadvantage. In my earlier remarks I mentioned Beazley ‘s insistence upon flexibility. Here is an area where the Government could look to its Department. We are seeing a strict application of regulations, just as in other areas of government assistance we are seeing a definite attempt to cut back the number of people receiving assistance, whether it be welfare benefits, unemployment benefits or any of the other benefits.

I quote just one case simply because it is known to the Minister. A young man brought his case to me when he could not establish independence in order to receive the full time allowance. He was a few days short. The reason why he could not establish this was that he had refused to accept unemployment benefit and had preferred to live on his accumulated capital. He was able to show that he had sought work, he was able to show that he lived independently but he had not looked for unemployment benefit. Because of that he was denied the opportunity. The Minister has looked at this case. I do not want to give the full details but the attitude of the Department was: ‘No, this case does not exactly meet the criteria; therefore, it is denied ‘.

Senator Ryan will be looking at the new rules on vacation work and part-time work, all of which create injustice. If we are to have real student assistance, if the Government is really dinkum about this matter, we must have the basic concept or the underlying philosophy that the students must have an opportunity to study without the external pressures of worry. If we really want students to go ahead and prepare themselves to make their contribution, as Beazley said in his brilliant second reading speech, we would want them to do it without any need to worry; we would certainly want them to do it without having to engage in part-time work; and we would certainly want them to do it without dependence on parents or a partner or a marriage of convenience to which Senator Button referred. There must be equal opportunity for all, surely, right across the board whether in relation to apprenticeship training or PhD work. Different people have different qualities, different abilities. The assistance must not be simply an alternative to the unemployment benefit. Of course, employment opportunity must be available.

The Government surely stands condemned for the fact that it has not implemented the Williams report. It gives assistance grudgingly, taking every opportunity to deny it. It gives with the one hand and takes with the other, as in the case of the PhD students. We have no acceptance of the Australian Union of Students recommendations seeking an assistance level above the poverty line and we have no implementation of the recommendations of the Senate committee’s report. The Government policy appears to be to keep education- hence power, because education is related to power, there is a quite clear connection- in the club and to deny access to those who wish to break out of their situation of disadvantage. The basic political philosophy be: hind the Government’s policy is a continuation of the Menzies approach which has been criticised by almost every advanced thinker in the field of education. In every area the same philosophy pervades the whole approach: Forget the need and maintain the structure. In every speech that I have made in this chamber on education I have come to the same conclusion and have ended with the same comment: The Government is regressive in its approach to education.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– In discussing the matter of urgency put forward by the Opposition I think it is wrong to attempt to discuss student allowances in total isolation from the overall approach that the Government has adopted towards education and education funding. I think, therefore, it ought to be incumbent on us to have some regard to the level and nature of expenditure which the Government has dedicated towards education in general terms. It is from that point that I wish to proceed. It is indicated in Budget Paper No. 1 for the most recent Budget that the total outlays on education are estimated to increase by 6.1 per cent in 1978-79 to $2,497.6m, this total being equivalent to 8.7 per cent of estimated total outlays.

When Senator Robertson talks about keeping education ‘in the club’, when he makes an attempt to imply that pan of the policy of this Government has been to restrict access to education or to limit the number of persons having access to education, it is perhaps worth remembering that the last Budget introduced by the Australian Labor Party when it was in government did not devote 8.7 per cent of total outlays to education expenditure, but the lower figure of 8.4 per cent. It did not devote a sum of $2,497m but a sum of $ 1,846m. The progress in terms of both real expenditure and progress as a proportion of total Budget expenditure on education has increased substantially during the period that this Government has been in office. Indeed, if one wants to establish the point at which the real erosion of student allowances may be said to have become evident, one only has to refer to the 1975 Budget provisions for education, the last Budget in which no allowance was made for any increase in student allowances. It is not true to say that we are keeping education within the club when one can see that in 1975 approximately 135,000 students were receiving benefits and when it is expected that by the end of this year that number will be something like 1 70,000. That is an increase of 26 per cent.

Just as it is a question of the priorities within expenditure, also it is incumbent upon any Senate to ask questions related to the way in which total government expenditure has to be divided up. We must try to establish, for instance, the relative value of student assistance schemes as compared, say, with additional assistance for the physically handicapped or indeed in competition with additional expenditure for defence or the arts or any other of the expenditure areas with which the Government is faced. I think it is useful to talk firstly about the numbers of students being assisted under the various schemes. I take a comparison between the figures at 30 June 1975 and the figures at 30 June 1978. The number of students involved in tertiary education assistance in 1975 was a little over 67,000. The number is now 88,700. The number of students receiving a secondary allowance was 6,796 and is now 17,195. The number of students receiving Aboriginal Secondary Grants was 11,762 and is now 13,854. The number of students receiving Aboriginal Study Grants was 1,875 and is now 2,531. The number of students receiving adult secondary education assistance was 1,021 and is now 2,233. One can translate these raw figures on the number of students involved to the level of expenditure.

I refer again to the level of expenditure in the period 1975-76 as compared with the period 1978-79. Expenditure on post-graduate awards, for instance, increased from $7.7m to $9.3m. Expenditure on tertiary education assistance increased from $ 109.6m to $ 167.2m. Expenditure on secondary allowances increased from $5.6m to $9.2m. Expenditure on Aboriginal secondary grants increased from $8. 6m to $13.2m. Expenditure on children in isolated areas increased from $10.3m to $14.5m. The raw figures themselves do not in fact summarise the entire position. But I think it is important to indicate that the one great weakness in the case put forward by Senator Button- the one weakness I was surprised to find in the presentation that he made- was that he made no attempt to establish the goals and the purposes of student allowance schemes as such. What are the real goals? How are we to measure whether real goals are being met as distinct from simply making measurements in terms of statistics and cash payments?

It is certainly not true, I believe, to adopt the sort of approach that Senator Robertson seems to adopt, that is, that it is really the purpose, function or even within the power of the Government to bring about a situation in which students can study without being subject to any external sources of worry. Unless one is going to put them in a Trappist monastery and allow them to study there and expect them to develop any sort of appreciation of the value or relevance of their study. How can one say one has to design schemes in order to protect students from external worry? That seems to be a completely unrealistic way of dealing with the question of what student loans, student schemes or student assistance programs are all about. As I said before, given the record of the 1975 Budget the members of the Labor Party ought to be the last people to start complaining about levels of student loans. They were the last people to regard student assistance programs as being of such low priority that a Budget should be constructed in which no additional funds were provided.

I suppose it is equally encumbent on Senator Button in presenting his case to try studiously to avoid those schemes that have been introduced or very substantially expanded by this Government, in order to portray a false picture that student assistance is restricted almost exclusively to the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowance. For instance, one of the most imaginative, innovative and, in the long run, most important schemes to have been introduced- in some ways it can be regarded as a scheme of student assistance-is that connected with the Education Program for Unemployed Youth. In February 1977 it was expected that $1.5m would be allocated to that program, but now it is receiving an allocation of $3.2m. That program involves some 3,800 students in over 70 centres studying various skills and trades and, above all, things that are particularly suited to them and their future in employment. Yet, there was no mention of that from Senator Button. Why has there been no mention of the considerable expansion of the program of assistance to students in disadvantaged country areas? In 1977, out of a program totalling $ 19.51m for disadvantaged education areas, $4.1m was devoted to disadvantaged country areas. In my State of New South Wales there have been programs of assistance to communities and students in places such as Bourke, Gulargambone, Barwon River, Wee Waa, Macquarie Marshes, Quambone, Burren Junction, Pilliga, Collarenebri, Goodooga, Walgett and Coonamble. They are outstanding examples of the extent to which this Government has been concerned about providing assistance to students in various parts of the country.

The last thing I wish to say about this debate which has been brought on today is that it is a sad and sorry reflection upon the Australian Labor Party that those honourable senators who expected to debate this matter yesterday found that the Opposition was more concerned in national terms with having its muck-raking exercise on the air than it was with dealing with this problem, which it sees as one of significance. I think that puts clearly in perspective the Opposition senators’ priorities in dealing with the problems of Australian students. That is the sort of attitude which they take, and I think it is one that ought to be drawn to the attention of people who have any concern for education. Because that is the level of priorities accorded to this issue by the Australian Labor Party, and since its case is so weak and its priorities in the matter are so feeble, I move:

Question put. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President- Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 31

NOES: 22

Majority…… 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the motion (Senator Button’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 22

NOES: 31

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 1.6 to 2.15 p.m.

page 645

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That Standing Order 127 be suspended for this day.

page 645

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT CENTRE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present an interim report of the Curriculum Development Centre for the year ended 30 June 1978. The final report will be presented once the form of financial statements has been determined and approved by the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) and a report is received from the Auditor-General on the audit of the statements.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 645

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present details of special flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 July 1978 to 31 December 1978. Copies of this report are available from the Senate Records Office.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 646

TRADE PRACTICES REGULATIONS

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to sub-section 5 (3B) of the Statutory Rules Publication Act 1903, 1 present a statement relating to the Trade Practices Regulations: Statutory Rules No. 1 of 1979.

page 646

LEGISLATION RELATING TO SECURITY AND NARCOTICS OFFENCES

Motions (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

. That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the interception of telecommunications except where specially authorised in the interest of security or in connection with inquiries related to narcotics offences and for related purposes.

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications Act 1975.

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1 90 1 .

page 646

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION BILL 1979

Bills presented by Senator Durack.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion ( by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1 979, the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979 and the Customs Amendment Bill 1979 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

First Readings

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

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bills being passed through their remaining stages without delay.

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979

The Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979, together with the two Bills that I shall next introduce, namely, the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979 and the Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979, provide the statutory framework for fundamental reforms to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. These reforms were recommended by the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security constituted by Mr Justice Hope after a thorough and searching examination of the needs of the nation for a security service. That commission, I remind the Senate, was set up by the previous Government and I hope that a bi-partisan approach can be taken to these Bills.

The legislation was foreshadowed in the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to the House of Representatives on 25 October 1977 when he outlined in broad terms the Government’s decisions to implement reforms affecting the intelligence security agencies recommended by Mr Justice Hope. This legislation enacts these reforms and substantially follows the recommendations of the royal commission which are set out in the reports tabled on 25 October 1977. The legislative reforms themselves are so fundamental and wide ranging that a completely new Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill rather than an amendment to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956 has been drafted. The existing ASIO Act which the Prime Minister of the day, the then Mr Menzies, introduced into this House 23 years ago will be repealed.

In so far as the recommendations of the royal commission have not required legislation they have already been substantially implemented. Thus, there have been substantial changes to ASIO since the appointment of Mr Justice Woodward on 9 March 1976 and particularly since the recommendations of the royal commission were accepted in 1 977. The managerial structure and methods of the Organisation have been reviewed and substantially improved. A series of management training courses has been conducted by an independent team of professional management consultants from private industry. Mr Justice Woodward has instituted a rigorous system of internal checks to ensure that the Organisation’s intelligence collection is geared as closely as possible to the assessed national security priorities and therefore that resources are most efficiently deployed. The Organisation’s financial control system is being put on a new footing with the assistance of professional advice from relevant government departments. The Organisation produces regular assessments and reports on national security matters and participates with government departments on a wide range of matters of national security interest.

Honourable senators will appreciate that there have been substantial changes to the overall management of the intelligence community following the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on 5 May 1977 outlining new intelligence and security arrangements in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security. A key aspect of the new system is that the budget of the community is scrutinised by senior officials outside the intelligence community. Funds sought must be justified with respect to priorities and requirements and care is taken to ensure that activities are coordinated and duplication is avoided. Overseeing the functions of officials and constituting a final venue for review and decision is the Intelligence and Security Committee of Cabinet composed of key senior Ministers. This system therefore provides an external discipline to ASIO in regard to its overall efficiency. I can report to Parliament that this new system, recommended by Mr Justice Hope, has brought substantial improvements to the overall management of the intelligence community and has prompted a range of ongoing reforms. In the most recent international crisis affecting Australia’s neighbourhood, our intelligence was both timely and relevant and the assessments of our intelligence community accurate.

I shall now discuss the terms of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill. Mr Justice Hope pointed out that the justification for the existence of a security organisation in a democratic country should be reflected in its charter and, in particular, its functions as set out in that charter. He found that the proper fields of investigation by ASIO should be more clearly defined than in the present legislation and went on to indicate in detail what these should be. These recommendations by His Honour are reflected in the terms of clause i7 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill which states the functions of the Organisation as: To obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security; for purposes relevant to security and not otherwise to communicate any such intelligence; to advise Ministers and authorities of the Commonwealth in respect of matters relating to security.

It should be noted that, in accordance with the recommendations of the royal commission, the definition of ‘security’ in the present Act has been expanded to include not only espionage, sabotage and subversion but also active measures of foreign intervention- meaning clandestine or deceptive action taken by a foreign power to promote the interests of that powerand terrorism. It should be noted that, whilst ASIO will be empowered to collect intelligence concerning these matters, criminal offences are not thereby created. ASIO is not a law enforcement agency. The provisions of clause 20 requiring the Director-General to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the work of the Organisation is limited to what is necessary for the purposes of the discharge of its functions and that the Organisation is kept free from any influences not relevant to its functions, follow closely the significant recommendations of Mr Justice Hope in that regard.

Honourable senators will recall that an important theme in the royal commission’s report is that ASIO should at all times comply with the law. It has also been the concern of the present Director-General that ASIO should comply with the law but existing laws present problems for effective intelligence collection. This was recognised by the royal commission which concluded that the Organisation required certain specified powers of intelligence collection and that the laws should be changed to this end. After careful consideration, the Government accepted this recommendation. Thus, Division 2 of Part III of the Bill provides for certain powers to be exercisable by ASIO subject to significant safeguards. At the same time ASIO will be prohibited from carrying on these activities except under warrants provided in the legislation.

The additional powers thus provided for are: to enter premises to search for records; to use listening devices; to open and inspect postal articles. However, before such powers could be exercised in any particular case, there will need to be a request by the Director-General to the Minister who in turn must be satisfied as to the need for the action before granting a warrant. In the case of listening devices, the DirectorGeneral will be empowered in emergency circumstances to issue a warrant of very limited duration.

Balancing this re-definition of the functions and powers of ASIO are a number of important considerations. First, recognising the key position of the Director-General and the need for a bi-partisan approach to the security of the nation, the Bill will require consultation with the

Leader of the Opposition before appointment of the Director-General. Additionally, in accordance with Mr Justice Hope’s recommendation, the provisions of the Bill relating to the DirectorGeneral, particularly as regards tenure of office and the grounds on which his appointment may be terminated, have been brought in line with provisions dealing with statutory office holders in other Commonwealth legislation.

A further major consideration is the creation in Part IV of the Bill of a totally new statutory framework for the preparation and communication of ASIO security assessments in respect of individuals and the giving to most persons affected by prejudicial security assessments of a right of appeal to a tribunal presided over by a judge. The effect of this Part is that, where a security assessment has been made in respect of an employee of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth contractor or, broadly speaking, in respect of a person for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958, the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 or the Passports Act 1938 that contains an opinion or information prejudicial to his interests, that person must ordinarily be given notice of the assessment. Further, the person will be given a right by this Bill to appeal to a tribunal to be presided over by a judge where the assessment will be reviewed. Commonwealth departments and other agencies will be required by the Bill to treat the findings of the tribunal as superseding the assessment. In determining the procedures to be followed by the tribunal, regard has had to be had to the special needs of security, particularly preservation of secrecy as to identity of informants. Thus, confrontation between the parties to the appeal is not possible but special provision is made to ensure that an appellant is not thereby prejudiced.

The statutory procedures for notification of security assessments and for rights of appeal in large part implement the recommendations of Mr Justice Hope. They represent the first attempt, at least in a common law country, to provide a comprehensive statutory framework regulating the making of security assessments of individuals and providing a right of appeal to an independent judicial tribunal. They therefore represent one of the most important steps taken in this Parliament for many years directed to the protection of the rights of individuals.

Honourable senators will recall that the royal commission rightly gave much attention to what should be the relationship between the DirectorGeneral and the Government. Mr Justice Hope concluded that legal doubts as to the nature of this relationship that had arisen under the terms of the present Act should be removed and the relationship should be clearly defined. The Government has acted on this recommendation and clause 8 of the Bill defines this relationship although on slightly different lines from those recommended by His Honour. Clearly, the Government must, in the ultimate, bear the responsibility for the security of the nation. It must also bear the responsibility for the general direction of the activities of the security organisation. At the same time it is proper that the Organisation should be under the control of the DirectorGeneral and that the Government should not be able to override the opinion of the DirectorGeneral on whether security requires or does not require the collection of information on an individual, whether information held concerning an individual should be communicated or on what advice should be given by the Director-General to a Minister or a department. Clause 8 of the Bill reflects these considerations.

However whilst we must seek to express in appropriate statutory form the proper relationship between the Government and the DirectorGeneral of Security, I must observe that the personal calibre of the holder of that difficult and lonely position will remain of the utmost importance. In Mr Justice Woodward, Australia is indeed fortunate in having an outstanding Director-General and I am sure the members of all parties share that view. He has set a standard for holders of that office that governments must seek to match in future appointments.

The relationship between ASIO and State governments and agencies raises important considerations. In accordance with the recommendation of the royal commission, the Bill provides for ASIO, subject to directions of the Minister, co-operating with departments, police forces and authorities of the States. Similar provision is made for co-operation with authorities of other countries but in such case the Minister must approve the country as being capable of assisting the Organisation in the performance of its functions.

The legislation that I am today introducing represents a balance between the needs of the nation for a strong, reliable and highly efficient security service and the need to preserve our individual rights and freedoms. Australia faces a number of serious threats to its internal security including persistent efforts on the part of hostile intelligence agencies to obtain intelligence from within Australia. This legislation will give ASIO a charter appropriate for the circumstances of today and the tasks it will be called on to perform. It will equip ASIO with the powers essential for those tasks and at the same time provide safeguards for the rights of individuals and the continuation of our democratic institutions. The national interest demands an approach above party politics to this legislation.

Telecommunications (Interception) Bill 1979

This Bill complements the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979. It repeals and replaces the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 which deals only with interception of information passing over the telephone system. The Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security recommended that the Australian Security Intelligence Organization’s powers of interception should be extended to interception of information passing over all telecommunications systems and this Bill so provides. Special provision is made in clause 12 for interception of telegrams. As under the present Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act provision is made, subject to similar safeguards as appear in that Act, for interception in emergency circumstances pursuant to a warrant granted by the Director-General.

To meet the urgent national problem of narcotic offences, the Government has decided that the power of interception of all forms of telecommunications should be available to assist in the detection of such offences subject to the same safeguards as apply to interception by ASIO. This Bill so provides. Except in emergency circumstances, the warrant of the Attorney-General will be required for such interception. Whilst a general prohibition is imposed by sub-clause 7(4) on the divulging of information obtained by ASIO or Customs officers except for the purposes of security or narcotic inquiries, sub-clause 7(5) recognises that either ASIO or Customs may unintentionally in the course of an interception come into possession of information relating to a serious crime. Sub-clause 7(5) regulates the use that can be made of the information. The Bill represents an essential complement to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill, the importance of which I have already explained.

Telecommunications Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill represents a further complementary measure to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Bill 1979. Section 86 of the Telecommunications Act 1975 regulates the interception of information passing over a telecommunication system other than a telephone system.

Because this matter will be dealt with henceforth in the Telecommunications (Interception) Bill, it is necessary to amend the Telecommunications Act by repealing section 86. This Bill so provides.

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979

The main purpose of this Bill now before the Senate is to make amendments of a formal nature to the Customs Act 1 90 1 , so as to alter re ferences in that Act to the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1956.

These Acts will be repealed and replaced by the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1 979 and The Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 respectively.

The amendments proposed by this Bill which also amends paragraph 21 9G (2) (b) of the Customs Act 1901 to take into account the revised terminology incorporated in the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979 in respect of activities prejudicial to security, will come into operation on the date of commencement of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979.

I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Walsh) adjourned.

page 649

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 20 March 1979 at half past two p.m. unless otherwise called together by the Deputy President or, in the event of the Deputy President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by a Temporary Chairman of Committees.

page 649

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

It has been overtaken by another debate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 649

AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Assent reported.

page 649

DAIRY PRODUCE SALES PROMOTION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 March, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Opposition is not opposing this Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to remove any legal doubts which may have existed whether the Australian Dairy Corporation was entitled to promote liquid milk products and other close derivatives on the Australian market. Apparently this has been questioned. We see no reason why this move to remove the legal doubts should be opposed. Indeed, there are positive reasons why the objective of the Bill, which is to increase sales of milk and closely related products, should be supported.

Milk, apart from being a consumption good, is the raw material for a variety of end products. As a general rule, when assessing the relative profitability of these end products to the dairy industry or milk producers, liquid milk is the most profitable of all and the close relatives of liquid milk are nearest to liquid milk in profitability. The more manufactured products- particularly butter- return a considerably smaller net price to the dairy farmer than those products more closely related to the raw material. The more milk or closely related milk products that can be disposed of, the higher the average prices that will be received by the dairy industry.

If the promotion campaign of liquid milk and related products is successful, it follows that the consumption and the proportion of the dairy industry’s total output consumed in this way will increase. One demonstration of the potential which exists in promoting a flavoured milk drink- I believe it is the only example in existence at present- is the success of the Victorian State Dairying Industry Authority in promoting a flavoured milk drink, Big M, which was sold in competition with Coca Cola, other aerated waters and similar products. In the year after the Victorian State Milk Marketing Authority launched that campaign, the consumption of liquid milk rose by about nine per cent above the pre-existing trends.

That experience in Victoria suggests there is considerable scope for similar campaigns in other States. One could perhaps argue that the State liquid milk marketing authorities have been remiss in not promoting flavoured milk as a competitor for aerated waters in other States. The Australian Dairy Corporation is now empowered to do so. It does not follow that all promotion campaigns for primary products or for other products closely related to milk will be rewarded with that sort of success. I believe there is good reason to question whether the expenditure of any funds on the promotion of red meat within Australia can be justified, in spite of the recent decision by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation to devote some $750,000 to it, possibly at the instigation of Harry M. Miller, whom I do not expect to remain a member of that Corporation for very much longer.

The average price to the dairy farmers could be increased if more milk was devoted to producing cheese and less to the ultimate production of butter. This leads me to a statement made by Mr Webster, Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation at the Agricultural Outlook Conference early in this year and about which I wish to pass a few remarks. In the paper he delivered Mr Webster appeared to be recommending that there should be new investment in the dairy industry aimed at increasing dairy output. He stated that such investment for dairy farmers in Victoria is highly profitable. Mr Webster was later reported in the Press as stating that the returns on capital of 20 per cent are feasible for new investment and expanded production in the dairy industry in Victoria.

When he was questioned with regard to the assumptions upon which. his recommendation of new investment in the dairy industry was based, he stated that it was based on the assumption that the extra milk would be used to produce cheddar cheese at its underwritten price of $975 a tonne and that 1 5 per cent of the increased output would be disposed of as liquid milk at liquid milk prices. It may be quite correct that an investment in Victoria based on those assumptions will provide a 20 per cent return on capital to the individual, as Mr Webster stated, and therefore the investment for the individual is highly attractive. However, the position from the industry’s point of view is quite different. The method that Mr Webster used in assessing whether this investment should be undertaken is certainly not appropriate from the national viewpoint or from the point of view of dairy farmers in the industry other than those who are embarking on new investment and increased production.

The question whether Mr Webster’s recommendation for an expansion of the production base should be acted on can be looked at from at least three perspectives and the answers in all cases can be different. There is the perspective of the individual farmer with which I have already dealt. On the assumptions that Mr Webster used, it would appear that his recommendation is sound. However, from the point of view of the other dairy farmers in the industry, there is no doubt that that son of expansion would reduce the average prices they receive and that in the case of all dairy farmers other than those who are actually increasing their production incomes would fall, assuming that price relativities remained the same.

From the national point of view, it is quite inappropriate to consider any liquid milk component in determining whether industry output should be increased. From the national point of view the clear rule which governs this and all other such decisions, from the economic aspect anyway- there may be other considerations- is that the output should be increased only if the marginal cost of that extra production is lower than the marginal revenue it will return. The correct marginal revenue figure to use in this instance is probably the net export price of cheddar cheese, which is about $950 a tonne. Mr Webster had assumed in his calculations an underwritten price of about $975 a tonne. But even if, on that basis of marginal cost being lower than marginal revenue, the dairy industry output should be increased, it still follows that the average prices received by all dairy farmers would fall and the incomes received by dairy farmers not participating in this increased production would decline, other things being equal.

At the same Outlook Conference, Mr Webster recommended an increased output of cheese on the basis that there was an unfilled demand for cheese on the Japanese market. Again, the decision to be made is whether output should be increased to meet that demand at the rate of $950 a tonne. Output should be increased only if the production cost is less than $950 a tonne, unless somebody wants to bring tariff compensation arguments and exchange rate effects into the matter. There may be something to be said for that argument, but I do not propose to delve into it at this time. The way in which Mr Webster’s recommendation came out was rather unfortunate. The assumptions underlying the recommendation should have received more publicity than they have received. Even if the cost and return realities justify an increase in total output from the industry in the existing situation, a preferred immediate option would be to divert some of the milk which at present is utilised in butter production towards cheese production, because on a non-farm basis or non-factory basis at prevailing prices cheese is a more attractive product that butter, especially if the element of government support is removed. While price relativities remain at their present level, the first change that should be made in the dairy industry and its final output mix is a reduction in butter output and an increase in cheese output. Any decision on whether the whole industry output should be increased deliberately should be based upon the marginal price of the preferred product, namely, cheese.

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

– I congratulate Senator Walsh on his contribution to the debate and the Opposition on the support which it is giving to this very simple and straightforward Bill, the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Amendment Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to amend the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act 1958 in order to widen the definition of ‘ dairy produce ‘ under section 4 of the Act so as to enable the Australian Dairy Corporation to undertake the domestic promotion of all dairy products including market milk, that is, milk sold for human consumption and fresh milk products. As ohe of the Opposition members in the House of Representative said, the Bill reinforces the fact that milk is milk.

I do not intend to talk about the Bill today. I wish to talk about a matter that is of tremendous moment to dairy producers in Australia. I refer to the activities of the European Economic Community- the very highly subsidised rate of dairy production in EEC countries and the fact that their surplus production is being sold on the markets that Australia traditionally supplies. The protection given to the dairy industry in EEC countries is such that there is a 10 per cent surplus of production over consumption. I cite the figures for the current surplus stocks of dairy products in EEC countries: 426,000 tonnes of butter, 340,000 tonnes of cheese and 716,000 tonnes of skim milk powder. The cost of support for producers in those countries, expressed in Australian dollars, amounts to $4,300 per tonne of butter, which is almost four times the world price, and $1,700 per tonne of cheese, which is about Vh times the world price for that commodity. In the very rare case that Australia is able to export dairy products to the EEC, it imposes a levy on Australian exports. In the case of butter, the levy amounts to $3,500 a tonne and in the case of cheese it is $3,000 a tonne. This has the effect of almost totally stopping our exports of dairy products to those countries.

On the other hand, Australia imports about 10,000 tonnes of cheese annually. About half of that comes from New Zealand and about half comes from the EEC countries. We impose a levy of $96 a tonne on imports of cheese from EEC countries. That must be compared with the levy of $3,000 a tonne that the EEC countries impose on Australian exports.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Are they also subsidising their exports?

Senator THOMAS:

-That is the point I am trying to make. The subsidy has the effect of increasing production far beyond the Community’s consumption and subsidising the exports to countries to which Australia normally exports. I am not in favour of trade barriers and I do not believe in retaliatory trade barriers; but in this case the industry awaits with a great deal of interest the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on this subject, which will be published later this year.

Senator Archer:

– In one week.

Senator THOMAS:

– I thank Senator Archer for his interjection. 1 understand that that is right. The IAC report is due on 15 March. The situation would not be quite so bad if the EEC did not have this enormous carry-over that is building up all the time. I said before, in answer to an interjection from Senator Baume, that the production levels in the EEC countries are increasing at the rate of about 2 per cent a year. The value of export subsidies, expressed in Australian dollars, is running at the rate of about $2,900 a tonne in the case of butter, about $ 1 ,600 a tonne in the case of cheese and about $ 1,200 a tonne in the case of skim milk powder. As I said, this has the effect of increasing production in the EEC by 2 per cent a year. It must be remembered that the Community has a tremendous surplus even now.

It has been rumoured that there was a recent sale of about 20,000 tonnes of butter by the EEC to Eastern European countries. I understand that this was well below world prices. I mentioned previously that we apply a levy of $96 a tonne for our cheese imports and also that the EEC countries apply a levy of $1,600 a tonne for potential Australian exports. It is, of course, impossible to compete on those terms. I very strongly support the work of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) in trying to overcome these problems and I would certainly recommend that they start a campaign in the newspapers and amongst consumer groups and other interested people in those countries to try to demonstrate that the cost of supporting this industry as they are doing is increasing their food costs dramatically and also increasing the cost to the taxpayer. It is a crazy situation. It is a situation which we cannot sustain or support and is an example of protectionism going mad.

Finally, I would like to suggest to the dairy industry and to the Government that during the protracted negotiations with regard to the adoption of the Crawford report, the principles of supply and demand not be overlooked. I am afraid that in many cases the dairy producer organisations have not seen eye to eye from State to State and have not agreed with the principles that were enunciated in the Crawford report. It is a very fine report and I think if it had been adopted as it was or with a few modifications it would have solved many of the problems of the industry. But it was not adopted, mainly as a result of strong representations from the State of Victoria. I am afraid that we may finish up with a situation that is not much better than the situation that prevailed before. I would like to stress again that we cannot get away from the principles of supply and demand, that the export price, in fact the local price, must be reflected in the demand from overseas and local sources. In short, I strongly support the Bill and on behalf of the dairy producers of Austalia would like to wish the Prime Minister and the Minister for Special Trade Representations the very best of good luck.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I support the Bill because I think it is one that is needed and certainly one that we in the Australian Labor Party have no qualms about supporting. The purpose of the Bill is to widen the definition of dairy produce to enable the Dairy Corporation to undertake the domestic promotion of all dairy products, which includes market milk and other items. In the past there appear to have been some doubts- I say appears; in actual fact there have been some doubts- about the definition of dairy produce, including market milk, cream, fresh milk, yoghurt and milk products of that type. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of laymen as to where yoghurt comes from and where market milk comes from. They are products of the dairy industry and are in fact dairy produce.

The dairy industry in this country has gone through what can be described only as a very severe shake-up, particularly over the last decade. That, of course, has been caused by a loss of sales after Britain joined the European Economic Community. The fact of Britain joining the EEC was long known, but it was a fact that previous Liberal-Country Party governments refused to face. Leaders in the dairy industry were aware that problems were coming, but previous Liberal-Country Party governments did not seem to be all that concerned about those problems and appeared to be prepared to allow the dairy industry, like many other industries- the fruit industry is one that readily comes to mind- to muddle their way through. It was not until the advent of the Labor Government in 1972 that the industry was looked at carefully.

Senator Wriedt, as Minister for Agriculture, decided that some action was needed. The immediate action was to take away from the industry the old butter and cheese subsidy. That, of course, created some rather loud squeals in the dairy industry at the time. I remind honourable senators opposite- I have said it before- that dairy industry leaders of the day were playing a rather double sided game in relation to that dairy industry subsidy. Whilst in private discussion between themselves and other leaders of the industry they were generally prepared to concede that the greatest thing that could happen to the dairy industry in Australia would be for that subsidy to be removed, they did not espouse that cause out on the stump. They left the dairy farmer thinking that the dairy subsidy was the greatest thing since canned peaches. Consequently, as I have said, when the Labor Government removed the subsidy farmers were up in arms.

But once the industry was presented with that fait accompli, with the knowledge that the subsidy would be phased out, I believe that it then faced up very responsibly to the problem which affected the nation as a whole. At that stage the industry set about re-organising itself. We saw bigger and better moves into the areas of diversified products. Whilst many small dairy farmers, some of whom have been described as inefficient- I am not too sure about the use of that term- were forced out of the industry, the industry today is a better industry and a more viable industry and those in the industry can, I believe, see much brighter hopes for the future than they could prior to the advent of the Labor Government. I believe that the fact that we are debating this amendment today is proof of the diversification of the industry and of the attempt that the industry has made and currently is making to step up growth consumption on the domestic market.

Cheese, of course, has been one of the brighter sides of the industry, perhaps since the industry opened up markets in Japan. It continues to be a growth industry, particularly in regard to exports to Japan and perhaps more so on the domestic market. That growth has been created by a large advertising awareness campaign that the industry itself has largely fostered. The campaign which was initially started by the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority with the slogan ‘Big M ‘ must, I think, go down as one of the industry’s greatest successes. Consumption of domestic milk or liquid milk in Victoria increased rather dramatically as a result of that promotion campaign. It is very interesting to see that other States are now intent on copying that pattern. The intent of the attempt to increase sales of domestic milk, liquid milk, is to take away the pressure to produce butter. Butter has been and is the ogre of the dairy industry and any moves, any trends, any type of campaign that can relieve the pressure on factories to produce butter will be of immense benefit to the industry. Prices being paid to the producer at the moment and over the last couple of years have improved, but not nearly to the extent that farm costs have increased. Nevertheless they have improved somewhat. It is rather interesting to read in the latest edition of the National Farmer that farm fuel bills leapt a massive 24 per cent in the last 12 months to December 1978. That is indicative of this Government’s indifference to input costs for primary producers.

The current situation of the dairy industry probably can be linked very closely to the current boom in the meat industry. Whilst dairy farmers rely very largely on the sale of milk for their income, at the end of every season they are presented with a situation where perhaps 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the herd has to be sold as culls on the’ meat market. In that regard I shall mention the current prices that are realised in one provincial saleyard in Victoria. Whilst one must admit that in the dairy industry at the present time not many cows are calving and so bobby calves would be in short supply, the prices being received for bobby calves- calves a few days to a couple of weeks old- are good. The price for heavy bobby calves is quoted as being from $52 to $68 a head, for good bobby calves it is $42 to $50 a head and for light bobby calves $30 to $40 a head. Heavy cows are realising from $300 to $390 a head, heavy heifers from $300 to $370 a head and light heifers from $220 to $260 a head. Best choppers and the light to heavy cows, which are normally the type of animal turned off a dairy farm at the end of every season, realise from $200 to $240 a head, good choppers $160 to $190 and light choppers $120 to $150.

Senator Archer:

– Is this a dairy Bill?

Senator PRIMMER:

-This is dairy beef. Light choppers are the type of cattle that about two years ago were being shot and buried in quarries or holes excavated by municipal bulldozers or by anybody who could dig a hole. I think that comparison highlights the market vagaries that primary producers are fraught with. Primary producers have gone from digging holes and burying cows two years ago to receiving $120 to $ 1 50 a head for similar beasts today.

It is interesting to note that the other cull at the end of a season is the old farm bull. Whilst it might take a lot of bull to make $500, the fact is that cull bulls at the same saleyards are realising now from $450 to $585 a head. About three weeks ago one dairy bull was sold for more than $700, which perhaps was a record. Unfortunately dairy farmers have only one or at most two of those bulls per season.

Whilst some people would say that dairy farmers generally must be on a pretty good wicket, against the prices received one must put the cost of replacements. At the same saleyards at present, spring Friesian heifers are priced at between $200 and $250 a head. So the farmer who does not rear his own replacements is faced with a situation in which he will pay out for a replacement beast just as much as or perhaps more than he receives for the one he sells. So, it is a quid pro quo. In the newspaper it looks good to a lot of people in the city who think dairy farmers are millionaires, but the balance sheet shows a different story.

I mentioned earlier that initiatives by the Labor Government had led the dairy industry into a new era.

Senator Archer:

– It certainly was a new era. It was total destruction.

Senator PRIMMER:

– It took the dairy industry out of the 1 950s and into the 1 970s. It is obvious that the honourable gentleman has never been on a dairy farm in his life. It is a fact that the Labor Government led the dairy industry into a new era. Any fair minded citizen in the dairy industry would agree with that.

Senator Archer:

– It certainly was a new era.

Senator PRIMMER:

– Yes, out of the 1950s and into the 1970s.

Senator Archer:

– It was total destruction.

Senator PRIMMER:

-If it was total destruction there would not be any dairy farmers left in Australia today. As I have just said, they are in a better position now than they have been in for many years. I believe that situation has been brought about by the initiatives that the Labor Government took during its term in office. However, there is one matter of deep concern to the Australian dairy industry and that is what I see happening in New Zealand. It has always been accepted in the dairy industry that in most respects Australia has run second to the New Zealand dairy industry. I believe that in areas of production Australia may well have been second, but I now believe that because of circumstances the Australian industry in some respects is well in front of the New Zealand industry. One reason for that is the initiatives that the Labor

Government took in cutting back the subsidy and urging the industry on to better paying markets, urging some curtailment of production and urging the industry to have a closer look at the domestic market.

We are all very much aware that the New Zealand industry retained for itself for a much longer period its traditional rights in the United Kingdom. But it now seems that the New Zealand dairy industry’s day of reckoning is just around the corner. I have before me an editorial from the New Zealand Herald headed Auckland, Friday, February 2, 1979’. I will later be seeking leave to have this document incorporated in Hansard, but I would first like to quote some passages from the editorial. In part it says:

  1. . it is obvious that in the dairying field this country faces the longest of long odds.

The editorial resulted from a visit, which I think was just prior to Christmas, by the New Zealand Minister for Overseas Trade, Mr Talboys, to the United States, Canada and Brussels to seek a continuation of New Zealand’s sales in the United States and to try to open up markets in Canada. If I recall correctly someone else had a shot at Mr Talboys while I was in New Zealand. That person virtually said the same as other countries have been saying to the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for some time: ‘It is no good coming to us and trying to sell us meat or dairy produce when already we have it running out of our ears’. I believe that it was someone from Canada who made that remark to the New Zealand Minister for Overseas Trade. The editorial later states:

If, as seems highly likely, our British quota after 1980 is slashed drastically, we shall face an increasing problem in disposing of milk fat . . .

That is why I said that in some respects the Australian dairy industry is now in front of its New Zealand counterpart. For too long New Zealand has relied on the United Kingdom as the traditional market for the sale of its butter. Once the United Kingdom market is cut back New Zealand will be faced with exactly the same situation as the Australian dairy industry faced up to five or six years ago. In that respect the Australian dairy industry is in front.

The matter that concerns me about all this is that New Zealand will start hunting for markets. Until quite recently, the New Zealand Government was paying out $55m per annum by way of a subsidy on liquid milk. On coming to office the present New Zealand Government put up the price of liquid milk in New Zealand from 4c a pint to 8c a pint. That price hike caused a 4 per cent drop in consumption of liquid milk in that country. It seems from what I was able to read while in New Zealand that the Government is intent on phasing out that subsidy, just as the subsidy was phased out in Australia a few years ago. Once that subsidy goes, the dairy industry in New Zealand will have to look wherever it can for markets for butter and other dairy products unless it can generate the same types of promotional campaigns as those in Australia for the consumption of liquid milk. Because of New Zealand’s very small population I doubt that it can do so to the same extent as Australia. That is what worries me about the future of the industry in Australia. In 1975-76, New Zealand exported to Australia 2,088 tonnes of cheese. In 1 976-77, it exported to Australia 2,800 tonnes of cheese. But in the period from July 1977 to April 1978 it exported 5,381 tonnes of cheese to Australia. That represents more than a doubling of exports in that very short period. I believe that is the great question mark that hangs over the industry in this country.

I seem to recall that it was a Country Party Minister who, at the time of the signing of the Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, allowed New Zealand to export to Australia 1,000 tons of cheddar. Any reading of the statistics today will show that New Zealand is pushing cheese of all types into this country. Reports from some keen dairy farmers who go around the supermarkets show that variations of cheddar are entering Australia in an attempt to get in under the lap. I believe this poses a rather serious threat to the industry in Australia, an industry which five years ago was in a quandary but which today, I believe, knows where it is going and is doing its utmost to try to get there. Any threat of imports from a country which is so close, I believe, is not in the best interests of the dairy industry of this country. I hope that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and this Government will watch very closely any further attempts by New Zealand to pour cheese or dairy products of any sort into Australia. I seek leave to have this editorial incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

BACKS TO DAIRY WALL

Although the Minister of Overseas Trade has succeeded in getting the highest authorities in Washington, Ottawa and Brussels to have another look at trade access for New Zealand, it is obvious that in the dairying field this country faces the longest of long odds.

As he admits himself, Mr Tallboys has seen the face of rigid agricultural protectionism. The very fact that he tried to talk butter in countries where New Zealand has never been able to sell more than token amounts reflects the increasing anxiety the Government must feel about the future of butter sales in Britain, still our only market of any great consequence.

For New Zealand, 1980 is the crucial year under the terms of the European Common Market agreement. Much as this small country might insist that it has been given a commitment for continued access to the British butter market after the end of next year, it is clear that we have the sternest of battles ahead to retain access for anything like the present quotas.

Of an export butter output of about 160,000 tonnes, New Zealand will send 1 1 5,000 tonnes to Britain next year. That will leave about 45,000 tonnes to be spread around fairly thin markets in the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean and South-east Asia, with perhaps some sales to the Soviet Union and China. If, as seems highly likely, our British quota after 1980 is slashed drastically, we shall face an increasing problem in disposing of milkfat because butter is more than 80 per cent fat. As a small nation providing only a limited market for manufactured imports we do not have much clout in multilateral trade negotiations where the emphasis is on giving as well as taking.

The only alternative is to diversify products as well as markets. This the Dairy Board and the dairy companies have been doing. To provide an outlet for fat they nave moved into the manufacture of cheeses other than cheddar. They have quadrupled the output of wholemilk powder and could make less butter and more anhydrous mlikfat for milk recombining plants.

These are all positive steps. But it is imperative now to carry the process a good deal further in an industry earning more than $550 million a year. And- in the face of mounting propaganda by other self-interested parties- we must enlist every ally we can.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-The Bill under debate in the Senate at the moment is the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Amendment Bill 1979. I would sincerely like to thank my colleague from Victoria, Senator Primmer, for his praise of my Government’s action in relation to the dairy industry. In his final few words, he put quite clearly that five years ago this industry was in a quandry and that now it knows where it is going. That must surely be a complete admission that, under the guidance of the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and this Government, many of the problems of this industry have been solved.

A brief history of this legislation is as follows. In 1958, the Australian Dairy Corporation was given a charter to promote the sale of dairy produce, which was defined in the relevant Act as butter and cheese and similar products’. But the definition did not include fresh milk. Funds for the purpose of the promotion were derived from a levy. In 1976, under this Government the Act imposing the levy was amended and since that time the Australian Dairy Corporation has undertaken the promotion of domestic sales of market milk. By that I mean milk sold for consumption by humans as fresh milk and also fresh milk products such as cream and yoghurt, in addition to butter, cheese and other prescribed products derived from milk.

However, the principal Act was not amended to include the definition of market milk. This Bill redefines dairy produce to cover all dairy products, including market milk, prescribed fresh milk products, butter, cheese and other prescribed products derived from milk. In other words, dairy produce has now been redefined to include cow’s milk. I am sure that most people will be delighted to know that cow ‘s milk is dairy produce! In order to validate what has been happening in regard to promotion since 1 August 1976, the new definition will be backdated to that date.

I have been talking about the Austraiian Dairy Corporation, but in the States there are other dairy authorities which are active in this field; and it is to those authorities, in particular to the Victorian authority, that I wish to turn my mind. Under the guidance of the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Ian Smith, the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority has spent Simon promoting a product known as ‘Big M’. The return to the Victorian dairy industry has been a reward of some $20m. In 1978, sales of milk increased by 27 million litres, a 6.84 per cent increase over 1977 sales. Before 1978 only 1.5 per cent of milk sold in Victoria was sold as flavoured milk. ‘Big M’ sales now account for 8.6 per cent of all milk sold in Victoria. The Victorian Dairy Industry Authority is now negotiating with America, Japan, Canada, France and Scotland to launch Big M’ as an international drink. I understand that ‘Big M’ banana and galliano is usually the drink which the ‘birds’ like to have and that ‘Big M ‘ iced coffee with rum or brandy is the one that the fellows are drinking. This promotion has been aimed at the 15 to 17-year-olds, and I think that is a marvellous action of which this Senate ought to approve. In recent days we have heard much criticism of the marketing and promotion to 15 to 17-year olds, and indeed to younger persons, of tobacco and alcohol.

The objective of this marketing exercise was to give the product a personality- ‘Big M’, not just milk. Some people alleged that the consequence of this promotion would be that so called white milk sales would deteriorate, but in fact in Victoria white milk sales have fallen by less than one per cent. It is believed that the area in which they have fallen is milkshakes and malted milks and other flavoured mixed milk drinks. The kids are apparently now drinking ‘ Big M ‘ instead some of those flavoured milk products.

Just over $30m has been paid out in Victoria to contract holders and there are now only 1,163 contract holders left in Victoria. When the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority was established there were about 6,300 contract holders. Of the 1.2 million litres of milk used daily in Victoria, only 367,537 litres come from contract holders. The rest of the milk supply is spread over all dairy farmers throughout Victoria. Let us look at those figures and appreciate the rewards of a genuine attempt by a sensible authority under the guidance of a Minister who is applying his mind to this subject and the result of that marketing arrangement in comparison with the outright subsidy payments which have gone on in the past. Clearly, Victoria has shown the way. It has decided to pick a section of the community at which to aim- the 15 to 17 year-old kids. It has packaged the product properly, it has created an image and it has used all avenues of the media to promote the product. Surely this must be the guide for future expenditure by government and by authorities in relation not only to milk products but also to other primary produce.

Further, the Victorians are developing new products. That must also be one of the aims of a decent marketing authority. They have developed a product called ‘Skinny Milk’. ‘Skinny Milk’ was launched on 2 1 February this year and already the sales of this product, which of course is a skimmed milk, are now up by 300 per cent. I am led to believe that there are many more new products on the drawing board. I mentioned that the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority is doing very well in its marketing of this product. I hope that as a consequence of this Act the Australian Dairy Corporation will provide funds to the Victorian Dairy Industry Authority to continue with its marketing arrangements rather than the Australian Dairy Corporation trying to involve itself in Victorian marketing arrangements and perhaps creating some confusion in the minds of the public. In particular I am referring to the use of the trade name ‘Big M’. The ‘Big M’ promotion campaign received praise from my Victorian colleague on the other side of the chamber, Senator Primmer. It almost received some praise from Senator Walsh but of course, being Senator Walsh, the actual words of praise were completely beyond him.

What a great pity it is that the product known as ‘Big M’, which has now been accepted in Tasmania, has been tossed away in New South Wales. When New South Wales first decided to follow Victoria’s lead, apparently there were some negotiations with the Victorians for the Big M’ package, but then the New South Wales

Dairy Promotion Council decided on its own label, ‘MOOVE’. It has produced just the same sort of wrangle between New South Wales and Victoria as that generated over the issue of whether Victorian milk should be sold north of the Murray and whether New South Wales milk should be sold south of the Murray. In fact it has generated just the same sort of nonsense which ended up with Victoria and New South Wales having different railway guages. I would have thought that in the 1970s, looking into the future of an industry so important to Australia as the dairying industry, this sort of parochial nonsense would have been avoided. ‘Moove’, since its promotion in New South Wales, has a 4 per cent to 8 per cent share of milk sales in that State. I just wonder whether that share would have been greater if the economies of marketing could have been effected as a result of a one-brand advertising campaign for ‘Big M’. Surely, with the Australian Dairy Corporation, the Dairy Research Committee and the Australian National Dairy Committee, all under the umbrella of the Department of Primary Industry, it would not be too difficult to obtain some uniformity in the marketing of this product in Australia. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate. Senator Lewis made some excellent remarks relating to the dairy industry. I noted that three of the speakers in this debate were from Victoria. That State has moved very rapidly in relation to the support of dairying. This is a quite important Bill. The debate has perhaps reviewed something of the past history of the dairying industry, which has been a most important industry to Australia and particularly to Victoria because of its ability to develop and support decentralised towns and to bring to those towns income of a steady nature which in rural areas in not expected to be a weekly income but more often is found to be an annual income or an income something less frequent than that. However there have been substantial moves in this industry. In the last few years there has perhaps been more recognition than previously by Federal and State governments.

I noted Senator Primmer’s comments. He fully admitted the problem that his Government faced when it came into office. I feel that he acknowledged that the attitude of the Australian Labor Party towards primary industry was not very helpful. He noted the removal from the dairy industry of the $27m which, if I recall correctly, was the figure that the Labor Government removed overnight in its attempt to press funds into other areas of the Commonwealth. I suppose Senator Primmer could have gone on and mentioned some of the other things which were taken away which disheartened people living in rural areas. As one who was involved somewhat directly with milk production, I was well aware of the effects of what Labor did to the dairy industry when it came into office. Perhaps a description of what dairy farmers thought at that stage of that Government’s actions had best not be put down at this time.

The present position for dairy farmers is of great importance. It is expected to improve considerably in the current season. I suggest it is not the situation that Senator Primmer outlined. I do not know whether he used these exact words: They never had it so good ‘, but I think he said that those in dairying have never been in a better state. I suggest that Senator Primmer go into some of the dairying areas. He came from Warrnambool in the Western District. The overdrafts and some of the problems of those dairy farmers have not been quite eliminated. It is only now that the prospects of a better income are starting to set the stage for a more rewarding way of life for dairy farmers.

Senator Wriedt:

– That was really what he was meaning, wasn’t it?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Often Senator Wriedt ‘s people have great difficulty in describing what they really mean, and I suppose that was one example of his problem. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has indicated that the severe cost price pressures which have adversely affected the Australian dairy industry in recent years are expected to ease considerably in the current season. It is of interest to note that the Bureau estimates that the gross value of milk production will reach a record $6 1 5m for the current season, compared with $560m in the 1977-78 year and $490m three years ago. As a result, average net returns to producers are expected to rise in 1978-79. The improved position is attributed to a number of factors incl luding improved domestic prices, favourable seasonal conditions and increased government underwriting of returns, combined with an easing off in the rate of growth in costs. Of course, as honourable senators will know, that is one of the most important factors.

Under the Dairy Produce Sales Promotion Act the Australian Dairy Corporation has been given the charter of promoting the sale of dairy produce within Australia. The domestic market provides the highest returns to the dairy industry.

With a continuing sensitive and unstable export market which continues to be influenced to a large degree by the policies of support prices, and subsidies for exports to the European Economic Community and the United States of America, it is particularly important for the domestic market to be maintained and indeed to be developed, as Senator Lewis indicated. It is important for the industry to develop a domestic market for other dairy products, including cheese and fresh milk products such as yoghurt, dairy custards and flavoured milk.

As mentioned in the second reading speech, the levy for domestic promotion is now imposed on whole milk produced in Australia. The purpose of the amending Bill is to enable the Australian Dairy Corporation to undertake the promotion of all dairy products derived from whole milk, including the promotion of market milk in co-operation with State milk authorities. An example of that type of promotion is the ‘Milk it instead’ campaign. The Government is very strongly behind assisting the dairy industry, not only by underwriting dairy products and aiding adjustment in the industry but also by promoting dairy products to the maximum extent on the domestic market. Of course, the input by this Government in the last few years has resulted in the containment of the escalation of costs. At the present time there is a bright future for the dairy industry.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 658

DEFENCE FORCE (RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. It is essentially a machinery Bill which will correct certain anomalies which were revealed in the legislation by a court case. The court cast some doubt upon the extent of the operations of the Act. It is unnecessary to elaborate on that. The Opposition believes that the amendments which are contained in the Bill will be of benefit, particularly to those who benefit under the Act. The Opposition supports the legislation.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I thank Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, for indicating the Opposition’s support for this measure. He has said, quite correctly, that it is a small machinery matter. I imagine that the Senate will give the Bill its full support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 658

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-This is an important piece of legislation which makes significant changes to the appeals system under the Repatriation Act. Therefore, the Opposition believes that the Bill deserves longer consideration than it has been able to give it. The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives late last Thursday night and was debated and passed through all its stages there yesterday. It has been brought into the Senate for debate today.

Senator Peter Baume:

– That was after the Caucus had met.

Senator GRIMES:

-We have considered it. I am not arguing about that. I have spoken to the Government Whip about this, and I now seek leave to continue my remarks at a time when the Opposition has had the opportunity to consider the Bill further.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 658

NATIONAL FITNESS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill, although we are not entirely happy about the generosity of its provisions. The purpose of the Bill was stated by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his second reading speech in the following terms:

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the proceeds from commercialisation of activities conducted under the National Fitness Act to be paid into the National Fitness Trust Fund. In particular, the Bill will enable proceeds from the commercialisation of the national’ Life. Be in it ‘program to be paid into that Fund.

The important point about that statement which was supported by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives is that it does involve the commercialisation of the ‘Life. Be in it’ campaign and, in a sense, the commercialisation of national fitness in this country. In the House of Representatives the Minister for Home Affairs stated:

The ‘Life. Be in it’ philosophy is to encourage Australians to become more active. The campaign stresses the enjoyment and benefit to be gained from recreation. The long term objectives of the campaign are to change Australia’s attitudes and behaviour towards sport, fitness and recreation.

The present Bill seeks to grant $600,000 a year over three years to the National Fitness Trust Fund to promote the ‘Life. Be in it’ campaign. This totals $1.8m for the promotion of national fitness in Australia. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. It supports the Government’s program; but it has to say, reluctantly, that the program does not go far enough. The ‘Life. Be in it’ campaign is a brilliant concept in terms of design and commercial advertising. But the art is the art of the designer and not the art of the sportsman. It is brilliant, I suppose, in that it represents a notion which is attractive to everybody, a notion of full participation in all of life’s pleasures, particularly the physical pleasures. To that extent it can be contrasted with another view of life which, I suppose, is brilliantly summarised by Dorothy Parker in her little poem Resume, in which she says:

Razors pain you; Rivers are damp; Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp. Guns aren ‘t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

That is a very different philosophy of the reasons for being alive.

Senator Mulvihill:

– And very sombre, is it not?

Senator BUTTON:

– It is very sombre, yes, but it is a philosophy which has its attractions, as the honourable senator must admit. But it is very sombre compared with the notion put forward in the ‘Life. Be in it’ campaign.

We in Australia have now reached the point where governments have to spend admittedly limited funds on programs such as ‘Life. Be in it’ as a sort of artificial commercial stimulus to what ought to be a national activity- what in years gone by was characterised in the popular song Doin’ What Comes Natur’lly. I think when we are confronted with this situation of having to spend money on a commercial program to encourage people into these sorts of activities, it is perhaps time for a nostalgic sigh for the glories of the years gone by, time to ponder on the decline in the rugged society of homo Australis and time to examine some of the assumptions upon which our society operates. It is my purpose in this debate to try to make some contribution about those important issues. No one in the Senate, I would imagine, would argue about the importance of physical fitness. Norman Douglas in his great poem Siren Land, put it this way:

There is a beauty of fitness which no art can enhance.

Perhaps I could translate that noble message into commercial terms for the benefit of Government senators. Some of the less honourable ones would probably remember the famous student song called Lillian, which, as I recall, begins:

Lil was a girl, Lil was a beauty She lived in a house of ill-reputee She drank too deep of the demon rum She smoked hashish and op-i-um

Senator Puplick:

– It sounds like a Qantas advertisement.

Senator BUTTON:

– It does a bit. Perhaps the honourable senator could commend it to Qantas. He is pretty good on Qantas advertisements. The last two lines of that famous song Lillian are:

The moral of the tale of Lil and her sins Whatever your line of business, fitness wins.

I mention that for the benefit of Government senators, obsessed as they are with a line of business, and I would make the comment in passing that one suspects that the considerable decline in fitness is perhaps some explanation of the low level of economic and commerical activity in Australia at the moment. But of course there are other more important things associated with fitness with which I want to deal. These things are important not only for commercial reasons but also because of their relationship to national pride, national ethos, and things of that nature.

About 60 years ago during one of the more glorious periods in Australia’s history, John Masefield had something to say about the Australian man when he described the Anzac Corps which landed at Gallipoli in this way:

They were, however, the finest body of young men ever brought together in modern times. For physical beauty and nobility of bearing they surpassed any men I have ever seen; They walked and looked like the kings in old poems and reminded me of the line in Shakespeare:

Baited like eagles having lately bathed ‘.

That, of course, became part of the great Australian tradition, part of the Australian man’s perception of himself and it probably remained so as an important ingredient in the Australian national ethos and identity right up until the Second World War.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Robert Murray made that point in his book in the 1920s, following the era about which you are talking.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, I believe he did. With all due deference, as a younger man, I might say that the view in this Senate perhaps represents some of the fine qualities of that period. It was only at the time of the Second World War, of course, that there began to be a perception of some change in this picture of the Australian man which can be summarised in the following description by a surgeon commander of the British Navy:

Contrary to popular belief, the Australian male is not a superman. The magnificent specimens seen on the beaches, (lifesavers) and football fields are not representatives. Considering the abundance and variety of food, the unrivalled opportunities for sport of all kinds, and the almost perfect weather conditions prevailing in Australia, one would expect the average to be of higher standard.

Another British naval officer when commenting on Australian soldiers, and so on in 1973 said:

When I first saw Australians they were called cornstalks. Now just look at them- the number of Aussies in their thirties with bulging stomachs and bleary eyes is something shocking. The species has gone bad.

Those were the views of two observers commenting at the time of the Second World War and shortly thereafter.

Senator Grimes:

– How old are you?

Senator BUTTON:

– In speaking about this sensitive issue I must be very careful not to offend people such as Senator Grimes, who is sitting next to me, by involving myself in interruptions to what I have to say. As I say, I think we should ponder on the apparent decline which has taken place and the effect on that of national morale, national ethos, and so on. Of course there are many causes for a decline such as that. One of the causes is undoubtedly the increased affluence which has come about in Australian society over the last 30 years. But there are other factors such as the basic and significant move from a predominantly rural society to the most predominantly urban society.

There has also been a similar sort of move from manual to sedentary occupations. The education system of this country and indeed the aspirations of Australians in the last 30 to 40 years have been very much directed towards creating a nation of clerks in which the manual skills, the trade skills, tend to be despised in favour of the so-called white collar skills, the clerical skills of pen pushing, filling in documents, and things of that kind. At this point in our history we are beginning to realise for the first time that the most satisfying and rewarding jobs are probably those which involve manual skills rather than purely clerical skills. But is is a bit late now because several generations of Australians have been lost to that type of activity as a result of the aspirations which were encouraged in this country during that period. But what it all adds up to, in my view, is a lack of philosophical balance, which is perhaps nowhere better reflected than in this Parliament, between the activities of mind and body, and the need to relate the activities of both one with the other.

I said that I wanted to talk about two or three important aspects which seemed to me historically relevant. They are the perception of Australians in the early days as rugged, physically fit and, as Masefield put it, beautiful people which was reflected in the literature of this country at the time, and the sort of decline which has come about since. Later I shall examine some of the assumptions upon which the claim about a decline is based.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Of which part of the story are you an example, senator?

Senator BUTTON:

-May I come to that later? I want to think about that. If the honourable senator provokes me about it I will start coughing- I am a heavy smoker- and I do not want to do that. It is interesting that Senator Baume interjected because he is a constant reminder of these points as the Chairman of that important committee of this Senate, namely, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, which dealt with the matter of an intoxicated society. I want to put on record some of the conclusions that can be reached about that matter in 1979. First of all, from the Australian Bureau of Statistics there are some very interesting figures about alcohol and smoking in this country. There is a continuing increase in the overall amount of alcohol consumed by Australians. In 1975-76, the last years of the Whitlam Government, much less alcohol was drunk in this society than is drunk under the Fraser Government in the rugged society in which we now live. That is something which we do not often hear from Government senators, but it is true. The country has been driven to the drink by this Government. I refer to the specific figures. In 1975-76 187.8 litres of beer, 12.7 litres of unfortified wine and 5.1 litres of fortified wine were consumed per head of population of 1 5 years of age and over. Those figures have increased significantly since then. The Senate Standing Committee on Social

Welfare in its report Drug Problems in Australia -an Intoxicated Society? noted the lack of a specific government policy on alcohol use and abuse. The Committee recommended:

That the Commonwealth Government develop and announce a specific policy on alcohol and alcohol abuse, which should include a clear statement of the Government’s intention to bring about an overall reduction in the level of alcohol consumption in the country.

As far as I know, Senator Grimes, that invitation has not been taken up by the present Government.

Senator Grimes:

– That is correct.

Senator BUTTON:

– The report goes on to state:

We believe that a reasonable national goal would be to aim for a relative stabilization of levels of consumption within the next five years . . .

The expression ‘arrive at a reasonable level of stabilisation’ when used so frequently by Government senators is not applied to alcohol. The report continued:

  1. . followed by a 1 per cent annual reduction in levels of overall consumption in the next ten years.

One would imagine that that would be a modest attainment and would be about the level that has been achieved with the inflation rate in the past two years. Probably it is even within the grasp of this Government. That is the situation in relation to the consumption of alcohol as seen by that Committee and the Bureau of Statistics.

I turn now to the matter of smoking. In the Medical Journal of Australia of September 1977 it was shown that there had been a continuing downward trend in smoking among men and a continued increase in smoking among women. Surveys were conducted by Gray and Hill in 1974 and 1976. The survey in 1976 showed that 40 per cent of males smoked and the 1 974 survey showed that 4 1 per cent of males smoked. That is an improvement for which the Government can take credit. We are prepared to give credit where credit is due. On the other hand, the 1974 survey showed that only 29 per cent of women smoked, but by 1976 that figure had increased to 31 per cent. The 1977 report of the Royal College of Physicians entitled Smoking or Health stated:

Smoking has a deleterious effect on athletic performance . . smoking impairs the functions of the heart and lungs, and the transport of oxygen . . . These effects of smoking on exercise are mediated through various mechanisms.

The report goes on to explain why this is so. As honourable senators would now realise, that sort of report received a counter blast from a publication called Smoking is Good for You. I forget the name of the doctor who wrote it.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Dr Whitby.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, Dr Whitby’s publication Smoking is Good for You.

Senator Peter Baume:

– His name is engraved on our hearts.

Senator BUTTON:

-I remember Dr Whitby ended the final chapter of his book by stating that it is now time that smokers of Australia stood up for themselves and said where they really stood on the issue.

Senator Peter Baume:

– At page 2, he said that there is no lie like the big lie. I read the rest of his book in that light.

Senator BUTTON:

-I thank the honourable senator for his interjection. I suppose it is better to have the name of Dr Whitby engraved on one’s heart than it is to have cigarette smoke engraved on one’s heart. I appreciate Senator Baume ‘s assistance in regard to what Dr Whitby had to say. So the level of activity in the consumption of alcohol and the consumption of cigarettes and so on by and large has increased under the Fraser Government. That is something of which we should all be cognisant and should remember.

Senator Grimes:

– He makes them nervous. He frightens people.

Senator BUTTON:

-That is a helpful interjection; I hope it has been noted by Hansard. There have been numerous artificial ways of trying to counteract the situation which I have described: Increased consumption of alcohol; increased consumption of tobacco; a very high level of preferred activity in the consumption of tobacco among young people; the consumption of alcohol showing a very interesting and different pattern in various cities of this country, with young people in Sydney having a preference for bourbon, young people in Melbourne having a preference for port, and young people in Adelaide having a preference for brandy. All these interesting patterns are beginning to develop because the degree of consumption has become so high. To counteract this decline in the standard of Australian physical fitness and the addiction to those drugs which has developed under this Government a whole pattern of rather neurotic physical activity has developed to try to attain that goal which Norman Douglas spoke of when he wrote:

There is a beauty in fitness which no art can enhance.

I refer to all sorts of activities- for example, to jogging. A whole mass of literature on jogging is now available. I remember arriving in Hawaii in July last year. I had a Japanese taxi driver who did not speak English very well. We were driving through the streets and he kept saying to me: Look, yogging, yogging’. I did not know what ‘yogging’ was. I suddenly discovered that what was called a ‘Festival of Jogging’ was taking place in Hawaii that day. I literally watched for three hours while thousands and thousands of people of all ages streamed past jogging.

Senator Puplick:

– You just sat there and watched?

Senator BUTTON:
Senator Withers:

– Smoking.

Senator BUTTON:

– I appreciate Senator Withers’ parting interjection. It was quite accurate. This sort of neurotic activity is already taking place in Australia. As I said., there is a whole mass of literature on jogging and keeping fit, to which I shall refer in passing. For example, there are the Australian publications The Bachelors ‘Keep Fit’ Companion, Yoga by the Stars, Running High -

Senator Peter Baume:

– By Garry Egger.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, Garry Egger’s Running High. There is also Aussie Robics and The Massage Message for Fitness. That is just to mention some Australian publications which already are enjoying quite a degree of popularity. There is a number of publications of that kind. For example, one of the ones to which I referred, Running High, relates that jogging gives one ‘a sense of purpose’ in life- something which we were promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), incidentally, and we have now deteriorated into jogging to find it. According to the book Running High, running makes one high. It claims also that running ‘can be a great boost to the mental aspects of sex’ and leads to a body ‘that is more pleasure to touch’. The book states that ‘it is paramount to jog on all kinds of surfaces, grass, sand, pebble, asphalt, rubber and coir matting’. Running High contains a lot of comments such as those, including the comment that dogs are the worst enemy of joggers. That book sells widely in Australia. As I said, it reflects a sort of neurotic physical activity to counteract all the other influences to which I referred.

The other aspect to which I refer which goes again to the question of our national life and ethos relates very much to the question of Australian sporting achievements. There can be no doubt that Australia has declined as a sporting nation. Only a week or two ago, the great Bradman cricket team of 1948 enjoyed a dinner in Sydney at which tales were told of the great legends of past Australian cricket. Of course that team played during a legendary period in Australian cricket. It is very much a legendary period when one considers the recent performances of the Australian team in the test matches against England.

What one suspects very much is that far from being a participating sporting nation, as was much more the pattern I believe in the late 1 940s, Australia has become very much a nation of watchers of sport. This practice has been greatly encouraged by the commercialisation of sport and the televising of sport which, of course, has created an increasingly big industry in this country which looks like becoming much bigger in the near future.

But compare the great traditions of the 1948 cricket teams with the following description of a crowd at a Sydney test match only three or four weeks ago. An article in the Canberra Times which describes the crowd on the Hill at a test match in Sydney stated:

There the bellicose fans loll and writhe on the grass, hugging their capacious Eskys and sometimes, far far more infrequently, their women-folk.

The men are enormous. Most of them have arms the size of my legs and a visitor from an alien planet, beholding their horrific, grog-fed bellies, would suppose that on earth it is the men that gestate.

The article goes on:

This alleged interest in women makes an interesting contrast with the baying fellows’ apparent general preference for the company of their own gross sex on the Hill. It is obvious that wives and lovers have been forsaken for the day so that Bruce and Craig and Bloody Old Garry can have a Ripper Time, getting drunk together and massaging one and other’s porky bodies with Coppertone

The author of the article finishes up by saying:

And the big men wallow. They lie, contented and dazed, among their own appalling debris, the hillocks of their beer guts protruding above an uneven plain of billions of discarded cans, canons, . . . wrappings, partly gnawed junk foods, crusts and feasting flies.

They, the men as well as the flies, are blissfully happy. Both species are lucky to have such simple pleasures.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It does not compare with the first 48 hours of Captain Phillip’s arrival at Farm Cove with the first convict ships.

Senator BUTTON:

– There was less beer in those days. In another description of the same cricket match, the correspondent had this to say:

The gulls panted and the shirt of John Maclean stuck to his fat body. On the Hill most people wore nothing but loin cloths and hundreds were turning a hideous flourescent pink, their pain dulled, for the time being, by the contents of the huge Eskys with which they had struggled, groaning like limping weightliftersm into the ground.

The correspondent went on to say that the English did not have a very good lunch because they were doing very badly. He made the comment again that the crowd looked as though they might have been contestants in the world championship belly contest. In a further description there is again a reference to the crowd delving into their Eskys for consolation and basting their unpleasant bodies with tanning lotions. Perhaps there is a touch of hyperbole in those descriptions.

Senator Puplick:

– I was there, Senator; there is no exaggeration.

Senator BUTTON:

– There is no exaggeration at all. Might I say that had I been there I would have contrasted the people described with the honourable senator. But that, of course, is a sad picture of the decline of a much more participatory sporting nation one suspects to very much a viewing nation.

Perhaps I can illustrate my point in a more factual way. Australia as a sporting nation once dominated sports such as tennis, squash, women’s athletics, swimming and cycling. What I am saying relates in part to the terms of this Bill. It is just not that the performances of Australian athletes have deteriorated in terms of time or distance; it is just that the standards of other countries have improved. Perhaps there has been less of a pool from which to draw to develop a ‘sporting elite’, as the Bulletin was pleased enough to call it a few weeks ago, from which top quality athletes can be chosen.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about Gail Mulhall the greatest field athlete Victoria has produced in the last couple of years?

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, but I think that in terms of world standards they are more the exception rather than the rule these days. This is particularly so when one thinks back to the golden girls of days gone by.

Of course, there are specific political reasons and questions of political policy that have contributed to the relative decline in standards. One of those reasons is a lack of adequate funding by governments. Canada, for example, in the last three financial years has spent $21m, $2 5 m and $32m respectively on sport. This Government has spent just over Sim in each of those years. Much more funds were made available for sporting programs when the Labor Government was in office. In making that comment, I can see the generality of the Government’s economic strategy in relation to the number of matters of public expenditure. I acknowledge that we are now living in different times. But it still seems that insufficient emphasis has been given to sporting prowess and achievement in a national sense and perhaps too much emphasis has been given to what is referred to in the terminology of this Bill as the commercialisation of the nation’s fitness. I think that is an important comparison which we should remember.

There are just one or two other comments that I wish to make. Despite some of the things that I have said in my speech this afternoon, I emphasise that the degree of fitness in this country at the present time is not a flippant matter; it is a serious matter in national terms. National fitness relates to so many levels of activity and performance whether it be at work or any other aspect of the daily lives of the citizens of this country. Australia has a number of very great natural advantages in terms of climate, beaches and so on which, as the commentators to which I have referred point out, should give us a particular advantage compared with many other countries. However, it seems that, for a variety of reasons, some of which I have referred to, those things have just not happened. Some very cynical views have been expressed about why they have not happened. I quote one view which I am sure would be of interest to Senator Mulvihill because it concerns the question of athletic performances in the Olympics and so on. Phillip Adams takes the view that perhaps we were never good at any of these things; we were always losers. He says:

Look at the legend of Eureka Stockade where the miners were done like a dog’s dinner. Look at the patriotic upsurge that followed the slaughter at Gallipoli. Look at the downfall of the Whitlam Government. Let other nations rise from their ashes like the phoenix. We prefer to lie in them like an over-cooked chook.

I’ve always been proud to be an Australian. A citizen of a nation with a special talent for mediocrity and bludging, for laying around like lizards rubbishing the achiever, the intellectual, the tall poppy. If the Olympics gave medals for knocking instead of pole vaulting, for hurling abuse instead of the discus, we ‘d have gold medals coming out of our ears.

This is a different view of Australian society from the one which I sought to put in the course of what I hope is a constructive contribution to this debate on the question of national fitness.

There seems to be one exception and that relates in a sense to a natural advantage which we have. Of course it is in the area of surfing. Midge Farrelly, Australian surfing champion, expressed his philosophy of life in these terms: ‘When I’m hanging five on a big one, I feel close to God ‘. Perhaps there is in Australian society, particularly the surfing society, that sort of pantheistic, rather hedonistic view but one which is nonetheless important in relation to the sort of issue which I raised at the beginning, that is, the importance of this matter in terms of national ethos, national pride and so on. Perhaps we can get at it that way, through the Midge Farrelly philosophy; we can get back to the sorts of things which this Parliament is now seeking to do by appropriating $600,000 for the ‘Life. Be in it’ campaign. There seems to be a complementary process at work. One would hope that both would work towards the same purpose.

The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We commend it but regard it as a very limited sort of initiative. Perhaps that is all it purports to be, but perhaps there should be broader, wider and deeper initiatives taken in relation to the sorts of problems of national fitness with which this country is undoubtedly confronted and should not be confronted to the extent which it is. I commend the Bill, limited as it may be, to the Senate for those reasons.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– As my colleague Senator Button has made clear in his very concise remarks, the Opposition supports this Bill which will make it possible for the funds raised through the sale of Life. Be in it’ products to be paid into the National Fitness Trust Fund. The Commonwealth will contribute $600,000 a year to the program until 1980. Although this is a useful advertising campaign, the Government should recognise that its responsibility to the fitness of the community does not end here. Last year’s health bill, as Senator Baume will know, was $9,000m. A substantial proportion of the illness which was in the community results from a poor standard of physical fitness. The standard of the physical fitness is a legitimate concern of government.

When the Australian Labor Party came to power in 1972, virtually nothing had been spent on sport by the previous Federal Government. The Labor Government began a program of spending to encourage wide participation in sport. Within two years the annual budget had reached $llm. Since the Fraser Government came to power, Commonwealth funding of sport has almost completely disappeared. In 1976-77 only $9.7m was spent on sport. In 1977-78 only $6. 7m was allocated. Of that amount, $3. 7m went in grants to local and State governments and to sports organisations for commitments already made by the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975. The last Budget allocated $7.4m for youth, sport and recreation. Of that, only $1.3m will go to national sporting organisations.

The result of this shortsighted and miserly approach is that money is not going into the promotion of participant sport. Facilities are not being built. People are not being given the chance to take part in sporting activities like swimming, tennis, basketball, football, cricket and so on. Instead, spectator sports continue to flourish. Promoters of spectator sports can claim tax deductions for advertising cigarettes and alcohol as they promote their products through spectator sports. While the Government cuts back on the areas of expenditure which could promote physical fitness, it ignores, or refuses to deal with, health hazards such as smoking, analgesics and alcohol.

Let us take the analgesics problem. Most compound analgesics are habituating. Women use analgesics daily twice as often as men. The number of women with kidney disease is five to six times more than the number of men. Compound analgesics cause 20 per cent of kidney failure. Evidence of the overuse of analgesics has not changed since the report of the Senate Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse in 1971. Among patients presenting themselves for dialysis programs, the incidence of analgesic nephropathy has risen from 1 1 per cent in 1969 to 20 per cent in 1975; 94 per cent of analgesic powders are sold at shops other than pharmacies and 54 per cent of tablets are bought at pharmacies. So APC type analgesics are sold virtually everywhere.

From 1969 to 1972, $2m was spent on analgesic advertising throughout Australia. Compare that figure with the Australian Kidney Foundation’s budget which is less than $200,000 a year. Most of that is spent on research, not on much-needed education. Advertising expenditure for compound analgesics in 1974 was highest in New South Wales and Queensland and is proportionately far higher than for single analgesics.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I think I know where this has come from.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Baume seems to be familiar with the figures I am quoting. As a member of the Senate Committee on Social Welfare he should be familiar. But the point is that the availability of this evidence has resulted in virtually no action on the part of governments.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Not quite right. The States- both Labor and non-Labor States- are moving to limit the availability.

Senator RYAN:

- Senator Baume may be satisfied and be complacent with the reaction of authorities throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Peter Baume:

– But let us acknowledge what they are doing.

Senator RYAN:

– I expect Senator Baume will have an opportunity to participate in this debate. The reason why I bring to the attention of the Senate and the public the evidence with regard to analgesic abuse is that the response of the Federal Government to date has not been adequate. A response to the general health problems of the community as embodied in its national ‘Life. Be in it’ campaign is not adequate. It is admirable in its own small way, but it is not adequate.

I proceed to another topic with which Senator Baume will be more familiar, the problem of smoking or tobacco addiction. I ask Senator Baume to bear with me on what to him may be tedious repetition of well known facts but which are not facts as yet recognised and acted upon by the community. Tobacco smoking is responsible for between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of all deaths annually in Australia. There were 4,000 deaths from lung cancer in 1977. Half of cigarette-related deaths are caused by cardiovascular disease, mainly of the coronory arteries. Cigarette smoking among school children aged between 14 and 16 years increased from 40.9 per cent in 1 973 to 49.2 per cent in 1 977.

What can a Federal Government do in response to these horrific figures of tabacco addiction amongst our young people? The Norwegian Tobacco Act which was implemented in 1975 provides for a total ban on all tobacco advertising and promotion. Within a year of that ban coming into force in Norway, there were reductions in the consumption of tobacco products. Norway is the only country which has reported a decrease in teenage smoking rates and is the only country to have imposed a total prohibition on tobacco promotion. By contrast, in 1977, $9.3m was spent on media promotion of smoking in Australia. In 1977 tobacco companies spent $ 14m on advertising and promotion. A survey in 1969 showed that 56 per cent of males and 35 per cent of women over the age of 25 years were smoking. Later surveys suggested that approximately 40 per cent of the Australian population smoked cigarettes. While the tobacco industry has spent nearly $ 100m on advertising in the last six years, total Commonwealth expenditure on anti-smoking campaigns over the same period has been nearly $1.5m. Is it any wonder that we are making no headway in coming to terms with this dreadful health problem in our community?

Between 1972-73 and 1974-75 the Labor Government gave $500,000 a year for smoking education; but in 1975 Commonwealth grants ceased and very little anti-smoking information is now being disseminated. If the Government is really concerned about national fitness, as it purports to be by bringing this Bill before the Senate today, it should impose a total ban on all tobacco advertising and promotion, end all general and specific subsidies to the tobacco industry and make adequate funds available for anti-smoking education programs. I would be very interested to hear the response of Senator Baume to those suggestions.

When we turn to the problem of alcohol abuse in the community we find another very distressing situation. More alcohol than ever is being consumed per head of population, largely because it is relatively cheaper. I must acknowledge at this point the contribution made by my colleague, Senator Button. He brought to the attention of the Senate this afternoon the very interesting fact that there has been a significant increase in alcohol consumption in our community since the Fraser Government came to power. I put it to Senator Webster that that fact bears thinking about. The Commonwealth Department of Health estimates that alcohol has been a major factor in about 3 per cent of deaths in Australia and in about 30,000 deaths over the last 10 years. Deaths from cirrhosis of the liver rose from 4.8 per 100,000 in 1965 to 8.3 per 100,000 in 1974. At least 10 per cent of the nation’s health costs is related to alcohol. Hospital statistics show that 14 per cent of all patients entering mental health institutions are admitted with a diagnosis of alcoholism or alcoholic psychosis. It was estimated that in 1972-73 the total cost to the community in heath costs, losses to industry, road crashes and social welfare payments was over $1,1 77m. It has been estimated also by one survey that mass media advertising of alcohol totals 3 hours 40 minutes a night in the case of most secondary students.

Alcohol is promoted not only in advertising but also in films and television plays. How can we make any headway on the problem of alcohol abuse in the community when young people are being made the targets of commercial advertising through the mass media in this way? How can the Government expect us to believe that it is serious in its concern about alcohol abuse in the community when it takes no action to prevent this sort of promotion of alcohol to young people? Why will the Government not consider the banning of the advertising of alcohol? It should make its grants to sporting and cultural organisations conditional on their not accepting money from manufacturers and retailers of alcohol. There should be no more tax deductibility for expenses incurred in the promotion of alcoholic beverages.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I take it that you are endorsing all the recommendations of the Senate Committee, since you are quoting them verbatim?

Senator RYAN:

– I am endorsing the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. It would seem that the Government of which Senator Baume is a supporter has not yet done so, because we have seen no action with respect to the control of the advertising of alcohol on television.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It is a self-evident fact.

Senator RYAN:

– It certainly is. I suggest also that when considering national fitness the Government should also consider nutrition. The burgeoning fast food industry presents a serious health problem to our community. Additives such as saccharin, preservatives, artificial flavouring and artificial colouring are being used at an alarming rate. In countries such as the United States of America and Great Britain, governments are concerned at the health risks which are presented by the increasing use of chemicals in food. Processed foods are also dangerous to health because they frequently have no food value. As a result, children who eat large quantities of such food run the risk of serious dietary deficiencies. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that purveyors of food see to it that their products satisfy basic nutritional requirements.

If the Government is serious in claiming to be concerned about the general fitness and health of the community, it must do more than fund an advertising campaign such as the ‘Life. Be in it’ campaign. It must take positive steps to ensure that everyone has access to community facilities. It should act now to implement the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its report on the abuse of alcohol, analgesics and tobacco. The Government should investigate the implications of the growth of the fast food industry for the national fitness of the country. I suggest, in conclusion, that if the Government does not assume its responsibilities in these areas it is wasting its time and the taxpayers’ money in funding the ‘Life. Be in it ‘campaign.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is not my intention to speak at length on the National Fitness Amendment Bill. I rise only to put on the record some comments which I believe have to be made in respect of sporting matters. Let me say at the outset that, as Senator Button and Senator Ryan have indicated, the Labor Opposition has no objection to this Bill. It appears to me, from the remarks that have been made to date by my colleagues, that a great deal of reference has been made to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, over which Senator Baume presides, and its report on the problems involved in cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, the taking of analgesics and matters of that nature. Having read the report presented by Senator Baume ‘s Committee, I am well aware that it has suggested that action should be taken to stop the cult of the personality in sport being related to someone who smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol.

The simple fact of the matter is that today, either because of lack of government support or because of the cost structure of sporting organisations, many sporting organisations rely for their financial assistance to a very great extent on cigarette,companies, breweries and wineries.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Alas!

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Be it alas or otherwise, I am speaking of the practicalities of the situation as it exists today. As honourable senators will know, I am a supporter of the St George rugby league football team in Sydney. When the players run on to the football field every weekend they have the word ‘Penfolds’ on the front of their jerseys. The players of the Canterbury-Bankstown rugby league team have the word ‘Rothmans’ displayed on the front of their jerseys. The footballers in the Australian rugby league team which plays in the international competitions between England and Australia have the letters ‘KB’ printed on their shorts. Honourable senators who have watched international cricket will know that the Benson and Hedges company sponsors an award.

Senator Peter Baume:

– What do the Queensland rugby league players have displayed on their shirts?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will leave it to my colleague, Senator McAuliffe, to talk about that if he wants to do so. I am just saying in response to Senator Baume ‘s interjection that, be it alas or otherwise the fact remains that today sporting organisations rely heavily on financial assistance from breweries, cigarette companies, wineries and other companies. Invaribly, a golfing tournament will be sponsored by the Marlboro company or some other organisation. I believe that a certain amount of hypocrisy is spoken about this subject. It is all very well for us to tender nice, rosy reports; but if nothing is done by governments to help organised sport to exist and to develop, of necessity, sport must turn to these organisations for financial assistance.

It is all very well for us to say that cigarette smoking and the heavy consumption of alcohol are bad for society and that governments should do something about the problem; but, when we look at the amount of revenue that the Government derives from customs and excise duty collections on liquor and tobacco, we see that, while the sporting organisations rely on the tobacco companies, the breweries, the wineries and all these other commercial bodies for support, so also, to a very large extent, does the Government. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table that has been prepared for me by the Statistical Service of the Parliamentary Library setting out the amount of revenue collected from gross excise duty and customs duty on liquor and tobacco from 1973-74 to the estimated amount to be collected in this fiscal year 1978-79.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from information (i) contained in Overseas Trade Bulletin 1976-77, Part 2, (ii) obtained direct from the Bureau of Statistics, and (iii) contained in Budget Speech, 1978-79. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- In the last Budget brought down by the Labor Government the amount of customs duty collected for beer was $695m. This financial year it is anticipated that $982m will be collected. In the last year of the Labor Government $67m was collected on potable spirits and this year it is anticipated that $132m will be collected. In the last year of the Labor Government $542m was collected for tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and cigarette papers and this financial year it is estimated that $683m will be collected. On a percentage basis the anticipated increase from last year to this year in the amount of excise duty collected from beer sales is 28.4 per cent. The anticipated increase in excise duty collected on potable spirits is 71.4 per cent and the anticipated increase in excise duty collected on tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and cigarette papers is 20.9 per cent. I merely put those matters into *Hansard* for the sake of the record. In addition I seek leave to have incorporated in *Hansard* another short table setting out the amount of expenditure on youth, sport and recreation from 1971-72 to the estimated amount in 1978-79. It is a short table. Leave granted. *The table read as follows-* {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I merely point out that in the last Budget of the Labor Government in 1975-76 the amount spent by the Commonwealth on youth, sport and recreation was $ 11.4m. This year, 1978-79, it is estimated that $7. 4m will be spent, a drop of roughly $4m or nearly 50 per cent. When one takes into account that of that amount of $7.4m, $2.5m is for the 1982 Commonwealth Games in Brisbane, one can see that the amount spent by this Government on youth, sport and recreation is much less than the total spent by the Labor Government when it was in office. Therefore, having made those points, I indicate merely that if the Government is niggardly in its approach to sporting organisations and until the Government becomes more involved in the funding of sporting organisations, because of the high costs involved these days, sporting organisations of necessity will be forced to rely heavily on the cigarette companies, the breweries and the wineries. {: #subdebate-42-0-s3 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- National fitness for Australians is a very important subject and it is encouraging that both sides of the Senate are in agreement with the purposes of the National Fitness Amendment Bill 1979 which has just been debated. I thank honourable senators who have contributed. They have made interesting remarks in relation to various aspects of fitness in that they see some of the factors in the community at this time as being either encouraging or discouraging to both our youth and to our more senior citizens. Fitness is a matter which has become of great importance to us. The debate which has just concluded roamed over such aspects as the consumption of cigarettes and alcohol. In fact the last contribution made by **Senator Douglas** McClelland, appealing in some way for a consideration of the requirements of sporting organisations today, is one which might well prompt the Government's attention. Organisations are developing all the time which require secretarial services and which have other features which need to be supported. Certainly the remarks that have been made will be drawn to the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs **(Mr Ellicott).** The Bill that is before us is a very short twopage Bill which enables the proceeds from commercialisation of activities conducted under the National Fitness Act to be paid into the National Fitness Trust Fund. The Bill outlines various matters which will be considered to provide income from certain activities and I think that there is little more for me to say other than to thank honourable senators who have participated in the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. {: .page-start } page 668 {:#debate-43} ### AUSTRALIAN MEMBERSHIP OF THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- I seek leave to make a statement relating to Australian membership of the International Energy Agency and to move a motion to take note of the paper. Leave granted. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -With the approval of the Opposition I suggest that the statement might be incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The statement read as follows-* As honourable senators will be aware, the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** announced last week that Australian membership of the International Energy Agency had been approved unanimously by IEA member countries at a meeting of the Agency's Governing Board held in Paris on 1-2 March 1979. My intention now is to elaborate on the background to that announcement. Australia will now become the twentieth member of the IEA. Its other members comprise Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Government's decision to seek membership of the IEA was based on a comprehensive review over the last year. Following this, detailed negotiations were undertaken with the IEA over the terms and conditions on which Australia could accept membership. The Government believes that participation in the IEA will bring substantial benefits to Australia and that the terms and conditions negotiated will fully protect Australian interests within the Agency. The IEA was established in 1974 as an autonomous institution within the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with the aim of implementing an International Energy Program- IEP- set out in the Agreement authorising the establishment of the Agency. The Agreement, to which all member countries have acceded, encompasses: The Emergency Oil Sharing SystemEOSS involving concerted action to allocate oil equitably between member countries, through active co-operation between member governments and the major oil companies, in the event of a significant supply interruption; the holding of required levels of oil stocks to be drawn upon in an emergency; the introduction of demand restraints in an emergency; An extensive information system on the international oil market as well as the provision of energy data and analyses; Regular consultations with the major oil companies; reducing dependence on oil; The promotion of relations with oil producing countries and other consumer countries, including developing countries; The IEA's institutional arrangements. Since the IEA's creation, agreement was reached in January 1976 on a Long-Term Co-operation Program- LTCP- to promote energy conservation, accelerate the development of alternative energy sources, encourage and promote, through joint energy research and development projects, new technologies for the efficient production and utilisation of energy and to work towards the realisation of the Program. In October 1977, the IEA decided on 'Group Objectives and Principles for Energy Policy' which provide a coherent international policy framework to assist governments in the definition of their national energy policies and as a basis for reviewing their policies on an annual basis in future. These basic documents underly the day to day activities of the IEA and set out the principal obligations of membership. I table copies of the Group Objectives and Principles for Energy Policy for the information of senators. The review which led to our joining the Agency followed and complemented the Government's consistent development of Australia's energy policy. The review identified the very close accord which our own national energy policy has with the policies of the IEA as expressed in its various programs. In joining the IEA, we have achieved satisfactory conditions fully in accord with our national interests. Acceptance of the Agreement on an International Energy Program and decisions of the Governing Board of the IEA is to the extent that these are compatible with Australia's Federal constitution and our policies on foreign investment, the development, export and marketing of uranium, including our policies with regard to nuclear nonproliferation and our policies with regard to the export of other energy resources. These important conditions were incorporated in Australia's membership application. I table for senator's information the formal declaration made by Australia on its membership. Australian participation in IEA activities will therefore proceed on a basis fully consistent with the Government's policies and with the Federal constitutional system which governs the division of government powers that may be involved in relation to those activities. The Government will consult fully with the State governments and the Northern Territory, through the Australian Minerals and Energy Council, the oil industry and other interested groups on a regular basis concerning Australia's activities in the IEA. Any legislation which may be required in relation to IEA programs will be formulated on the basis of full co-operation with the States. The International Energy Agency has developed into the major forum for continuing consultation and co-operation on energy matters between most of the major industrialised nations which are Australia's principal trading partners. While at the time of its establishment its principal concern was with the operation of the Emergency Oil Sharing System, the scope of its activities has evolved over time. Greater emphasis is now being given to efforts to develop long-term co-operation on energy aimed at seeking ways to facilitate a smooth and orderly transition away from a world which is over-dependent on imported oil to one based on alternative and diversified energy sources, particularly renewable sources. This is an objective which Australia fully supports. Furthermore, the only effective means of dealing with the important energy policy issues facing the world over the coming decades is through close international co-operation and consultation in the energy field. Australia's decision to join the IEA reflects the importance the Government places on such co-operation which forms an integral part of our overall national energy policy. Moreover, Australia is one of only a few industrialised countries which has the potential to remain a significant net exporter of energy during the remainder of this century. This places us in a position to make an important contribution towards the activities of the IEA. Membership of the IEA offers Australia a number of significant advantages: Access to on-going comparative analyses and exchanges with other industrialised countries on the whole spectrum of energy matters which could be expected to assist Australia substantially in the formulation and implementation of its national energy policy; Increased opportunity for Australia, as a potentially major net energy exporter to demonstrate the Government's determination to make energy resources available on reasonable terms to its major trading partners and to influence the views of other industrialised countries on energy matters; Involvement in the IEA's long-term cooperation activities concerning energy conservation, including the forthcoming major IEA conservation campaign; the development of alternative energy sources, for example steaming coal and liquefied natural gas, and joint research and development projects; Participation in the IEA's Emergency Oil Sharing System, which would offer Australia greater assurance of its particular requirements being met in the event of a significant oil supply shortfall; Improved access to information on the international oil market and the activities of the major oil companies, at a time when Australia anticipates becoming more dependent on imported oil over the course of the next decade; Improved insights into the economic, political and strategic implications of the international energy situation as it develops; An avenue for fostering contacts on energy matters with developing countries, including OPEC countries. Benefits will also flow to the States and industry which will have the opportunity to participate in appropriate programs. I should like to take this opportunity to explain to senators in some further detail the nature of the obligations Australia is now assuming as these relate to the Government's existing policies. The export of crude oil from Australia is subject to government control. In this regard the Government has pursued a policy, established in times of relative international stability in the oil market, that domestically produced crude oil be processed in Australian refineries in order to supply the requirements of the Australian market for petroleum products. This policy will continue and it is the Government's understanding that, having regard to the current level of Australia's selfsufficiency in crude oil and an anticipated decline in this level in the future, it would not expect that the degree of emergency which the Emergency Oil Sharing System- the EOSS- is designed to accommodate would be likely to require the net export of domestically produced crude oil from Australia. The Government understands that the obligations it would be assuming during an emergency situation would more likely relate to the diversion of occasional cargoes of imported crude oil to other member countries. On the other hand, as a participant in the EOSS, Australia will be in a position to ensure that its specific oil requirements are maintained as far as possible during an emergency. This is particularly important for Australia's imports of heavy crude oil, fuel oil, marine bunkers and naphtha which are specifically taken into account in the product allocation and product stream provisions of the EOSS. In certain circumstances Australia might wish, consistent with the obligation it is assuming under the EOSS to export some indigenous crude oil in order to ensure, through access to suitable imported crudes, an overall balanced supply. In relation to the IEA's targets for oil stockpiling, the details are left to the internal domestic arrangements of each country, but Australia's current oil stocks position is more than adequate to meet the IEA targets. In view of its concern to see that the interests of regional neighbours were not adversely affected by Australia's joining the IEA, the Government has confirmed that, consistent with its obligations under the Emergency Oil Sharing System, Australia would be able to continue its normal exports of petroleum products to Papua New Guinea, Fiji and other Pacific and Indian Ocean countries and territories in accordance with its historical oil trade patterns. I should like also to emphasise that Australia's decision to join the International Energy Agency should not be interpreted as a change from the Government's long-standing policy of promoting contacts on energy between both producing and consuming countries, including developing countries. Rather, it represents a step aimed at developing closer contacts on energy matters with our major trading partners. Australia will continue to take opportunities as they arise to foster closer co-operation with developing countries, including oil-exporting countries, on energy matters and to promote a resumption of a wideranging international energy dialogue. The Government has, of course, been active already in promoting co-operation with developing countries at the regional level through the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and we hope that such co-operation will be extended to the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations in the near future. I should like to turn attention now to the world oil situation in the light of recent events in Iran and the disruption to oil supplies from that country. There are considerable uncertainties in the world oil position. There is concern about supply shortages, currently estimated at two million barrels per day; there are wide fluctuations in 'spot' prices, now well above the official selling price of about SUS14 per barrel; some exporting countries are applying surcharges. Because of these developments supply and demand must be brought into balance as soon as possible to provide stability in both supplies and prices. Regarding oil prices in Australia, we will be calculating on 1 July a price which will reflect the price of light Arabian crude as set by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries last December. Spot prices are not reflected in the price-setting formula in any way. The price has already increased by 8.5 per cent on 1 January and is estimated to increase a further 5.3 per cent on 1 July. If the official OPEC price should increase beyond the announced 14.5 per cent increase over 1979, then clearly the Government would need to review carefully the total situation. At its meeting on 1-2 March 1979, the IEA Governing Board agreed that member countries should take firm, prompt and co-ordinated action to reduce their demand for oil. Specifically it was agreed that: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) IEA countries will contribute to a stabilisation of the world situation by reducing their demand for oil on the world market. The reduction would be in the order of 2 mb/d which would correspond to about 5 per cent of IEA consumption. Each participating country will regard this as guidance in the policies it will pursue to achieve its contribution to this reduction. These policies are expected to yield equivalent results in participating countries; 1. accordingly, each participating country will take short-term action by promptly applying effective and adequate methods appropriate to its individual circumstances to- {: type="i" start="i"} 0. reduce demand for oil- by more efficient use of energy and avoidance of energy consumption which is not essential for maintaining a high level of economic activity; by utilising existing possibilities for short term fuel switching away from oil, replacing it wherever possible by alternative forms of energy; 1. maintain and develop indigenous energy production at high levels; 2. take into account the potential to shift to non-premium grades of crude oil, adjusting regulatory systems wherever possible and advisable; 3. adopt, where necessary, domestic pricing policies which would support the achievement of the above objectives. The Australian Government welcomes and supports this action. The industrialised countries of the world cannot expect oil exporting countries to co-operate in increasing production levels to compensate for the Iranian shortfall unless they are prepared themselves to pursue conservation and moderate the rate of growth of demand for oil. Australia intends to play its part in meeting these objectives. Most of the IEA countries are oil importing countries and the programs they adopt will have the effect of achieving a 5 per cent saving in both imports and consumption. In Australia's case, however, because we import only 30 per cent of our requirements, and these imports are basically to meet demand for specialised products such as fuel oil, bunker oils and lubricants, which cannot be derived from indigenous crude oil, it may not be possible to achieve a full 5 per cent saving in consumption by this means. Nevertheless, if we are able to increase indigenous production and /or increase the utilisation of existing refinery capacity, we may be able to reduce demand for some imported products, including motor spirit. It is essential that we respond to the call to reduce demand for oil by more efficient use of energy, avoidance of energy consumption which is not essential, and pursue short term fuel switching where possible. We have a sound oil pricing policy which is fundamental to achieving oil conservation. It has been estimated that the current pricing policy will achieve 4 per cent savings in consumptions in the short term. The GovernorGeneral, in his speech to Parliament on 21 February 1978, said: >A national energy conservation program will be carried out in association with the States, industry and interested groups. I have just received a consultancy report, commissioned by the Government, to help with planning of the campaign. I will be discussing with my State colleagues in the Australian Minerals and Energy Council this week the early implementation of this fundamentally important national campaign. Within government, I have initiated a review of the scope for energy conservation, particularly in relation to petroleum. The Department of National Development is working with the Oil Industry Supply Committee to identify options and priorities for fuel saving. The Government is already actively engaged in interfuel substitution projects. For example, the extended automotive use of liquid petroleum gas has the potential to replace up to 11 per cent of motor spirit consumption. The development of the North West Shelf natural gas will facilitate the displacement of fuel oil presently used in large industrial markets in Western Australia. Other measures introduced or being considered by the Government in the field of energy conservation include the consideration of standards and regulations covering vehicle fuel consumption standards, which could reduce motor spirit demand by at least 9 per cent by 1987; octane ratings for motor spirit; suspension of the lead phase-down program; deferral of engine emission regulation changes, and collaborative research and planning on standards for improved thermal performance in housing units and buildings. However, all of these initiatives which are inherently sound will be successful only if there is community understanding of the problems and support for the objectives of petroleum conservation, especially in the present circumstances arising out of the Iranian situation. I take this opportunity to invite the support of all members of this Parliament and to call on Australians as a community to accept the need to change substantially their attitudes to the use of oil and to engender in the community the necessary attitude that there is a better and wiser way to use available oil supplies. I encourage Australians, in the interest of a sound approach to energy policy and to energy conservation, to lend support to individual initiatives on energy conservation. I believe the Government's initiative in joining the IEA is timely and important for Australia's future and I commend this statement to the House. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- I present the following paper: >Australian membership of the International Energy Agency- Ministerial Statement, 8 March 1979. and move: > >That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by **Senator Douglas** McClelland) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 672 {:#debate-44} ### TACTICAL FIGHTER FORCE EVALUATIONS {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP -- I seek leave to make a statement relating to the Tactical Fighter Force Evaluations and to move a motion to take note of the paper. Leave granted. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- With the concurrence of the Opposition, I suggest that this statement also might be incorporated in *Hansard.* I seek leave for that course to be followed. Leave granted. *The statement read as follows-* I wish to inform the Senate of the next step that will be taken towards the acquisition by the Government of tactical fighter aircraft to replace the Mirage. Honourable senators may recall that in April last year they were informed of the Government's plans to acquire new fighter aircraft. In October last the Senate was informed that operational technical and industrial missions would go overseas in the first half of 1979 to examine four selected aircraft to ascertain their operational suitability, and to discuss the capacity and willingness of manufacturers to satisfy our industry objectives at acceptable cost. The Royal Australian Air Force project is proceeding as planned. Much information has been collected. That information includes the likely demand from other governments and, as a consequence, the production prospects for the aircraft we have short-listed. Development of the aircraft which are being considered by the RAAF has also been progressing. The development of these aircraft is in various stages. The General Dynamics F-16 has now started to enter service with the United States Air Force. The McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 and the Dassault Breguet Mirage 2000 have reached the test flying stage. The Northrop F- 1 8L, a proposed derivative of the F/A- 1 8, is not yet a firm program. The Government proposes now to send a mission of RAAF specialists and officers concerned with Australian production matters to examine further all aspects associated with the TFF project. The succession of deliberate steps which the Minister is taking reflects the nature of fighter aircraft technology and the large questions which need to be adequately answered. There has been a revolution in fighter aircraft technology. Designs have been radically changed. Engines are much more powerful. New concepts have been adopted. Fly-by-wire control systems, new non-metallic structural materials, integrated avionics and weapons systems controlled by onboard digital computers- these are but a few of the more significant advances. In our Air Force, they would have to be maintained and modified as necessary in Australia within the industrial and technological resources of the country. Fighters are now of enormous complexity compared with those we have already operated in Australia. Our strategic and geographic circumstances differ in many respects from those of the countries for which the aircraft have been primarily designed. Roles here will differ from roles in Europe or North America, and weapons fits may also differ. The new fighter should have high performance capabilities not only in its principal roles of air defence and air combat, but also in airtosurface roles. It should have the ability to carry a heavy load of munitions over large distances in adverse weather, and to strike surface targets accurately with stand-off precision weapons. The selection of such an aircraft from what is available or in prospect must be made with great care. The evaluations will call for many different professional skills. Each aircraft and accumulated flight and design data and onboard and ground based systems will have to be examined in scrupulous detail to determine how, and at what cost, they could meet our particular needs. The evaluation team will be led by Air ViceMarshal H. A. Hughes and will include experienced fighter and test pilots, engineering specialists in the wide range of technical disciplines involved, and officers experienced in supply, logistics, and costing. It will comprise thirteen people and be overseas for about two months from 29 March. This operational technical team will probe and assess the claims made by manufacturers. It will examine the hardware and test fly aircraft. It will discuss with other armed services that are actual or potential users of the aircraft their view of roles, methods of operation, and what is involved in maintaining serviceability. We must also plan for the parallel advances that will have to be made in Australian industry. The new technologies of the fighter will have to be learnt and practised in our industry so that local production and servicing capabilities will be available of the kind that I have indicated. The Department of Defence, working closely with the Department of Productivity has explained to contending manufacturers the need for arrangements that place a continuing program of relevant work in Australian industry at reasonable cost. Proposals to achieve this have been sought from the manufacturers. A team led by **Mr G.** J. Churcher, a senior officer of the Department of Defence, having substantial aircraft production experience, responsible for industry matters, will go abroad in mid-April. This team will comprise five people, including specialists in the various fields of aircraft engineering, manufacture and maintenance. It will draw on the extensive background already acquired by the major Australian aircraft firms, each of which has recently made visits to overseas manufacturers' plants. The industry team will work in close collaboration with the operational/technical team and follow up matters arising in its investigations. After both teams return to Australia, there will be a necessary period of consolidation and assessment of information by the RAAF and the Department of Defence in concert. Recommendations will be brought forward for Government consideration later in 1979 with a view to negotiation of a satisfactory contract as soon as practicable thereafter. We shall reduce the list of contenders to a single aircraft as soon as practicable. When that will be feasible will depend on what our RAAF mission tells us about the aircraft and their weapons, and our industry mission tells us about the prospects of an adequate offer by the various overseas manufacturers to Australian industry. I shall inform the Senate of the Government's conclusions thereon. I remind honourable senators that we shall be relying on this new fighter until the early part of the twenty-first century. The Government is determined that this important and costly demerit of our Defence Force will be the product of meticulous, timely and thoroughly professional evaluation. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -I move: Debate (on motion by **Senator Douglas** McClelland) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 674 {:#debate-45} ### POULTRY INDUSTRY LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1979 {:#subdebate-45-0} #### First Readings Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by **Senator Carrick:** >That the Bills be now read a first time. {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory -- I take the opportunity on this first reading of these money Bills to deal with two broad areas, namely, the entry to Australia of foreign born wives of Australian nationals and later the action of the Northern Territory Government in extending the limits of towns in the Northern Teritory. Looking first at the topic of the entry to Australia of foreign born wives of Australian nationals, I am prompted to raise this subject because of the problems faced by men in Darwin who have married girls from Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and other such places. Let me assure my female colleagues that I am not being chauvinistic about this matter. I have no knowledge of the problems faced by Australian female nationals who go overseas and are in the same situation. What I am saying will apply to both male and female Australian nationals. I will draw my examples from men because they are the ones whose cases I have in front of me. I will use that gender in the argument. Now, men who go overseas seeking foreign born wives usually do it in two ways. Either they go overseas to marry after a mail courtship or they go overseas for a holiday, meet a woman and marry her. The first group- that is, those who have a courtship by mail and then go overseas and marry- do not have a great deal of difficulty if they make the arrangements before they go. I stress this: Arrangements must be made beforehand. There are a number of formalities both from Australia and from the country of origin of the wife that must be dealt with. I ask simply of the Government, or the Department in this case, that some publicity be given to the fact that there are formalities that must be observed. The second group do face difficulties. They are the group who go to a place overseas, marry and want to bring their wives home with them. Of course, one can accept the proposition that they would want to bring their wives home. They go to the embassy or the commission and are told that they will have a wait of anything up to eight or nine months before they can bring their wives home. It is not usually as long as that- I should make that point- but they are told this. They are told that that could be the time lag before the wives will be free to join them in Australia. They are told to go back to Australia, to make application here and then the formalities will proceed. In other words, after the wedding, after any time they may spend with their new wives in the country, any Australian national is told to leave his wife behind and return to Australia and make application there. Mind you, it is a little disturbing that, if the husband does stay a couple of weeks longer in the country of origin of his wife, he can often make the arrangements and bring his wife back with him. I have seen this happen. I have seen a number of cases. I have no idea how they managed to do it when the Department told them that it would take eight or nine months but they managed to get through the formalities in a couple of weeks. Nevertheless, this has happened. I am concerned more at this stage about the husband who does take the advice of the commission or embassy and does come home to wait some months for his wife. I am disturbed about the one who is able to stay, who can afford to stay that extra two or three weeks and then bring his wife back with him. I am concerned because it indicates a lack of consistency and a lack of good advice on the part of the embassy or commission. I will come back to that proposition later on because there are one or two other examples that I want to mention. I put the proposition quite clearly that the wife of an Australian national should be allowed immediate entry to Australia subject only to a medical check for contagious disease. I stress the word 'contagious'. I have had a case indicated to me of a man whose wife was not allowed into Australia because she suffered from epilepsy. This to me is incredible. We know that tuberculosis is a problem in some of the South East Asian countries. Again I do not see that there should be any problem if the wife has non-active TB. There is no reason why she should not come home with him, with treatment provided for her by her husband in Australia. The treatment is the responsibility of the husband. It is exactly the same situation if a man married a local girl who was later found to have TB and it needed treatment. Obviously we all know what will be said: Women will marry to get into the country. We will have marriages of convenience. As soon as the wife gets here, she will leave the husband and remain in Australia. This is said because it is a nice easy generalisation. I see it as an insult to the husband. It denies him relationship which he has built up with this woman he has chosen to marry. There is no doubt that if there were cases of this, they would be in the minority. It seems most unfortunate to keep out the majority who would wish to come in to try to meet the problem created by the minority. When we were dealing with the Cyclone Tracy fund, I remember a comment made by an officer of the Salvation Army. We were not dealing with this problem; we were dealing with the distribution of funds. He made a statement that the philosophy of the Army was that it is 'better to be had than be hard'. I think that that is not a bad thought to keep at the back of our mind. If the Department or the Government is concerned that there are these marriages of convenience, and that women will come here, drop their husbands and go off into other areas of Australia, surely it would not be beyond the wit of the Department to devise some sort of scheme of length of time that the couple must stay together. There could perhaps be a 12-month limit or some such time set. I am sure that this would be acceptable. I am sure also that every man who marries would expect the marriage lasts. We could have some sort of entry visa for 12 months to allow the wife to come back with her husband and then continue to live with him in Australia. Of course, the next thing that people will say is that the wife must be carefully screened. She might perhaps be undesirable politically. Let us face it: There are many politically undesirable people in Australia. The Government benches are full of them. We should not keep a person out of the country because of that particular problem. But again, seriously, it is an insult to the husband to say that he has not made the right selection. There must be no discrimination on the basis of politics or religion, against the people we bring to Australia. I think there would be a general acceptance of that proposition in this chamber. The other situation that is suggested is that hasty marriages do not last and it is good to make people wait. I will not accept this proposition because I do not agree with this sort of paternalistic approach by any government. After all, it is a cheek to suggest to a man that he has married in this short two or three weeks time and that he had better go home and think it over before he marries. One could even put the proposition: What percentage of local marriages last? It is not a decision for a government or a department to make. It is a decision for the man and for the woman involved. A cynic might say that the Australian national overseas has few rights. Because in this matter residents have the same rights as the nationals; or, putting the emphasis the other way, nationals have no advantage in being Australian nationals in this matter. Let us look at a couple of other countries to see what they do. I have information from the High Commissioner's office of the United Kingdom that if a British man marries a Commonwealth citizen- and that is an interesting phrase for us because, perhaps we do not recognise Commonwealth citizens as such; in other words a member of a country which is part of the great Commonwealth- he simply has to obtain a certificate of partiality and then there is immediate entry. This is for places like Sin- gapore,Indiaandsomeoftheotherplacesto which our Australian nationals go. If a British man marries other than a Commonwealth citizen- in other words, marries a woman from a country which does not contribute to our Commonwealth heads of government conferences- a visa will be issued within a few days. I put this hypothetical case to the High Commission. Assume a man went on a holiday for a month and met a girl in the first week. Could he bring her home with him? It was quite clear that that would be plenty of time for a visa to be issued and for the wife to accompany her husband home. The situation in New Zealand, to take the example of our near neighbour, is that if applicants marry in a place such as the Philippines, they make an application for entry to New Zealand and it is processed immediately. Again probably a couple of weeks' was the comment made. There are some limitations on people coming into New Zealand, but the comment made by the High Commissioner was that the wife would be unlikely to be debarred on the grounds that apply to other applicants- that is those who do not apply as the wife of a New Zealand national. I refer to physical fitness, educational level and so on. Other countries could also be studied, but I mentioned those two simply to give an example. Much more could be said, but I do not want to hold up the Senate on this subject. I ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs **(Mr MacKellar)** to consider this matter and perhaps to suggest a full debate on it. The Minister might care to have a statement made in this place to justify the present policy and then allow honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to debate it. I would like to mention a couple of other matters in the broad field of immigration. Before I do so, let me make it quite clear that I am not critical of the Department. I do not raise this as a criticism. I raise it as a matter of policy, which is a government matter. I have good relationships with the officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, as no doubt all of us here do. I do not agree with some of the policy decisions, but certainly, as I indicated earlier, they are the responsibility not of the officers but of the Government. I would like to look firstly at the matter of refusing to issue nomination forms for entry. Obviously a decision has been made by the Department to restrict the issue of these nomination forms. No doubt this is a result of the staff cuts and the economy drive of the Government, but it has caused a number of problems. I cite an example from Fiji. The *Fiji Times* of 4 January this year carried an article headed: Australia changes its immigration rules'. I would like to read part of it because there is a lot of good information in it. It states: >Fiji citizens may now find it easier to migrate to Australia if they have relatives or friends there. > >A change in Australian migration policy includes a relaxation of conditions for re-uniting families, the Australian High Commission said in a statement issued by it in Suva yesterday. > >Quoting the Australian Minister for Immigration, **Mr Michael** MacKellar, it said if a prospective migrant had friends or relatives in Australia already this would be 'one factor taken into consideration because of the obvious advantage this gave in overcoming settlement problems. ' > >Australia wanted to further emphasise family reunion while 'maintaining a proper standard of selectivity,' **Mr MacKellar** said. Later in the article this was written: > **Mr MacKellar** said the new system eliminated race, colour, nationality, descent, ethnic origin and sex as points factors. > >What mattered was economic and employment aspects and the personal and settlement side of migration. > >Some of the factors are: > >Work skill standards possessed by an applicant and the demand in Australia for these. > >The employment record and experience and personal qualities applicable to proposed employment in Australia. > >Whether an applicant had a job waiting in Australia, or enough money to start a business. > >Fluency in English, standard of education and literacy. > >An applicants approach to migration, his financial worth, and sponsorship or nomination by a relative or friend . . . > > **Mr MacKellar** said the new system was the product of 'the most comprehensive review of immigration policy in Australia 's history ' and was intended to achieve a net gain of 70,000 people a year during the first three years of its use. Not surprisingly, many people in Fiji were interested in this article and in coming to Australia. Many felt that they met the criteria outlined in the article. They contacted an Indian Fijian in Australia who is now an Australian citizen. This man of whom I am speaking went to the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and asked for a bundle of nomination forms so that he could complete them. The girl at the desk asked for details of those he wished to nominate and, on the basis of his reply, refused to give him forms. As far as I am concerned, this is completely untenable. A decision of this sort cannot be fairly made at the front desk. With respect, each nomination is entitled to consideration. I am not being at all critical of the girl at the front desk, but obviously more consideration is needed than just an oral recitation of the names of the people who wish to come in and the criteria that they hope to use. The man then went further and asked for the guidelines on which the officer was basing her decision. He was told that guidelines were not available and that, because the Government is constantly changing its policy, they could not be printed. I accept that the Government often changes its policy, but surely a statement must be available. It must be available to the officer behind the desk and it must be freely available to anyone who seeks the information. The guidelines, or preferably a copy of them, must be accessible to citizens. At least people should be able to have a look at them. I would like to cite another incident which deals with the consistency I mentioned earlier. Following representations from a constituent, I sought approval for a man travelling to Holland to bring back his nephew with him. I put the case to the Minister, it was considered and the Minister wrote back and said that the nephew would not be permitted to enter Australia. In other words, he denied the application. I met the man in the street a few weeks later and went to commiserate with him on the Minister's decision. He introduced me to his nephew who had come back with him. This perhaps can be said to be an isolated incident, but it is not good enough. Obviously this situation will be duplicated through the various offices in Australia. I stress that there is a need for a consistent policy both in Australia and overseas. There is a need to investigate whether perhaps some of the local staff of the embassies and the high commissions have been the recipients of gifts. These claims have been made. I have not made them and I do not make them here, but certainly claims have been made. It helps if one is prepared to pay sufficient money to the local staff- presumably the locally recruited staff. I do not wish to pursue the matter at this stage. It is not the issue at which I want to look. But I ask the Minister to look at the situation facing the Australian national who marries overseas and wishes to bring his wife back to Australia. I ask the Minister to make conditions easier for such a person to do so. I move now to the second of the topics that I would like to look at in this debate on the motion for the first readings of these Bills- the action of the Northern Territory Government in extending the limits of towns in the Northern Territory. This matter has received a good deal of publicity in the last few days, both here and in the Northern Territory. It has been claimed by the newspapers, rightly I believe, that this action was taken as a ploy to pre-empt Aboriginal land claims. The matter has already been raised at Question Time by **Senator Bonner** who beat me to the punch on Wednesday after I had failed to be called to ask a question on Tuesday. I do not mind that, because it shows that there is a nonpartisan approach to this situation. I hope that the comments I will make now will be seen in the same non-partisan way. I am concerned, as no doubt **Senator Bonner** and other honourable senators are, that the rights of the Aboriginal people be safeguarded. I do not think I have to remind honourable senators that the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act restricts a claim to unalienated Crown land and specifically excludes areas within town boundaries. Of course, as we know from the Act, these are subject to a needs claim only. With that in our minds, we understand why the Northern Territory Government took the action that it did take. I make the point also that the action was taken by regulation. In other words, there was no public notice of an intention to do this thing, there was no chance of public objection, as there should be to the change of any town plan, there was no consultation with the Aboriginal people, there was no consultation with the rural communities and, I assume, although I have no information about this, there was no consultation with local government. I make this statement because quite clearly last year the members of the Howard Springs group overwhelmingly rejected a suggestion that they might become part of the city of Darwin. I do not think I need to go into the reason why they rejected the proposition that they should be included in the city council area. It is not necessary to dwell on it. I am not a lawyer but I would suggest that the action which has been taken by the Northern Territory Government could possibly be ultra vires- beyond the law. What was done? The limits of Darwin were extended from Cox Peninsula to Adelaide River. Those who know the Territory will know that Adelaide River is about 70 miles from Darwin. I understand that the area which has been gazetted- I have before me a map of the area which unfortunately cannot be included in *Hansard-is* in excess of 4,000 square kilometres, which is greater, I understand, than the area of Greater London. It includes claims of the Larakeyah tribe and other tribes. I should like to read comments from the *Star,* a newspaper circulating in Darwin, which was published last week. I will not read the whole article but in speaking of the changes it said: >The changes were made by regulation. > >These were published in the Northern Territory Government Gazette No. 52 of December 29, 1978. Later in the article- I read these comments just to indicate the reaction of some of the locals- it was stated: >The NLC's - That is, the Northern Land Council's- . . chief field officer, **Mr Gavin** O'Brien, says the notification of the changes was made just one day before the now adjourned hearing of the claim to Dum-In-Mirrie Island began. So much for **Mr Everingham** 's promise of consultation', he says. 'But we understand that Europeans living on the Cox Peninsula have not been told either. And these changes will affect them'. **Mr O'Brien** says the Aborigines will proceed with their claims despite the changes. We basically say that the Territory Government is attempting to circumvent land claims. There was no consultation before it acted. Yet **Mr Everingham** had said consultation was the best method '. In the Katherine area the township has been extended to include the area of the Gorge and the area leading up to the Gorge. Many claims in this area have been made and many can be made. The Alice Springs township has been extended to include many land claim areas in the Alice Springs area. Perhaps the very disturbing situation is that of Borroloola, as if Borroloola and the people there had not been treated sufficiently harshly by the Toohey decision last year. I have spoken on this matter, as have others. In the **Sir Edward** Pellew group, one of the islands not granted by **Mr Justice** Toohey has been declared a town site. Obviously we know that the particular island- I mentioned this in my earlier speech- is one which is wanted by Mt Isa Mines for a deep sea port. This action will undercut the negotiations which were taking place between the Aboriginal people and Mt Isa Mines. The action cuts right across the intent of the Northern Territory land rights legislation. As far as I am concerned it is a 'slap in the eye' for the Federal Minister. It is not dissimilar to the action taken by the Queensland Government. The Minister has already been asked what action he intends to take. He says that he will 'have discussions' with the Chief Minister. One wonders whether he will cave in as did his predecessor in the Queensland situation. In view of the Northern Territory Government's decision, if the Aborigines do not get support from the Federal Government, what actions could they take? I stress that I am asking what actions they could take. I am not saying that they will take them but it would be understandable if they did. There are a number of actions which they could take. They could refuse permits to white people to enter Aboriginal land. One could imagine the effect this would have on the mining development, tourism and so on. They could refuse to consent to the transfer of the Kakadu National Park. A question was asked in this chamber today as to when the lease expired. There is no doubt- and possibly the questioner knew the answer when he asked the questionthat the lease expires on 30 April 1979. They may not renew that lease. Honourable senators can imagine the effect that would have, as it is a requirement of the Federal Government's plans. They might refuse to sign the Narbalek mining agreement which has not yet been signed by them. That would put a stop to that venture or at least delay it for quite some time and cause the Federal Government to have to intervene in the national interest, something which it is not doubt reluctant to do. They could issue proceedings for the exclusion of public roads from all Aboriginal lands. They could reallocate their resources to concentrate on land claims for Borroloola and not proceed with the land claims for the Alligator River stage 2 area. Those who have been following the situation in the Northern Territory will know the implications of such an action. These are extreme actions. I am not suggesting that the Aborigines are going to take such action but certainly they could do so and they could frustrate the present plans of the Federal Government. The Minister has indicated today that he has sought talks. Let us hope that they will be a little more productive than the talks which were held by his predecessor with the Queensland Government. I do not know whether he will do much good with his talks. I read from a Press statement put out on 7 March by the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in which he said: >The Northern Territory Government has done more for Aboriginal advancement in the past six months than Commonwealth governments of both political persuasions have achieved in the past 60 years. A man who makes those sorts of statements is not likely to be amenable to reason. Later in the Press statement, speaking of the action which he took to extend the town limits, he said: >It was a simple move to ensure that there would be land available for urban expansion for industrialism, market gardening and farming use in the future. Finally, he said: >The actions of the Northern Territory Government have been taken to meet the expectations of the whole Territory community now and in the future. There would be some challenge to the proposition that the comments made in that statement represented the justification, the rationalisation, the reason for the action taken by the Northern Territory Government. I call on the Federal Government to press its rights, to carry out the recommendations of the joint committee which put down its report last year and to take a stance on this issue to protect the rights of the Aboriginal people. The Northern Territory Government claims that it is looking to the future. I claim that it is attempting to frustrate Federal laws to protect the interests of small groups. I am not knocking the Northern Territory Government as I am so often accused of doing. I am simply interested in seeing the interests of the Aborigines protected and the Federal laws upheld and not frustrated. The Government has a clear responsibility in this matter, given to it by the 1967 referendum and the passage of the land rights legislation in this Parliament. If I can paraphrase the line that was used so often by people who learnt typing years ago, now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the Aborigines and of justice. {: #subdebate-45-0-s1 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania -- I want to take a few minutes to deal with a matter that has been of some worry to me over the last few months. Earlier today I had intended to ask the Leader of the Government a couple of questions, not in anger but in the hope that the Government would reconsider its decision to go about buying two Boeing 707 VIP aircraft. That decision has been announced. It has been announced also that the decision was made for security reasons. I want to spend just a few minutes discussing why perhaps it should not be done. We already have a VIP fleet in this country. We have, I am advised, two BAC 1 1 1 aircraft which are fairly long-range twin engined jets; we have a couple of HS 748s which are propeller driven aircraft suitable for smaller strips; and we have three Mystere 20 aircraft which are also twinengined aircraft. I can see that there is some reason for getting an aircraft with more than two engines if we are to fly over long patches of water. In that situation, where one engine might become unserviceable, we might also suffer depressurisation which would mean that we would have to descend and travel at a lower level and therefore use up a lot more fuel. I have always felt that our present VIP aircraft use too much fuel. I am sure that Ministers do not endear themselves to the Australian taxpayer by floating around Australia in these kind of aircraft. The BAC 1 1 1 aircraft which we have are in pretty good condition. They have flown very few hours. {: .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa: -- Can the new one land at Hobart? {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -- I will get to that in a minute. If **Senator Sibraa** wants to speak he should just make a few notes and follow afterwards. It is about time some of the Opposition members spoke up about some of these matters. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- 1 always do. I criticise the Department annually. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -The honourable senator should be quiet or he will not have a feather to fly with either. Trust him to speak on the chook Bill. We have these BAC 1 1 1 aircraft. They are in very good condition because in the period that we have had them they have done only a few hundred flying hours each year. Therefore they have really done the equivalent of only a couple of years' service in a commercial sphere. Used commercially, they can carry about 80 people; in their present configuration I think they carry 22 or 23 people. However, it is the average loading that is of interest. The average loading of the BAC Ills since they began operating has been about 1 1 . So we have aircraft that are big enough to carry 80 people when used commercially going around Australia carrying an average load of only 1 1 people. They are still valuable aircraft. Because we have only two of them a special supply of spares has to be kept and the Royal Australian Air Force has to have special technicians. So, they are also very expensive aircraft to operate. If we must go in for overseas aircraft- I am not sure that we need to- my suggestion is that those two aircraft be sold and replaced by two of the smaller Boeing 727-100 series aircraft which were available until recently. Those Boeing aircraft could then be modernised. I have been advised that it is quite possible to fit them with larger fuel tanks and the larger motors of the Boeing 727-200 series aircraft. I am not sure of the number of that jet motor, but it has a thrust of 15,500 lb, compared with the 14,000 lb thrust of the 100-series motor. {: .speaker-YH4} ##### Senator MacGibbon: -- It is the JTD-15 that they are after? {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -That could be right. I am advised that these aircraft could carry 50 people in relative luxury and since they could operate on smaller airstrips we might not have to spend the money proposed to be spent on the extensions at Canberra Airport. Today I received a letter from the Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** saying that the priority given to upgrading the Hobart Airport is very low. I wonder how the upgrading of the Canberra Airport has been given such a high priority. If the Boeing 727-100 series aircraft were fitted with bigger fuel tanks and bigger motors they would be able to carry sufficient fuel to go on these necessary international flights. Another tremendous advantage is that they could be serviced by either Trans-Australian Airlines or Ansett Airlines of Australia, which could carry the spares. The RAAF then would not need the special technicians and we would not incur the cost of maintaining only two aircraft. Qantas Airways Ltd is getting rid of its Boeing 707 aircraft because when the number of a particular type of aircraft in a fleet becomes small it is not economically sensible to retain them. Of course, the Boeing 707 is a bad aircraft in high cross-winds. It cannot land on and take off from small airstrips as easily as can some other aircraft, particularly the Boeing 727-100 series aircraft. So the RAAF will end up with a fleet that will include the Boeing 707 aircraft but we then will have to keep the BACIII aircraft because the Boeing 707s will not be able to do the jobs: that the BACH ls are now doing. The RAAF will have two Boeing 707 aircraft, and engines and spares for them. These aircraft will need to have new engines fitted to meet current American requirements. The aircraft we are getting from Qantas are not suitable for operation in America. I have already mentioned how expensive the BACIII aircraft are; but the cost of operating the Boeing 707 aircraft will be higher. I received a letter from the Department of Transport on 10 November last year. It cites the hourly cost of hiring aircraft for continuation and /or conversion training of departmental examiners of airmen. For a Boeing 707 aircraft the figure is $1,950 an hour and for a Boeing 727 aircraft it is $1,372 an hour. That is a difference of nearly $600 an hour. Even allowing for the fact that the RAAF might be able to make some fuel economies because it would not be paying duty, there is still a tremendous difference in cost between operating a Boeing 707 aircraft and operating a Boeing 727 aircraft. What is the cost of running a Boeing 707 aircraft? I received a letter from **Mr McLeay,** the Acting Minister for Defence, on 8 February 1 979. The last paragraph of that letter stated: >In regard to your question of 7 November 1978 regarding the acquisition and operating costs of these aircraft, the Government has approved their acquisition at an estimated cost of $14.5m. Costs of operating and maintaining the aircraft, including personnel costs, are currently estimated at $4.5 m a year. You may wish to bear in mind, however, that a substantial proportion of the operating time of the aircraft is expected to be in Defence applications. What defence applications? There is nothing that the Boeing 707 aircraft can do that converted long-range Boeing 727 aircraft could not do. Honourable senators might be interested to read the rest of that letter, so I seek leave to have it incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. Acting Minister for Defence Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 8 February 1979 Dear **Senator Townley,** On 7 and 14 November 1978, you asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate for information concerning details of the Government's proposal for the acquisition of special aircraft to be used on overseas trips by the Prime Minister. You sought inter alia to have all correspondence that has taken place between the Government and the Air Force tabled in the Senate, and you requested assurances that no decision would be taken on the matter whilst the Parliament was in recess. Communications between the Government, the Department of Defence and the Air Force contain material which by common practice is confidential to the Government. Furthermore, the papers contain information on proposals made by various commercial organisations which has been supplied on a confidential basis. In view of these circumstances, therefore, and in the light of the information which has already been made public in the discussions which have taken place in the Parliament on this matter, I cannot agree to the papers being tabled. As to the timing of a decision, you will be aware that it has been announced that the Government has decided to buy two Boeing 707 aircraft from Qantas to fulfil the need for special aircraft for use by the Prime Minister on visits overseas. This decision was taken in the light of the strength of security advice to the Government that the Prime Minister could not indefinitely continue to put other airline passengers at risk while travelling overseas on Government business. Furthermore, the aircraft have a range of defence applications. In regard to your question of 7 November 1978 regarding the acquisition and operating costs of these aircraft, the Government has approved their acquisition at an estimated cost of $ 14.5m. Costs of operating and maintaining the aircraft, including personnel costs, are currently estimated at $4.5m a year. You may wish to bear in mind, however, that a substantial proportion of the operating time of the aircraft is expected to be in Defence applications. Yours sincerely, {: type="a" start="j"} 0. e. Mcleay **Senator M.** Townley, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator TOWNLEY: -What does the cost of running these two aircraft at $4.5 m a year really respresent? It represents almost double the total salaries paid to honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives. What a scream there would be if we doubled our salaries. There would be a heck of a brawl. But that will be the cost of running these huge 160- seater aircraft to carry the average load of 1 1 people that the BAC1 1 1 aircraft have carried. They are noisy and will need to have new motors fitted at a cost of another $4.5m. There is also the cost of extensions to the airport at Canberra. They are going to cost more to run than the Boeing 727 aircraft. I seriously suggest that the purchase of these aircraft will not benefit the Government politically or economically. I cannot agree that it is a good idea to go ahead with their purchase, in spite of the security aspect which is mentioned in the letter which has just been incorporated in *Hansard.* I hope that the Government will change its mind. Perhaps it can keep the $20m it will need to buy those aircraft and spend some of it on either extending the airport at Hobart or building the second bridge over the Derwent River for which it does not seem to be able to find the money immediately. Perhaps it could be spent on something **Senator McLaren** would like done in his electorate. I do not think that we can afford to spend this amount of money now and we cannot afford the political jet blast we will get every time these aircraft are seen. We should not get the idea that people will forget this type of thing, because they will not. They will remember it for a long time, and no doubt our opponents will remind the electors of it at election time. Why on earth do we need two Boeing 707 aircraft? Air Niugini flies approximately 4,000 hours a year with one Boeing 707 aircraft. It has schedules to keep to, and it seems to manage. So why must we have two? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no sensible reason for it. Two aircraft cannot be operated more cheaply than one. When one looks at the average loading that I have mentioned, the Government's proposal seems crazy. The reliability of the Boeing 707 aircraft also points to this proposal being unwise. Personally I would rather have the Prime Minister a few hours late for an appointment than spend an extra $ 10m to buy that second 707 now and an extra $2m a year to run it. All I am asking is that common sense prevail. On 27 November 1975, which sometimes seems a long time ago, a policy speech was made by the present Prime Minister in which he said: >There will be an end to Government extravagances and excesses. > >There will be no international safaris by members of Parliament. The purpose of overseas trips will be subject to clear guidelines. Australia does not need a tourist as a Prime Minister. I ask that we do not go ahead with the madness of this purchase; that it be reconsidered. If anything the Government should buy a 727-100, increase the fuel capacities and fit bigger motors, because such a decision, I am sure, would be politically wise and would make economic sense. {: #subdebate-45-0-s2 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -Although the Bill before the Senate is the Poultry Industry Levy Amendment Bill, this is about the only time I will mention poultry in the speech that I will make on the first reading. However, I will be speaking at length on the Bill at the second reading stage, because poultry is a matter in which I am very much interested. Having sat here and listened to the words of **Senator Townley** from Tasmania, I think this is the first time I can say I fully agree with his comments. It was music to my ears to hear him report in detail his criticism of his leader, and to relate to the Senate once again the words of the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** in his policy speech of 1 975, when he criticised the then Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** and described him as a gadabout and a tourist Prime Minister. **Senator Townley** has now told us that the present Prime Minister, in his tours around the world, has left **Mr Whitlam** miles and miles behind. **Senator Townley** talked about the thrust of certain motors in certain types of aircraft. The main thrust of his speech today, however, was a thrust right into the heart of the Government and the Prime Minister, a severe criticism of the present Government's policies. It is very pleasing to know that he has now joined the Opposition in criticising what the Government has been doing ever since it attained office in 1975. It has been making many false promises to the electors and failing to carry them out. I look forward to seeing **Senator Townley** in the future having the intestinal fortitude to cross the chamber and support the Opposition in many of its criticisms of the Government and in trying to bring about a better deal for the electors of Australia. I hope that copies of his speech are spread far and wide. I will certainly make many copies and send them to people I know who would be very interested to read what he has had to say, particularly his criticism as a member of the Government parties, of the $14. 5 m cost for two aircraft and a further cost of $4.5m each year to the taxpayer to maintain and operate them, all for the benefit of an extravagant Prime Minister. {: .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley: asked whether the runways at Hobart Airport and Canberra Airport were to be lengthened. But he failed to mention whether there was to be any lengthening or upgrading of the runway at the Hamilton Airport, close to the residence of the Prime Minister, also at heavy cost to the taxpayer. But enough said about that. That is not the ooint that I rose to sneak on. There is one other matter that I want to touch on briefly in support of the plea made by my colleague from Darwin, **Senator Robertson,** concerning immigration. Certainly there needs to be a rethinking of the immigration policy of this Government. I presently have a case before the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( **Mr MacKellar).** I will not mention names, but it is about a matter which is causing great concern to the parents of a boy who arrived in Australia with them when he was three months old. The parents were British subjects and subsequently took out Australian citizenship. This boy was a very good scholar and he was very active in the boy scout movement. He later joined the Royal Australian Navy and served with distinction for *3Vi* years. He was honourably discharged, and decided to have a working holiday around the world. During that holiday he found himself back in England, the place of his birth, and decided to stop there for a while, and he sought a job. However, he stayed just that much too long to put him over the specified time, so that he now finds himself classed as what might be termed an illegal immigrant. He is not allowed re-entry into Australia. His parents live here; his father served with distinction in the armed forces; he served in the Royal Australian Navy for 3% years himself; but when he applies to return to the land which he claims as his homeland he is not allowed to do so. I hope that something can be done. I have spoken to the Minister about this matter, but I am concerned that it seems to be dragging on and no quick action is being taken. Officers from the Department of Immigration have told me the only thing which debars this young fellow from returning to Australia is that he has a sister living in England, His sister came to Australia with her parents, married a British subject and went back to England to live. Because the boy has one sister living in England he is refused permission to come back to the country which he calls his homeland and in whose armed forces he was prepared to serve for *Vh* years. The matter that I want to raise in particular is the plight of the railway workers in South Australia and the proposal to close many of the country rail services. It will be recalled that on 16 November last when we were debating the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and the estimates for the Department of Transport my colleague, **Senator Bishop,** spoke at length on railways. I spoke also, and detailed to the Senate the results of a public meeting held at Tailem Bend on 28 August at which a great deal of concern was expressed to the dignitaries who attended that meeting. I remind the Senate of the people of import in the railway industry who attended that meeting. Representatives of primary industry and other spheres of industry were also in attendance. Amongst those who attended were: **Mr Geoff** Virgo, M.P., South Australian Minister for Transport; **Mr V.** Dyason, General Manager, Australian National Railways; **Mr J.** Porter, M.H.R., member for Barker; **Mr W.** Nankivell, M.P., member for Mallee; **Mr N.** Alexandrides, State Secretary, Australian Railways Union; **Mr R.** Matthews, State Secretary of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen; **Mr B.** Busch, State Secretary, Australian Transport Officers Association; **Mr Grant** Andrews, State Secretary, United Farmers and Graziers; and **Mr Talmac** Research Officer of the Australian Railways Union. I also attended. The Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** was invited to attend but for some reason best known to himself he could not. The record of that meeting is detailed in the Senate *Hansard* of 16 November 1978. That meeting did not produce any good result. The railways commissioners were advised of the problems which were looming and the concern of the people not only at Tailem Bend but throughout the Murray, Mallee and the Riverland. That plea apparently fell on deaf ears. I refer to a report contained in the *Murray Valley Standard* of 15 February 1979, which indicates how the local Australian Railway Union members at Tailem Bend held up the Mount Gambier passenger train and removed from their bunks many of the railway commissioners to have a meeting on the platform there. Among those commissioners was **Mr Dyason,** one of the head men of the ANR. After holding up the train the ARU members were able to extract from the railway commissioners a promise that they would return to Tailem Bend at a date to be fixed to address another public meeting in an endeavour to outline to the people, particularly the railway people, something of what was in store for them in the future. That meeting has been set down, I think, for 20 March. Unfortunately it is a sitting night of the Parliament and of course the Minister will be unable to attend because he will be needed here. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- I do not think he will. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- He may not be, but I suppose that as an excuse he could say that his services would be required here because he is under some flak on other matters. However, I am informed by the convenors of the meeting for 20 March that they are prepared to put the date back a few days to enable the Minister to attend. I understand that **Mr Porter,** the member for Barker, has contacted the Minister about attending this meeting. I have seen a copy of his reply in which he said he would write to let the people of Tailem Bend know when he could attend as soon as he could determine a suitable date. However, this meeting is going to take place on 2 1 March. Twelve points will be put to the railways commissioners. As I said, that meeting date can be changed if **Mr Nixon** can rearrange his program and be there on the Friday night, which is a non-sitting night. I hope that he can do that. Railway people will come from everywhere to attend the meeting. Some of the questions which will be put forward, to which the railway people will want an answer, are as follows: What is the long term future of the Murray Bridge division, particularly the Waikerie, Barmera, Loxton, Peebinga and Pinnaroo lines? What is to happen to housing for both Australian National Railways and State Transport Authority employees, with regard to rents, maintenance and upgrading? What are future employment prospects? What is the policy of the Australian National Railways Commission marketing section? Are any details available on the proposed salt evaporation pans between Meribah and Taldra? If so, what effect will they have on the railways? Under what guidelines does **Mr Hobbs,** the efficiency inspector, operate when planning cutbacks in staff? These are questions which the railway people, the towns people and the business people of Tailem Bend will want answered on 2 1 March. As I said, they are very concerned about the proposed closure of those country railway lines. Arising out of the meeting which was held in August, petitions were circulated and these have been presented to the Parliament. I have presented them to the Parliament, as has **Senator Bishop.** I am not sure whether my colleague, **Senator Elstob,** has presented them. As we have received them we have presented them to the Parliament. Many have been presented in the other place also. These petitions point out the consequences that will be experienced if the Government goes ahead with its policy, through the Australian National Railways Commission, to close down those lines. I have had figures for the number of signatures to those petitions extracted. I found that in 1978 nine petitions containing 1,563 signatures were presented in the Senate and 13 petitions containing 3,907 signatures were presented in the House of Representatives. In the short time that the Parliament has sat in 1979, three petitions containing 125 signatures have been presented in the Senate and six petitions containing 265 signatures have been presented in the House of Representatives. That makes a total of 5,860 people who have signed petitions to the Government calling on it not to close down country railways. As I said, this matter is of grave concern. Many of the district councils have written to the convenors of the previous meeting and to the convenors of the meeting to be held on 21 March. I shall read part of a letter, which is of great importance, from **Mr Wood,** the District Clerk of the District Council of Pinnaroo, to **Mr R.** V. Bannon, Chairman of the Tailem Bend Community Co-ordination and Co-operation Conference at Tailem Bend. It states: >Council advises that it is greatly concerned with the downgrading of Country Rail Services. My Council has no details available on an overall state position regarding the downgrading, however it is greatly aware of the problem in the Pinnaroo area. > >Our goodsrail services have been cut back to three times a week and this has affected various people in the town . . . These people included business people. The letter continued: >In addition, the town's bus/rail service timetable has been changed to what is considered by many as ludicrous, especially from the point of view as a passenger service. A person has to board the bus at 3.00 a.m. if a trip is required to Adelaide. It is most unsuitable for the main users, i.e. Pensioners and school children who attend school in Adelaide. > >Council has pressured State and Federal Parliamentarians and the ANR however no results were achieved. **Mr Acting Deputy President,** being an old railway man, you will know that in the early days of the Australian Railways Union organisers had to travel around the country on motorbikes. **Senator Bishop** was one of those railway organisers and he has told me - {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Are you talking about **Senator Mulvihill?** {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Yes, I am talking about **Senator Mulvihill.** He is an old railway man, as is **Senator Bishop.** {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- He is occupying the chair at the moment. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Yes. I did address him as **'Mr Acting Deputy President'. Senator Bishop** has told me that the service from Pinnaroo to Adelaide now is becoming worse than it was when he used to ride a motorbike from Pinnaroo to Adelaide on a dirt road when he was organising for the ARU. So, instead of the railway services going forward and progressing, we find that they are going backwards under this Government. I am sure that organisers of the ARU are very concerned about that. As a matter of fact, they have expressed their concern to me. No doubt they have expressed their concern also to **Senator Bishop,** as an ex-official of the union. I know that he too is concerned to see that conditions for railway men which he helped to build up over the years when he was a union organiser are now going to be taken away. These railway men will either have to leave the district or find other jobs. **Mr Wood** in his letter to **Mr Bannon** said that the goods rail service had been cut back to running three times a week. I am reliably informed from a telephone conversation I had the other day with a certain gentleman- I will not reveal his name- that it is now proposed to cut that service from three services to two services a week. It is anticipated that the Tailem Bend-Waikerie and Tailem Bend-Pinnaroo services, which are now twice-weekly services with an extra service in the fruit season, if required, are going to be cut to once-weekly services. The Tailem BendLoxton service is going to be reduced from three times a week to two times a week and the Renmark service, which is in the heart of the Riverland, is going to be reduced from five services to four services a week. Having been in the Riverland some weeks ago and having talked to users of the railway, I know that the people there are concerned that, if these services are cut back to such an extent they will not service adequately the people who are now using them and those people will turn to another means of transport. This will then give the Government an excuse to say: 'The people who live in the area are not using the services so we will cut them out altogether'. Then we will have no railway service into the Mallee areas of South Australia or into the Riverland. We will then face further problems because all of the commodities which the railways now cart for primary producers at a cheap rate, such as grain and superphosphate, will have to be carried by private road hauliers which the Government will have to subsidise. I pointed that out when I spoke to the meeting at Tailem Bend on 2 1 August. I am reliably informed by a very close friend who has a large property holding in the Western District of Victoria that when the Victorian Railways Department closed down certain country lines it subsidised private road hauliers to cart superphosphate and grain. If this happens in South Australia and the Government has to find massive amounts of money to subsidise private road hauliers, quite apart from the money that will have to be found by the State Highways Department to spend on upgrading the roads to keep the road hauliers operating so that they can cart the grain and superphosphate, we will have to do a mathematical calculation to find out whether the Government and the taxpayer will be any better off financially overall by the railway services being cut out because they are said to be running at a loss and the road hauliers then being subsidised. That is quite apart from the fact that, if this occurs, we will have any number of people who are on the railways being displaced from their work. We will then have another problem. At Murray Bridge, where I live, we have what is known as a superintendent's office- it is sometimes referred to as 'the college'- where all the clerks who administer the whole railway system work. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- It has been there since 1927. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Yes, it has been there since 1927. No doubt **Senator Bishop** has been there on his motorbike in earlier days. What I am concerned about is that approximately 12 people work in that administration centre in the superintendent 's office at Murray Bridge. If that office is transferred to Adelaide we will find that in the town of Murray Bridge, which is a thriving country town at present, 12 families either will have to find other work in Murray Bridge, which is very difficult at present because of the Government's fiscal policy, or will have to shift to Adelaide. Many of these people have reared children at Murray Bridge. Some have grown up and married and some still have children going to school. They have bought their own homes in Murray Bridge. What will their situation be? They will have to quit their houses, probably at a deflated value because if all the houses come onto the market at once prospective purchasers will play one against the other and these people will be in desperate financial trouble. The Government ought to be taking this into consideration. I am further informed that it is the intention of ANR, no doubt at the behest of the Government- I am not blaming **Mr Dyason** because I have a lot of faith in him, fighting as he does for the rights of the railways, trying to upgrade the railways and to maintain work for railway workers- further down the track, between Murray Bridge and Mount Gambier in particular, to squeeze in administration services and train control. More railway workers will then find themselves either on the scrap heap or out of a job. They will have to take other work. This is of very grave concern. I ask the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle),** who is responsible for this legislation in the chamber tonight, to draw the attention of **Mr Nixon** to the remarks I have made. I made a plea in this place when we debated the Appropriation Bills. Everything was set out in detail. A public meeting was held at Tailem Bend on 21 August and no doubt **Mr Dyason** reported to the Minister. **Mr Dyason** has no doubt reported to the Minister that he was dragged out of his bed at Tailem Bend in the early hours of the morning some weeks ago. He had to meet with railway workers of Tailem Bend. He was in his pyjamas. Luckily this meeting took place in the middle of summer and he did not catch a cold. He had to listen to these men, and he gave them a good hearing. No doubt he has reported those problems to the Minister. No doubt the results of the meeting, if held, on 23 March will be reported to the Minister. I hope that now the Minister has been approached officially by **Mr Porter,** the member for the Federal seat of Barker, and after the Minister has read my pleas this afternoon, he will send word to the railway people at Tailem Bend very soon that he is prepared to talk to them on Friday night, 23 March, in the company of his commissioners, so that we can resolve this matter. It is' important that the people of Tailem Bend, Murray Bridge, Waikerie, Barmera and Loxton have some idea of what is in store for them in the future. At the moment they face the not very bright prospect of having to crowd into Adelaide because there will be no work for them in the country. This Government claims that it supports decentralisation. Now it has the chance to prove to us that it really does support decentralisation by doing something to keep the ANR operative in South Australia. The ANR is this Government's responsibility. It was taken over by the Commonwealth when Labor was in power. Some criticism was made of this action. However, people often tend to overlook the fact that **Mr Bolte,** when he was the Victorian Premier, first made the offer. He said that he would be quite happy to hand over the Victorian railway system, which was experiencing difficulties, to a Federal government. He had the opportunity to do this when Labor came into office, but he reneged on his offer. Tasmania and South Australia have handed over their railways. I hope that in the near future the Federal Government will see fit to take over the New South Wales railways which is subject to mounting debt. I am convinced that if our country railway system were controlled by the ANR the people who use the system would get a better service and the people who work in the system would be assured of employment. Our railways would not be conducted in the present haphazard way. At present we have the Victorian railways system, the New South Wales railways system, the ANR system and the Western Australian railways system. I do not think we need mention that apology for a railway that operates in Queensland- that tramway. However, the present system is no fault of an Australian Labor government. The Queensland railway system needs to be upgraded as well. I have said on many occasions that the ANR needs to take the bull by the horns and overcome unemployment by putting forward a policy to construct a dual track from east to the west in this country. Such a scheme would soak up a lot of unemployment. Work would be created for private enterprise in the manufacture of the goods needed to construct the railway. Goods would be able to be carried quickly by rail from the eastern seaboard to the western seaboard at a very cheap rate. Private enterprise would not be able to compete with such a service. In addition we would not be up for the massive amount of money that we always have to find to upgrade roads. I could talk at length on this subject. However, I know that my colleague **Senator Walsh** wants to say a few words. I hope that the Minister for Social Security will take up my remarks tonight and that within a few days or so I will be advised that **Mr Nixon** has decided to come to Tailem Bend to speak at a public meeting on 23 March. {: #subdebate-45-0-s3 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator WALSH:
Western Australia -- At the end of November last year the Government announced that the first advance payment to Australian wheat growers would be $75 a tonne less growers' freight. It also evidently arranged for the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank of Australia to make an advance to the Australian Wheat Board of about $800m to pay that first advance. At that time it was expected that the total deliveries would be something less than 12 million tonnes. By mid-January, when most of the grain had been harvested, it was apparent that the final deliveries would be in the vicinity of 17 million tonnes. It is now expected that even that figure will be exceeded. So between 5 million and 6 million tonnes more wheat will be delivered than was anticipated at the time the Government made that financial decision. Consequently, an extra 5350m to $400m has been pumped into the money supply, adding about one per cent to it from that source alone. The effect on the money supply, at least in the short term and for the extended term as I will demonstrate in a minute, of advancing this money to wheat growers through the Rural Credits Department of the Reserve Bank is conceptually identical to printing 350 million to 400 million dollar notes. The effects of this big addition to the money supply will persist for longer this year than they normally do. The wheat growers have nearly all the money now for the 17 million tonnes they have grown. But there is a physical limitation on the amount of wheat that can be shipped from the country, regardless of what the marketing conditions may be. That physical limitation is somewhere between 10 million and 12 million tonnes. So the export credits for a large amount of wheat will not be earned within 12 months. Consequently the additional potential income will not be realised and the Government will be likely to be forced to continue borrowing overseas to avoid further devaluation of the Australian dollar. Therefore the money supply has already been pumped up by the payments to the wheat growers. But what could have been an offsetting effect- that is, a reduction in overseas borrowing requirements because of the additional export income which the wheat could have generated- will not materialise because the wheat cannot be physically shipped out of the country. So the balance of payments effects of this very large wheat harvest in this calendar year are not likely to be favourable, given the very high propensity of wheat growers to import when they have high incomes. One can sympathise with the Government in this money supply problem which has been generated by the first advance payment to wheat growers. At the time the payment was announced nobody expected that the harvest would approach anything like the current figure. If the Government had said publicly and openly in about mid-January, when it became apparent that a money supply problem was looming, that it intended to transfer a part of the Wheat Board overdraft held by the Rural Credits Department to the private trading banks- if the Government had taken this action- it could have avoided the money supply implications of financing through the Rural Credits Department. Wheat growers would have complained about the higher interest rates, but there could have been no serious and informed criticism of the Government for taking that sort of measure to offset the money supply consequences of an earlier decision taken with imperfect knowledge. But it seems that whenever the Government is given a choice between behaving openly and behaving furtively it cannot resist the temptation to behave in a furtive manner. We are not entirely sure of what has happened, and this is one of the reasons I have raised the matter in the Senate today. We do, however, know that towards the end of January the Wheat Board actually suspended payments to growers. It stopped paying out on the wheat delivery warrants submitted to it by growers. A grower has pointed out in a letter published in last week's issue of *The Land* newspaper that he drew his warrant on 3 January and 1 7 January. He went on to say that at the time of writing the letter he had still not received payment. That was undoubtedly a consequence of the fact that the Wheat Board had actually suspended payment because the Reserve Bank would not advance it anything in excess of the $800m originally planned. It is not unusual under any circumstances for there to be a delay of up to three weeks or four weeks in the money actually being paid into the growers' bank accounts. Growers might wonder why there was a delay of up to a month. It was because the Wheat Board suspended payments. There was no massive outcry because normally there is some time lag. There is no doubt that for a period towards the end of January the Australian Wheat Board suspended payment on warrants tendered. In the *Australian Financial Review* editorial of 1 March the General Manager of the Wheat Board was quoted as saying with regard to the policy on finance that it had not changed one iota. That is not true. If the General Manager of the Wheat Board made that statement he was lying. It has never been policy to suspend payment to growers because the Wheat Board cannot get any additional advance from the Reserve Bank. That situation has never arisen before. A question was asked by **Senator McLaren** on 19 February on this matter. As a result of early reports in the *Age* newspaper **Senator McLaren** asked whether the Government had a proposal to transfer to the private banks some $250m of the credit extended from the Reserve Bank to the Wheat Board. The question was asked of **Senator Webster.** In spite of a special request to have it answered that day, **Senator Webster** was unable to do so. The next day he answered on behalf of the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr Sinclair).** The answer had nothing to do with the question. The answer told us that the wheat harvest was much bigger than anyone had expected- which everybody knew- and that consequently the required aggregate of payments was much larger than anybody expected. It did not answer the question whether the Government had a proposal to transfer some of the Wheat Board's outstanding debt from the Reserve Bank to the trading banks. A similar question was asked in the House of Representatives on 22 February. I quote part of the question which was directed to the Treasurer **(Mr Howard).** In part it states: >Is pan of the total amount now being required from commercial sources . . . The Treasurer's answer did not come to grips with the question. He said that financing from the Rural Credits Department will remain an integral part of funding the first advance; that there was no suggestion of shortening the repayment period. Then he repeated that funding from the Rural Credits Department would remain an integral part. Again the Treasurer plainly ducked the question which asked: Did the Government have a policy to transfer part of the Wheat Board's outstanding debt to the Reserve Bank to the private trading banks? Statements were made last week and finally last Friday the ABC's *National Farm Report* reported that there had been a Cabinet decision the previous day to transfer some $300m of the outstanding debt in that way. We have heard no more about it. I want to know what the Government has done about this arid what it intends to do. The Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** boasted a fortnight ago that the money supply was under control. We do not know whether at that stage the plan to transfer $250m to $300m of the debt to the trading banks was operative or not or whether the plan had been abandoned by that stage or whether it has been resurrected subsequently. If the plan had not been abandoned when the Prime Minister boasted that the money supply was under control, what off-setting measures has the Government taken with regard to the $300m which it planned to withdraw from the money supply? If the Government has resurrected the plan to transfer some $300m from the Reserve Bank to the trading banks, we want to know that. But why will the Government not come clean on this? It would be a quite reasonable proposition because of the unexpected size of the harvest and its money supply implication for the Government to have made such a move. Why will it not do it in the open? What is the role of the Wheat Board in all this? Why is the General Manager of the Wheat Board lying to the Press, assuming that the *Australian Financial Review's* report is correct? It is time that the Government came clean and told the wheatgrowers and the country precisely what it intends to do about this. If the Prime Minister is going to boast as he did a fortnight ago that the money supply is under control, there is a clear obligation upon him to let the nation know what action the Government is taking, has taken or contemplates taking to offset the very substantial increase in liquidity caused by the size of the wheat harvest. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. *General Business taking precedence of Government Business at 8 p.m.* {: .page-start } page 687 {:#debate-46} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-46-0} #### ABORIGINES AND ISLANDERS Report by Community Relations Office {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
8.0 -- I move: Notice of this motion was given on 16 March 1978. It is eight days short of a year since that motion was placed on the Notice Paper. The position is even worse than that because the Commissioner for Community Relations usually produces his report at about the end of the financial year. In fact, this report was presented just before the Federal election in 1977. Three reports have been produced by the Commissioner since then and they have been fairly wide ranging. The 1977 report makes particular reference to race relations in north Queensland. In order to put the story into its full context, I want to refer firstly to what is stated on page 2 of the 1977 report in respect of international links and obligations. Under the heading 'International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ' the report states: >The Racial Discrimination Act 197S enabled Australia to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 1 December 1 965. In fact, this country adopted the Convention ten years after it was adopted internationally. The report goes on to state: >One of its provisions is that States party to the Convention are required to report to the United Nations Committee on Racism. The Committee met in Vienna on 6 April - That was in 1977 - and the first Annual Report of the Commissioner for Community Relations, together with other documentation, was presented to the Committtee. A second meeting was held on 1 3 April to consider the Report further. One of the obligations required of Australia is actively to propagate the principal objectives of the International Convention. This has been done through the Office's involvement in nation-wide seminars, conferences and community functions numbering 183, attended by more than 20,000 people. An elaboration of those sentiments is included in the 1978 report. However, I do not propose to refer to that report tonight because the subject of the motion before the Senate tonight is the 1977 report. I want to refer to a number of matters that are included in the report, as well as some events which have taken place since that date. I propose to use those examples also. On page 1 1 of the report there appears the heading 'Racial Discrimination-Case Study of a Country Town'. I want to quote four examples from the references that were made by the Commissioner as an illustration of a lack of race relations in this country. The first incident quoted is as follows: >Aborigines were asked to pay a taxi fare of $65.00 for a trip which normally cost $ 1 8.00. Some two or three years ago in Darwin I talked to some Aborigines who lived down the Track. I asked them what was the cab fare to the place where they lived. I found a wide variation in the fares because usually the cab driver said, when he was asked what the fare to X was: 'How much money do you have?'. If the Aborigines said that they had $20, the taxi driver would say: 'Okay; $ 1 9.50 will be the fare '. If they said that they had $50, the driver would say: 'The fare is $49'. The distance to be travelled might have been only 12 or 13 miles. Some Aborigines, particularly those who come from the traditional areas, do not have a full realisation of the actual value of European currency. Consequently, they can be easily conned under those circumstances. There are people in public life, ranging from taxi drivers to politicians, who will con anybody if they get an opportunity to do so. The next reference in the report is as follows: >A highly respected Aboriginal woman went into a shoe shop and waited for service from a shop assistant who was unoccupied. A white customer came into the store and was immediately served ahead of her. This reminds of an incident that took place in Murgon, a little country town in Queensland, a number of years ago. I went into a little drapery and mixed shop to buy a shirt. The one man who was serving in the shop at that time- there were probably other employees, but he was certainly on his own at that time- said to me: 'Will you hang on for a while?' I was not in any rush and I was quite happy to hang on for 10 or 15 minutes. When he returned he said: 'What do you want?' I said: 'I want to buy a shirt. But what were you doing?' This was in the days before the cash economy was established on Aboriginal reserves and communities. He said: 'A busload of boone is coming in from Cherbourg shortly and they will have their tickets'. In those days the Aborigines received cash vouchers or ticket vouchers for the purchase of goods. So, this man was busy changing the price tags on sports coats, shirts, slacks, boots and other items. He said that the Aborigines had no sense of value; that if he had a sports coat for sale for £4, it was quite in order to put an £8 tag on the coat because the Aborigines would pay that price anyway. He said to me: Now, what do you want to buy?'. I said 'I have changed my mind. I would not buy anything in this shop', and I walked out. I wish to refer now to the fourth incident, involving two Aboriginal women. The report states: Two Aboriginal women were warming themselves at a fire in the lounge of a hotel and were told only ladies were allowed in the area. These two Aboriginal women, of course, were not classified as human beings and they were told to leave the area. They are cases which have been included in the Commissioner's official report. On page 102 of the report details are set out of all the by-laws that apply on all of the community reserves in Queensland. For the sake of the record, I want to put this matter in perspective by saying that in this one State in Australia there are two major Acts under which there is one law for whites and another law for blacks. In fact, the laws that apply to blacks are very similar to those that apply to blacks in South Africa, Rhodesia and other countries where white supremacy is still the order of the day for government or administration. It is possible that the two Acts under which the Aborigines and Islanders in Queensland have to live are even more restrictive than those of South Africa and Rhodesia. The Acts spawn a set of regulations. The Acts are reasonably innocuous documents. They do not set out precisely all the matters that are covered by the regulations. The regulations take the matter further. On each of the Aboriginal communities a set of by-laws applies. I want to read some of these by-laws into the record because they show that the days of colonialism have not gone in Queensland. A facade is put up these days that it is the community councils that make the decisions. I want to say that it is not the community councils that make the decisions. The manager of the Aboriginal reserve or community is the person who has the final authority. It is he who makes the decisions in many instances. Some of these people are very human; but they are very much in the minority within the Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement Department. Obviously, this document relates to a particular reserve the name of which is not included. It states: >The Aboriginal Council . . . Community/Reserve established under 'The Aborigines' and Torres Strait Islanders' Regulations of 1966' and acting in accordance with the provisions of such regulations hereby makes the following By-Laws to have force and effect within the area of the said . . . Community/Reserve on the day of approval thereof by the Director of Aboriginal and Island Affairs or such later date as the Director shall fix. > >The following By-Laws of the Aboriginal Council of . . . Community/Reserve are approved by me and shall come into operation on the . . . Provision is made to set out the date of operation. The document continues: >These By-Laws may be cited as 'The By-Laws of the Aboriginal Council of the . . . Community/Reserve'. > >In these By-Laws, unless the context otherwise indicates or requires, the terms defined by Section 5 of 'The Aborigines' and Torres Strait Islanders' Affairs Act of 196S ' and by Regulation 2 of 'The Aborigines' and Torres Strait Islanders' Regulations of 1966' shall have the same meaning as is assigned to them by such section and regulation and the following terms shall have the meanings set against them respectively, that is to say: 'Authorised person'- A person from time to time authorised by the Council or Manager - In fact, it is very rarely that the council ever establishes the status of an authorised person; it is the manager, the supreme white god of each black community who does so- {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . to do the relevant act, matter or thing under these By-Laws. C o u n c i 1 ' - T h e Aboriginal Council of . . . Community/ Reserve. Prohibited Area'- An area in which the doing of certain specified acts is prohibited by the Council or Manager. It is extremely difficult to come by a copy of these by-laws. I have a copy. I am probably one of the few white people in the State of Queensland who does have a copy. Obviously the Commissioner for Community Relations has a copy and there are a number of others that float around but normally it is a document that is not shown to the Aborigines in a community. They would not know what the by-laws are because they are not able to procure a copy of them. They would not know what the regulations are because they are not able to procure a copy of the regulations. If they want to buy a copy of the Act, it is unobtainable on the reserves and they must send to the Government Printer in Brisbane with the requisite amount of cash. We know this because in my office in Townsville we frequently have to obtain copies of the Act for individual Aborigines or Islanders who may come to the office seeking a copy to study. On more than one occasion when we have endeavoured to order more than half a dozen copies we have been told that they are out of print or unavailable. So we then have to buy three or four copies and hope that in three months' time some clerk will have forgotten so that we can buy another two or three copies. In Chapter 4, under the heading 'Conduct and Behaviour' the following matters are set out: {: type="a" start="l"} 0. . A person in the community shall not on the reserve: * * * {: type="a" start="e"} 0. behave in a riotous, violent, disorderly, indecent, offensive, threatening or insulting manner; ( 0 use profane, indecent or obscene language; 1. use threatening, abusive or insulting words to any person; 2. carry tales about any person so as to cause domestic trouble or annoyance to such person; Goodness, gracious me, if the Standing Orders of the Senate included that sort of clause it would mean that every parliamentarian who said something slightly offensive- I suppose that Question Time would be a good time to look at thatabout an opponent or something mildly offensive about his colleagues, that rule would apply. The provisions continue: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. conduct or take part in games of chance or games prohibited by the Manager, provided that the manager may in his discretion allow any such game at such time and for such purposes as he deems fit-. I am going to tell the Senate a story afterwards about the Aitkenvale Reserve which is situated in an outer suburb of Townsville. I recall on one occasion taking two prominent people associated with Aboriginal affairs, one black and one white, to this Reserve when there was a new manager there. He lived in a state of fear because he did not know what would happen when I arrived. We were duly conducted on the usual inspection tour. Everything had just been scrubbed down and sprayed out and, as much as one can make old tin huts look reasonably respectable, the area was reasonably respectable. There were a number of elderly Aboriginal ladies playing cards under a gum tree. I knew that gambling was prohibited under section 2 ( 1 ) of the by-laws which applied at that time to that particular Reserve. The ladies were shuffling the cards and I said to one of them, whom I knew: 'I did not know you were a card player. Are you enjoying the game?' She said: 'Listen, mate, we do not even know how to play cards. We were told to put clean dresses on, get under the gum tree, put out a blanket and get out a pack of cards so that you would not put on a turn about something. We do not have the faintest idea how to play cards '. Chapter 5, which deals with health and medical services, contains three clauses, two of which I want to read into the record. They are: {: type="A" start="I"} 0. A person shall attend for medical attention or examination in cases of sickness or when so directed by the Council, the Manager or the Medical Officer. **Mr Deputy President,** if an honourable senator came into this chamber at Question Time looking rather seedy and you were able to utilise this sort of function, you would be able to say: 'You need medical attention immediately' and you would then be able to direct that person, under pain of penalty of a fine of up to $40, to seek medical attention even if that person was only suffering from a hang-over after imbiding too freely the night before. No white person would tolerate this sort of second-class citizenship that is imposed by the Acts, the regulations and the by-laws. But because these people are black, because there is racial discrimination against them by the white community, they are forced to tolerate it or be penalised by a fine of up to $40 or 14 days in the local lock-up. Clause 3 of chapter 5 which deals with health and medical services provides that: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. When a person resident in a house is suffering from an infectious or contagious disease no person shall visit such house nor shall such person nor any other person resident therein absent himself from such house without the express permission of the Medical Officer, or, in his absence, the Manager. This implies, I suppose, that the Manager has a wide range of medical knowledge and is able to give a diagnosis of what is wrong with that particular person in the absence of the medical officer. On some of these reserves there is no medical officer able to visit the area for periods of up to a month or more at a time. This then gives the right to the Manager to decide whether a person is suffering from an infectious or contagious disease and he is then able to confine that person to his home or hut or tent or under the nearest gum tree or wherever the person happens to be living. These are the sorts of discriminatory things that again no person in any white community would tolerate. In Chapter 6, which deals with hygiene and sanitation, there are a number of relevant clauses. There are dozens of them but I will quote only a few. They are: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A householder shall wash and drain his garbage bin after it has been emptied by the collector. If necessary disinfection of the bin by the householder may be directed by an authorised person. Again that authorised person normally is the manager or his nominee. Sometimes a very lowly clerk is vested with great authority and some of them really love using their power to give these directions. Clauses 17, 18, 19 and 20 read: {: type="1" start="17"} 0. Public conveniences shall be used only in the manner for which they are intended. Incidentally, there is another clause somewhere in here which states that a person must not put offensive drawings or offensive marks onto fences. I suppose that the old style of white people going into public conveniences and writing the latest funny story or dirty joke, whichever way one happens to read it, would not be permitted. I have never heard of any white person who has been charged with this but, of course, in our great liberal state of Queensland people are not permitted to wear tee-shirts with offensive slogans on them. I have a tee-shirt with a slogan which I suppose could be classified as offensive and I can tell honourable senators that I am quite careful about not wearing it anywhere in public. I wear it around the backyard because it is also a humorous slogan. But in Maryborough two or three years ago a young fellow wore a tee-shirt which was deemed to be offensive. He was arrested by the police and, because of the laws that applied in that State, he was fined $200. When the *Little Red School Book,* which caused the Democratic Labor Party so much fun in the days when its members used to sit in a block of seats in this chamber, was introduced in Queensland there was no mucking around. The Premier issued a public edict that if anybody saw anybody distributing, reading or otherwise trying to distribute the *Little Red School Book,* that person could ring the emergency police number 000 and an emergency squad of police would attend immediately to trap that person and charge that person with selling or distributing an offensive publication. The Australian edition of *Playboy,* which I think is a very innocuous publication, has already been examined by the censors and is about to be publicly banned in Queensland. Let me return to these four clauses. Clause 18 states: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 8. A person shall not enter a public convenience set apart for members of the opposite sex. The signs 'men' and 'ladies' are put up on our public conveniences, but a sign is not put up or a law does not say that in the case of an emergency, or whatever it might be, a person may enter the public convenience of another sex. Clause 19 states: >A person shall not interfere with or cause embarrassment to any other person who is in or who is entering a public convenience. Why do we need laws like this, set out under these circumstances? Clause 20 states: >A person shall not use any paper in a sewerage or septic system except toilet paper of the type that will readily disintegrate in water. In public conveniences where there is a septic system there is usually a little notice on the wall: Do not use newspaper', or whatever it might be. We do not have to write out under two Acts a set of regulations and by-laws, a special law, stating what sort of toilet paper a person may use. I suppose people like Lady Scott and others who have made their fortune out of manufacturing toilet paper would disintegrate with laughter if they read laws that say how their toilet paper may be used. Chapter 7 deals with animals and birds. Clause 2 (b) states: >A carcass of any cattle or horse, if buried, shall be covered by soil to a depth of at least four feet. Why do we need to have a law for that? If animal carcasses are to be disposed of, it is the normal thing under all normal hygiene methods to make sure that the carcass is properly disposed of. Clause 2 (c) states: >The owner of an animal shall not allow it to stray inside a prohibited area. At Yarrabah Aboriginal settlement, which is just south of Cairns, a number of years ago people wanted to establish their own little gardens. The manager thought that this was a communistic and socialistic attitude. His attitude was: 'No, you do not have your own little garden; you do as you are told'. The people put fences around the gardens at night time when the crops were growing brightly- they grow very well on the rich soil there- the manager would get a pair of wire cutters, cut the fences and turn about 50 cows into the 5-acre plots. He was never charged. Of course, had he been black he could have been charged under clause 2 (c) of chapter 7 which deals with animals and birds. Chapter 8 is headed: 'Buildings and Use and Occupation of Buildings'. I will read only two of the seven clauses. Clause 3 states: >The occupier of a building shall not use the building nor permit the building to be used for any improper, immoral or illegal purposes. Chapter 8 has been prostituted by a whole lot of white managers and deputy managers and their nominees. What they have done is go into homes. A very respectable Aboriginal lady in Townsville, one of the leading citizens of the city, had one of these very junior clerks walk into her place one day. She asked him what he wanted to do and did he have any order to come. He said no, that under the Act, regulations and by-laws he could do what he liked. So, he pushed her aside and walked in. He went through all of her wardrobes, chests of drawers and things like that. He threw all of her personal belongings on the floor, pulled the covers off the beds around the house. He upset the cutlery and things in the kitchen. When she complained about it he said: Shut up. You are only a black gin anyway. Clean your own house up'. He then walked out. That lady keeps a spotless house. Many times she has entertained prominent members of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and visiting politicians for morning and afternoon teas. She is one of the most delightful ladies in terms of looking after her home and working in the community. Clause 6 of chapter 8 states: >A householder shall allow an authorised person to enter his house for the purpose of inspection. The two clauses I have just mentioned were used by that young clerk to wreck the inside of an Aboriginal 's home. Chapter 9 is headed 'Fences'. Clause 3 states: >A person using a gate or any other opening in a fence capable of being closed shall close it unless instructed by an authorised person to leave it open. Most gates on the average householder's fence leading to his home have a sign saying, 'Please shut the gate'. Possibly there is no sign on it at all. Common courtesy, if the gate is shut, indicates that a person will shut it when entering or leaving premises. We do not need a special law for it. No white person would respect such a law if there was one. Chapter 10 is headed 'Bathing Places'. Clause 1 states: >A person swimming and bathing shall be dressed in a manner approved by the manager. Managers have criticised young Aboriginal men and women for their state of dress. They have refused to allow these people to go swimming, even in those rare places where there are swimming baths. Usually most of the reserves are by the sea. These managers have told the Aboriginal men and women that they could not go swimming unless they were covered in something from neck to knee. There are chapters on cemeteries, when a person can go into cemeteries, how one must keep animals out of them, and one must not let one's horse feed on the grass within the cemetery. Chapter 12 is headed 'Eradication and Destruction of Noxious Weeds'. A couple of weeds have been nominated, but of course they are not known in Queensland. Still, that does not matter because I suppose **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** might bring them in in some of his grain or something else, and they could spread. Chapter 13 is headed 'Electricity'. Clause 2 states: >A person shall not use any electrical goods, other than a hot water jug, electric radio, iron or razor, unless permission is first obtained from an authorised officer. So, if one wants a digital clock or a television set operating he must go to the manager and get permission or the permission of his authorised nominee before he can fit that appliance into his electrical apparatus. Clause 3 states: >A person shall not use any electrical equipment whatsoever, other than electric light, during certain hours declared by the Manager as prohibited hours for use of such electrical equipment. That clause still applies to these settlements in Queensland. A similar law applied in Western Australia until it was abolished by a Labor Government. The huts on some of the reserves had one socket to which one could fit about five or six multiple fittings so that one could have two or three appliances going at the same time. Even during mid-summer, at 6 p.m. each evening, the power was switched off to every hut in the reserve. It was switched on again at about 7 a.m. the next morning. So, if there was baby food in the refrigerator and it was an extremely hot summer night, that baby food would go bad. In the same way, meat would go rotten and butter would melt. The reason for their not being allowed to have electricity on at night was: 'You can't trust those blacks; they might electrocute themselves in the dark'. That was the official reason given to me by an officer of the old Western Australian Department of Native Affairs, which I think it was called then. Chapter 17 is headed: 'Parks and Roads'. Clause 4 states: >A person shall not, without the permission of the manager, organise a game or play in a park or anywhere in the Community/Reserve area where places have not been set aside for the playing of games. This chapter has been rigidly applied. A new school was once wanted on the Palm Island reserve. It was subsequently built, but then the power situation was bad. So, a power pole was planted in the middle of the sports reserve. There was a very good league football team at Palm Island, but it had nowhere to practise. What I have mentioned are the sorts of harassment that go on all the time. Clause 6 of chapter 1 7 states: >A person shall not leave or enter a park or playground other than through gateways or openings provided by the council for that purpose. Everyone of us in this chamber, particularly in our younger days, went over the fence. We did not bother going to the nearest gate. We did not damage anything and we did not break anything. It probably saved us a 20 or 30-yard walk. Clause 4 of chapter 18 which is headed 'Roads General 'states: >A person shall not travel on any road which the manager has declared shall not be used. So, if the Main Roads Department in New South Wales or Queensland or any other main statutory organisations said that we could not use particular areas without having a real reason for so doing- not because a manager said so- then I think we would not use them. All of us have seen vehicles using newly constructed roads when the heavy equipment is not being used on the weekend. Cars use the partly prepared road. Chapter 23 is headed 'Social and Recreation'. Clause 1 states: >A person or welfare association shall not conduct public functions in or outside a hall or raise money at such functions, unless prior approval has been obtained from the council after consultation with the manager. Under 'Boats and Vessels' clause 2 states: >A person shall not travel on or use an administration vessel without permission from the Manager. Chapter 24 is headed 'Miscellaneous'. It is a beauty. Clause 1 is headed 'Sorcery'. It states: >A community resident shall not practise or pretend to practise any form of sorcery which for the purposes of these By-laws includes bone-pointing, pourri-pourri, or any other custom or practice which interferes with the harmony or well-being of residents, nor shall a person threaten any other person with sorcery or act as an agent for a person who commits or pretends to commit sorcery. > >A person found guilty of offending against this By-Law may be refused permission to remain in and may be removed from the Reserve/Community for such a period as may be further determined. Then to finalise the miscellaneous chapter, children are put in. One would have thought in this International Year of the Child that children would have had a special chapter of their own under the Queensland Aboriginal by-laws, but they do not. They are included in clause 3 of Miscellaneous', as follows: >Parents shall bring up their childen with love and care and shall teach them good behaviour and conduct and shall ensure their compliance with these By-Laws. So children of age one must be taught right from the start that they cannot go into a toilet for the other sex, that they cannot practise sorcery even in their childish games and that they cannot go to a public function unless they have permission from the manager to do so. Also under 'Miscellaneous' there appears the following: >A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of these By-Laws commits a breach of these By-Laws and shall be liable to a penalty to be determined by the court not exceeding $40 or 14 days' imprisonment. All such breaches may be prosecuted upon complaint by an Aboriginal Policeman. I would like the Commonwealth Government to have a look at what is happening to some of the Commonwealth funds in Queensland. In the old days gaols were dungeons. Today the most elaborate motel-like buildings have been or are being built at places such as Palm Island where, incidentally, females and children under the age of 12 are incarcerated even though the ordinary laws do not allow this. There are no gaols for females in north Queensland. If a female receives a term of imprisonment of more than 28 days or some short term which does not involve her going to the lock-up she is sent to Boggo Road gaol in Brisbane. In the same way now in our very enlightened State, if a lady is suffering from psychiatric troubles, unless they are of a temporary nature, she must go to one of the psychiatric hospitals in the south of the State, because Mossman Hall, the only psychiatric establishment in north Queensland, caters only for men. Children, women and blacks are totally discriminated against in Queensland and there are special laws to discriminate against them all. Unfortunately discrimination is not confined to Queensland. It starts right here in this Parliament. This is known by anybody who has seen the Press statement put out by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 12 February. A subsequent statement was put out and deals with the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service. It says that the Service has not got enough money to carry on its essential services, and neither have the services in New South Wales, Brisbane and a number of other places. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Neither has the Adelaide one. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Nor the Adelaide one, as my colleague **Senator Cavanagh** says. There has been a progressive scaling down, and there is discrimination being practised right here at Federal Government level. There has been a progressive scaling down ever since the Ellicott speeches in 1975. 1 have a tape of a voice which was given out by an official on the Minister's behalf on all the reserves in the north-western part of South Australia, the southern part of the Northern Territory and the eastern part of Western Australia. What he said to the Aborigines was not true. It is politically dishonest for any Minister of this Government to say: 'Look how well we are doing. We actually increased the allocation this year as compared with last year'. What was not said is that since 1 976, when the Government decided to scale down allocations of finance for Aboriginal affairs, all it has done is increase them by one per cent, 2 per cent or may be 3 per cent when it knows that the inflation rate is damn near 10 per cent. This is cheating and political dishonesty. The subsequent Press statement indicated that the Minister was very happy that the Victorian medical service was going to carry on. Even though the workers were working without wages, it did not matter. They were doing things on a voluntary basis, which system would just not operate in any hospital for white patients. But if it is for the blacks the Government says: 'Cut down their services because it does not really matter'. Then we must look at this famous statement made on 7 March 1979 concerning the gazettal of the Northern Territory town sites. Last December under the eyes of this Governmentand the Minister did not find out until two days ago- thousands of hectares of land were declared to be inside town sites in order to defeat the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. What did the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs say? It is a very low key and tame statement. He said in Canberra that he had been in touch with the Northern Territory Government over its gazettal of land for future urban expansion because of its potential effect on Aboriginal land rights. **Senator Chaney** said that he had sought talks with the Northern Territory Government. He said that last year the Northern Territory Government had announced that it would continue the freeze on alienation of Crown land for a further two years to enable claims to be lodged and that the recent action of the Northern Territory Government may have the same effect as the alienation of land in preventing land claims. Of course it does. Why does the Minister not come out and say that this is precisely what it is doing? All he has said was that it may have this effect. **Senator Chaney** is a very humane man and many of us on this side of the chamber who have some experience in these areas have decided that we would let him dig in and become established as a Minister before we started to criticise. But in the last fortnight he has done more to bring heaps of coal and Are on his head than his predecessor did in a year. His predecessor did nothing, but **Senator Chaney** is now doing less than nothing, apart from placating the rotten Queensland department responsible for Aboriginal affairs and those who control the Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- He is repelling the white invaders in Western Australia. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -He is repelling the white invaders in Western Australia? The Rhodesians? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- No, no. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -Oh. It is difficult to understand **Senator Missen** 's interjection, but if he sends a little note across to me I will be quite happy to give it a reply, and I will not do so with a very long story as the Leader of the Government in the Senate does at Question Time. The Minister said that the Commonwealth has a vital interest in what the Territory Government is doing because its actions can affect the rights of individuals under the legislation. This is discrimination in its worst form. What is going to happen now, of course, is that the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly will get away with it. It has taken the city boundary of Darwin about 100 kilometres down the road into the Centre, down near the Adelaide River somewhere; and I cannot see the other suburbs of Darwin expanding in that direction for another 1 50 years. It has also enabled one of the groups of islands near Borroloola to be taken over and declared a town area so that Mount Isa Mines Ltd may eventually be able to use it as a deep water port- not for any other reason. Apparently a very prominent member of the Northern Land Council, not in the legal section but in the administrative section, knew of this recently and did not do a thing about it. If I am not mistaken, his head is for the big roll by his own people. I do not think that the Minister knows about this yet, but serious talks are going on at a high Government level, somewhere around the Cabinet, that the funds for the Aboriginal Legal Service are to be cut further, certainly in the next financial year and possibly for the balance of this financial year. The Cabinet has deliberately kept this information away from the Minister because it is known that he is sympathetic to keeping the ALS operating in a similar manner to the way it is operating now, probably without funds but at least looking nice on paper. Some two years ago in Queensland a committee- known as a commission- was set up to have a look at and examine the Acts and their implications for all the people who live in the urban areas and on the reserve. A lady named Rose Collis was one of those appointed to that Commission, but because she dared last year to criticise something that the Premier did she was sacked and replaced by two part-time commissioners. Since then, of course, the Commission has been re-established. This Commission was a whitewashing exercise; it was a shocking exercise. Its Chairman was asked by a prominent member of the community at the Catholic Land Council meeting in Toowoomba earlier this year why he had made particular recommendations. He replied: 'Recommendations? I did not even know they were in the report'. Then we made further inquiries and we discovered that the recommendations were written by a white person who was not particularly expert in Aboriginal affairs. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- It is not very surprising, is it? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -It was one of the worst documents that could have been produced anywhere. It was a whitewashing exercise for Killoran, the departmental head, and for the type of government that we have in Queensland at present. But since then at least one and possibly two other people have resigned from the Commission because they could no longer tolerate what was going on. A parallel report was producted at about that time. It is one of the best reports I have read, but to come by a copy of it is very difficult indeed. To come by a report of the Commission is also very difficult and only photostat copies have been made anyway. This is a little like what happened when the original Hay report came out; there were more photostat copies of the report than there were bound copies which appeared some months later. On the front of this document it says: 'Not to be printed and not to be presented to the Parliament'; in other words, it is a classified, secret document. Mick Miller- a well-known black activist, a qualified school teacher and a man who has been around- was sacked from his position as a school teacher because the Education Department demanded that he transfer from Cairns to another centre many miles away. He did not want to leave Cairns because he had two children going to school there and he had been teaching at the one school for a number of years. He asked for that transfer to be reconsidered. It was, and he was sacked. He then went to work for the trachoma team as a part-time employee with a fellow named Clarrie Grogran. There were two Aboriginal people on the team and they were sacked. The trachoma team was taken out of Queensland on the eve of the 1977 elections because it was said by the Premier of the State that there were people indulging in a political exercise. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- They were enrolling Aboriginals on the electoral roll. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- That is a political exercise as far as the Premier is concerned because he cannot find any Aboriginal people, apart from Stewart and a few others, who would vote for his party. Many do not bother to vote at all because they fear that if they put their names on the roll they would be an easier mark for the policeman who has to solve his first case. After all, the easiest way to find a person is to look for his address on the electoral roll. The trachoma team subsequently pulled out of Queensland and did not go back until several months later. As I have wandered around the bush areas I have come across a large number of people who are nearly blind. They had registered under the trachoma program on the first visit of the team, but because the advertising of the program by some sections of the Queensland media was not good, these people did not know that the trachoma team had returned. There is also discrimination against blacks who want to own land and there are three famous examples that ought to be incorporated in the record. There is the Archer River case on Cape York, where a white man who owned a lease was prepared to sell it to a group of Aborigines and the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission was prepared to buy it. The price was good, the country was fair and there was a chance that a number of people could make a reasonable living off it. When the Premier found out that this was to occur he would not allow the Lands Department to transfer the lease. So, today, whilst an Aborigine may buy freehold land if he or she can afford it, an Aborigine cannot buy a lease under the Queensland pastoral leasehold system. That deal was cancelled and the Aborigines were not allowed to buy that land. Then there is the case of the flourishing little Aboriginal farming settlement of Cardwell back in the ranges near Kennedy and about 1 10 miles north of where I live in Townsville. Very good tropical fruits grow in that area but unfortunately this year's crop was ruined by one of the numerous cyclones the area has experienced. The Aborigines at Cardwell wanted to expand their area and purchase, at a small price, a lease in that area. That also was blocked by the State Government. Probably the worst case was in Ayr where two or three Aborigines got together, obtained a small parcel of land and decided that there was a need in the area for a caravan park. The council, the local people and the Aborigines approved of it and the expertise was there to run it, but the Queensland Lands Department would not approve the transfer of the title. That project also was knocked on the head. I did not intend to speak for so long but these are a number of matters which I feel should go on the record. For example, there have been cases of physical discrimination and I wish to refer to a few things that did not happen yesterday or the day before, but happened the day before that in terms of Australian and Aboriginal time. At the Aitkenvale reserve, the predecessor of the manager who taught the old ladies to play cards was a very ruthless man who was known as Handcuffs'. Wherever he went, whether supervising the passengers getting onto the boat going to the settlement or supervising the people coming back into the camp at night he always had a pair of handcuffs sticking out of his hip pocket. If somebody returned only very slightly the worse for wear as a result of the partaking of alcohol, it was his practice to get that person and handcuff him with his back to a tree and his arms around the tree. He would leave him there from 10 o'clock at night until daylight the next day. It did not matter whether it was raining or whether the mosquitoes were eating that person, and if the person protested he would be charged with assault. The manager finally met his match when three or four of them came home one night and he could not handle them. He took off for the bush, fell into the local garbage tip behind the china apple trees and broke his arm. He was immediately taken to hospital where his arm was set. With the aid of the local police he was able to lay a charge against four people none of whom touched him. They had merely threatened him. They received prison terms and heavy fines, although the manager always escaped scot-free when he brutally assaulted black people. Vincent Starlight, one of the boxers who knocked around boxing tents in years gone by, received two terms of six months solitary confinement on Punishment Island. There is nothing on Punishment Island except a tin hut and a few goats, and there is very little water. He was then banned from his own island. All that that man did was to approach the manager of the reserve and ask whether he could draw some money from his own passbook. The manager said that he could not draw it out, so Vincent Starlight picked up the desk and tipped it over against the manager. It frightened hell out of the manager but did not physically hurt him. Afterwards the manager had the desk bolted to the floor, and I think it is still bolted to the floor. He bought himself a leather truncheon so that it would never happen again. There was no law, only the bylaws, so it was the manager who was responsible for confining this man to Punishment Island for a period of six months. A year or so later Starlight did something else that offended against the bylaws and he was again confined to Punishment Island. He was then banned from the reserve and was not allowed to go back to see his wife and two primary school children. He was not allowed to return for years and, finally, as a result of representations from our office, he was allowed to go back on the morning boat to see his family for three or four hours but he was escorted by police back onto the boat and to the mainland in the afternoon. That man has now had a total psychiatric breakdown and has been a patient at Mossman Hall for the last three or four years. There are people who try to close their eyes and say that there is no racial discrimination. It can be found anywhere around northern Australia. In the remote areas some of the stockmen in stock camps still tie the Aboriginal girls to trees during the day so they will not run away while they are out mustering and will still be there when they come back at night time. In recent years there was an incident at Palm Island involving the old dormitory system which has only recently been bulldozed. Here children were locked up from dark until daylight. I once found that at the end of each of these dormitories was a little gaol and I remember asking the matron of the day whether there were any children in the gaol. She said, 'No, none'. I suspected that there were and had been told that there were. I told her that if I could not get into the place I would proceed to kick the door in. She then said, 'I don't think there is anyone in there' and went away to get a key. There were two children in there, an 1 1 -year-old and a 13-year-old. It was a hot little room with a dirty old mattress on the floor, a dirty old blanket and a plastic bucket for toilet purposes. These two children had been confined for a sentence of 14 days. They were allowed out for meals. The 11 -year-old girl was bleeding profusely because she had tried to get through the barred window for some fresh air and in the process of breaking the glass outside the bars she had cut her arm. The matron was reluctant to obtain medical assistance for her but she did so because I and the person who was with me insisted that it be done. These children had received 14 days gaol in this dirty, filthy little dog-hole of a room because, allegedly, the 13-year-old child had made a pass at one of the boys and the 1 1 yearold had said 'damn' to her teacher at school. That is what those children were sentenced for. A girl from Doomadgee applied for and obtained a job on a cattle station in the Cloncurry area. On the night she arrived she was told by the manager of the station that her bed was in the single men's quarters. She knew that she was not going to be the rouseabout except after 8 o'clock at night, so she decided not to take the job and ran away into the bush and subsequently went back to Doomadgee. A very respectable long-standing member of the Public Service in my city of Townsville recently was arrested by a policeman on all sorts of trumped up charges. The policeman said to him: You went through a red light'. He replied 'I don't go through red lights'. The policeman said: You were drunk in charge of a car then' and he replied: 'I do not drink very much'. He had had a stubby earlier in the night. The policeman said: 'I am going to get you anyway. I have been trying to get you because you have been complaining about the police'. This gentleman said: 'Yes, I have'. The policeman than said: 'In addition to that you have been running to politicians. I have got you now'. He put the breath bag on the man but it did not work very effectively. He then took him to the police station. There was no one there to operate the breathalyser equipment, so he took him to the hospital and said to the doctor: 'You will give this man a blood test'. The doctor replied: 'I will not. He is just not drunk. That is it'. The policeman said: 'He is the biggest catch I have had for some time'. This man had an unblemished record of 30 years in the Public Service. This happened only a few weeks ago. It is absolutely amazing that it can happen in 1979. The policeman said: 'I am going to get a conviction against him. He has done his job for sure '. While the brawl was going on between the policeman and the doctor, three or four of this man's children were picked up by the police and locked up at the police station. He was worried, particularly as one of the children was only three or four years old. His oldest daughter, who is a fully qualified nursing sister and a highly respected lady in the community, was contactable by phone, so he rang her. While the policeman was still trying to persuade the doctor to take a blood test, this chap just walked off. Then he was going to be charged with escaping from custody, but he said goodnight when he left. The kids had gone out to get a pizza, and when they were taken to the police station they still had it. Incidentally, the father of the family had a $50 note in his licence. He subsequently got his licence and the car back, but never saw the $50 note again, and the kids never saw the pizza because the cops ate it. I would like to read to the Senate a letter dated 19 February 1979 addressed to me. I will not give the names of the people involved; I will merely read its contents. It states: >I am writing in protest against the unjust and inconsiderate manner in which the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement have viewed the case of . . . > >The Department is refusing this family's application for a home on two grounds. Firstly, that . . . owes the Department $700 being for arrears in rent when in fact he has never rented a home from this Department in any area. His father and brother have rented homes . . . and have at some time been in arrears. I fail to see how their dues affect the application of . . . > >Secondly, refusal has been given because . . . The mother- has previously been convicted for drunkenness. To refuse on these grounds is not only discriminatory but contradicts the Department's purpose of Aboriginal Advancement. . . is an invalid pensioner and mother of three children aged between three and 10 months, who because of poor living conditions on Pensioners Reserve at Plantation Creek, Ayr were subjected to repeated severe chest infections, consequenting repeated hospital admissions. The family are former residents of Pensioners Reserve, due to the Ayr Council evacuating the area for the purpose of demolishing their homes for future development on that land. Then the letter continues: >Urgency for this family to be adequately housed was supported with letters to the Department from myself, the Aboriginal health Team and Health Department of Ayr. That letter was signed by Josephine Sailor, Behavioural Health Technician of the Aboriginal and Islanders Community Health Service. I have written to the Minister on this matter in the hope that something will happen. That is sheer discrimination. We always have trouble with housing. There is a very 'respected ' real estate agent in Townsville by name of A. Eric Hollamby. I think he is a subsidiary of or is tied in with the L. J. Hooker group or one of the other big real estate agencies. Recently an Aboriginal family was evicted from a home. There was some controversy, and the Homeless Persons Assistance Group decided that there had been some discrimination. This agent happened to be the agent for the home and in reply to a complaint about this matter he wrote back as follows: > **Mr L.** Hughes, supposed ' Spokesperson, The Homeless Persons Assistance, PO Box 1 502, Townsville: > >I am in receipt of your impudent letter of the 12th instant and I wish to advise that I don't care two hoots for your opinion. > >I enclose herewith a copy of a letter I send to the Editor for publication which should give you some idea what I think of you and yours, and in conclusion, may I say to you, mind your own business. Even the editor of the local paper would not publish the letter. That outbreak of temper arose because the agent had been chatted about not giving Aboriginal people a fair go. In a little western town there is a little policeman. This little policeman had a habit of picking up girls at night time, particularly black girls. Only a few weeks ago, late last year, he took one lass out and handcuffed her to a tree and then subjected her to some of the filthiest and worst sexual abuse that I have ever heard of in my life. He used his policeman's hatton to do it. We knew that this had been going on in this area with a number of young Aboriginal women, all of whom lived in fear because they had been threatened with violence if they talked to anybody. This lady's mother wrote a letter which subsequently caine into ray possession. Another girl has come forward to say that she was raped by the same person on the outskirts of the aerodrome of that little town. I have complained to the Superintendent of Police, I have complained to the Commissioner of Police and I have complained to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and the Minister in the State House. The complaint was backed up by signed documents. I have a letter from the Commissioner of Police saying: 'I am looking into it'. The Policeman has not been dealt with under any law, but he has been transferred into the Townsville city area. That is surely not a punishment, and I doubt whether anything at all will happen to him. We had a similar incident in Cairns some months ago with a man who was allegedly drunk. This was at the time of the Cairns show and the police were supposedly short of paddywagons. So they handcuffed this fellow to a high fence with his hands above his head for more than an hour. They said they did not have a paddywagon to take him in. It is no use complaining to the Commissioner of Police in my State, so the Community Relations Office is the only place that these people can go to. I bring the complaints to this Parliament, and I hope that the exposition of people like Hollamby, the policeman from the west who subjected a girl to the most crude and rude sexual assaults one can imagine, and the policeman who tied a bloke to a fence will do some good. If time permitted I could mention another hundred cases. I have a file in my office with information on 100 charges against police for brutality, and 90 per cent of them concern brutality against black people. The other 10 per cent are for brutality against poor whites or people who cannot defend themselves. I am not saying the police force is bad, but 10 per cent of policemen are bigger crooks than the people who are in gaol. The other 90 per cent are made up of a mixture of people trying to do the right thing, and they are disgraced by these people who carry out this son of brutality against their fellow men. It does not matter whether they are black or white. I hope that the discussion on this motion tonight will convince people in the community that racism is not dead. It lives in Australia still, and it lives in Queensland as much as in South Africa, Rhodesia, or in any other racist country. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Townley)-** Is the motion seconded? {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- I second the motion and take the opportunity to say something on the matter. The motion states: >That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should take urgent action on matters arising out of the 1977 Report by the Community Relations Office relating to 'Discrimination against Aborigines and Islanders in North Queensland. In the past hour **Senator Keeffe** has given an outline of the misery suffered by and the discrimination exercised against Aborigines in Queensland. He has added to the report of the Commissioner for Community Relations by outlining incidents which can only be described as horrific. Nevertheless, they are real. Unfortunately, many of the incidents that he described can be reinforced by incidents of which I know. However, I do not seek to draw upon my experience; I shall merely draw upon the contents of the reports prepared by the Commissioner for Community Relations. **Senator Keeffe** has dealt with the Commissioner's 1977 report. We have before us also a report which flows from that report. I shall deal with them together, **Mr Acting Deputy President,** in case you question whether I am speaking on the subject before the Senate. I connect with the 1977 report the third annual report of the Commissioner for Community Relations- the 1978 report which deals with, among other matters, discrimination against Aborigines in Queensland. It deals with complaints of racial discrimination, discrimination in Queensland, racial discrimination at Ceduna and its aftermath, discrimination and the police, discrimination in the courts, discrimination in employment, discrimination in local government, discrimination in Aboriginal housing, discrimination in health services, discrimination in education, discrimination in school text books, discrimination in the media, discrimination in hotels, and so it goes on to chapter 19, dealing with the dissemination of racial hatred and many other important matters, to which I am attracted. We ought to commend the Commissioner for Community Relations for the reports which he has prepared- the 1 977 report to which **Senator Keeffe** alluded and the 1978 report to which I refer. If we are to do anything at all about racial discrimination, we need to have the problem identified. The Commissioner for Community Relations in these two reports has identified the problem. In identifying the problem he has investigated and documented evidence of racial discrimination. We cannot ignore that documented evidence. It will be necessary for us to keep those reports close to us because, to a certain extent, those of us who live a more urban life have been insulated against evidence of racial discrimination in Australia. Discrimination is lost in the activity of the great cities and their suburbs. It is evident in the provincial areas- in the small provincial towns and the isolated places. This report reminds us of the problem in such a way that it will be necessary for us to do something about it. The Commissioner for Community Relations has justified the existence of his Commission. I refer to discrimination in Queensland- to the problem and to the conclusion which must be drawn. At page 21 of the report the Commissioner, having referred to some 20 or 2 1 cases of racial discrimination in Queensland, in particular discrimination against Aborigines, makes this point: >In the light of all the above allegations of racial discrimination on the part of the Queensland Government, I would draw attention to the fundamental freedoms and human rights which Australia guarantees to its citizens. These are enumerated in many international documents, but those most pertinent to my operations are listed in Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. These are incorporated in section 9 of the *Racial Discrimination Act* 1975. The International Convention is printed as a schedule to that Act. > >Article 5 lists the following fundamental freedoms and human rights: I find it extraordinary that the Commissioner should see that it is necessary for him to quote Article 5 of the International Convention- that he should need to remind us of it, in the light of what is happening in Queensland. He continued: >In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights: When one reads the phrase 'equality before the law' one knows that in Queensland that does not prevail for the Aboriginal people. My experience is that they are not equal before the law. My experience is that they are not equal in the application of the law. I think that we should quickly pass legislation concerning the laws of evidence. I think that we have reached the second reading stage with a Bill which in our Territories will protect the rights of individuals at the point of arrest and during the period for which they are apprehended until they reach the court. It will protect individuals against arbitrary and forceful arrests. It will preserve the dignity of individuals at the point of arrest, during the transitional period before they reach the court and subsequent to that. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -Which Bill is that? Is it the Criminal Investigation Bill? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Yes, the Criminal Investigation Bill. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- It is not before the Parliament at the moment. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -Is that so? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- It is not before the Parliament at the moment. It lapsed with the double dissolution. It is not back on the Notice Paper yet. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I am glad **Senator Missen** reminded me of that. I was going to ask the Attorney-General **(Senator Durack),** who is in the chamber tonight, what was the position with this Bill because my experience in Queensland seems to lend support to my wishing to have such legislation on the Queensland statutes. At least if we introduced legislation applicable to those areas for which we are responsible, it might set an example for the Queensland Government and encourage it to introduce similar legislation. {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator Puplick: -- That is a very pious hope. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- It migh be a pious hope, but I am not a person who expects sudden change. I do not live within my own lifetime; I look forward in the hope that some future generation might benefit from effort made and initiative taken in this place. I know that we grind ahead very slowly here. Nevertheless, some very small initiatives taken in my time in this place have advanced the lot of the ordinary individual. I do not doubt that **Senator Durack** will add to the statutes some enlightened legislation which may influence the Queensland Government. In Queensland we have fought for the rights of individuals and minority groups. The black people in Queensland are very much in the minority. It seems to me that we are not going to gain the legislation or the improvements that we require in Queensland. However, strangely enough, other States, because of what is happening in Queensland, will set about improving their own legislation. I seem to have drifted away from the point. All I am saying is that Aboriginal people in particular are not equal before the law. They are not equal in the application of the law. **Senator Keeffe** has given many examples in which Aboriginal people have been misused by the authorities. They have been traditionally misused. Subsequently they are imprisoned and in their very imprisonment they suffer differently. The Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, which showed so much promise and which was funded perhaps in the eyes of some far too generously, was gradually bringing equality to Aboriginal people before the law. It seems to me that I should move on. Article 5 deals with fundamental freedoms and human rights. If I applied that Article to the Queensland situation and to the Aboriginal people, evidence in every area would show that the Aboriginal people are discriminated against. The Commissioner for Community Relations has seen fit to print that very important covenant into his report. The Commissioner goes on to say: >It is frequently contended in matters brought to my office that fundamental freedoms and human rights of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the State of Queensland are limited or restricted or denied by the Queensland Government in its administration of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs. > >It is my duty under the Racial Discrimination Act 1 975 - I remind honourable senators that the Commissioner reported in 1 978 - to report to the Attorney-General and through him to the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and I would be failing in this duty if I did not outline the situation which I find existing in Queensland and which has been brought to my attention for action under the Act. I would also be wanting in my duty if I did not indicate the lack of co-operation of the Queensland Government in relation to my inquiries into matters of racial discrimination. What a condemnation for an official report to state: >I would also be wanting in my duty if I did not indicate the lack of co-operation of the Queensland Government in relation to my inquiries into matters of racial discrimination. The Commissioner continued: >In addition I have to report upon deficiencies in Commonwealth legislation, principally the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, in achieving even a proper inquiry into matters associated with the exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights for all racial groups in Queensland. The next item on the Notice Paper deals with human rights in the Soviet Union. Might I remind those who wish to put a case, and will be able to put a case, of our own affairs. They should look at our own country, look in particular to Queensland and read the report of the commissioner. One has only to read the following statement to appreciate my point: >In addition I have to report upon deficiencies in . . . into associated with the exercise of fundamental freedoms and human rights for all racial groups in Queensland. The Commissioner contined It is my conclusion, after considering all the matters referred to me, reviewing my actions and taking into account the expressed wishes of various communities in Queensland, that the Queensland Government presents a serious problem not only for the racial groups which have complained in Queensland itself but for the whole of Australia. It is obvious that a new series of initiatives is required, if equality for all people, regardless of their race or colour, is to be achieved. I have quoted from the report because what the commissioner had to say needs to be read out. These remarks can be related to any debate in this place on human rights, whether here or anywhere else. Perhaps I dealt somewhat emotionally with that section of the report. However, I would like to go further and refer to that section of the report which deals with discrimination in education. Under the heading 'Racial Insults' -again it is strange that the Aboriginal people should be involved- the Commissioner states: >During the past year the Office has received a wide spectrum of complaints against teachers who are alleged to have used racial insults such as the following in their classroom and playground dealings: > > No wog talk in the playground ! ' > >You fellows who have come to this country to make a better life for yourselves ... we don't want you dragging us down to the level that you left behind '. > >You will be known around here as the little nigger'. > >Black beetles were used by blacks on their sandwiches'. > >The Deputy Head of a large capital city high school is alleged to have used the following: > >Trash', 'wogs' 'f . . . wogs' and 'wog bastards'. 'Back where you come from they'd put you up against the wall and shoot you. That's the son of government you've got and that's the sort of government you deserve, you and your sneaky little ways '. > >Teachers were alleged to have made the following remarks about Aborigines: > >Aborigines have brains not much larger than chimpanzees and should be treated accordingly'. > >I will refuse to have black scum in my class'. > >The solution to the problem in this school is the Tasmanian one '. > >They should hit them with pieces of 4 x 2 each day and they would have them jumping through hoops at the end of the year'. > >There should be an open season on Aborigines'. I am not talking about South Africa; I am talking about Australia and about the report on discrimination. This report should be read carefully, and the areas of concern which have been described in it should attract the attention of us all. What is said in the report takes my mind back some 50 years. I took it that things had changed. I took it that in the last 50 years Australia had become a much more enlightened society. In fact in many areas it has. But when I read this report I am reminded of the narrow, crude, primative, frontier attitude of many people. I experienced this attitude. I thought that as society changed and as I changed we would see better things. However, when I read what is revealed in this report perhaps we ought to consider whether or not in the last 10 or 15 years we may have regressed in some way. For that reason I suggest- I repeatthat the 1978 third annual report of the Commissioner for Community Relations should be made compulsory reading for every member of Parliament. I suggest that the report should be widely distributed. If we can clearly identify and reveal the problem of racial discrimination as it exists, we are bound to do something good about it. To neglect the problem, having had the problem so well revealed, would be a condemnation of us all. I want to remind honourable senators that this Senate also has a responsibility to see that racial discrimination is not practised against any one of its members. My mind returns to the time when **Senator Bonner** was discriminated against racially in a most abhorrent way in a Mount Isa hotel and we in the Senate stood by and did nothing. Instead of taking the position that we are all equal in society, that there ought not to be any different attitude or action taken for a member of Parliament or a senator, and that that person must stand upon his own feet in these situations, I would have thought that the dignity of this Senate was at stake when **Senator Bonner** was treated in such a way. It was not for **Senator Bonner** to raise the matter, and he did not do so. But surely it should have been up to one of us to raise the matter and to say: This senator was discriminated against. As a Senate, as an organisation, as an association of which **Senator Bonner** is a member, we should have taken steps to have had explained to us clearly by the hotelier or pub owner in Mount Isa how he could justify the position that he took, his subsequent remark that **Senator Bonner** set him up and his subsequent refusal to apologise until finally he was forced to apologise. I put it on notice that if that happens to **Senator Bonner** or to any other person in this place I will be the one who will initiate action, and I will not take any cool it down' advice from anyone in this place. I will insist that the Senate take action to bring before the Senate itself the person or persons to explain why one of its members has been discriminated against on the basis of colour in the way that **Senator Bonner** was discriminated against. According to this report racial discrimination is apparently prevalent. The farther you get away from Canberra the more prevalent it appears to be. It is unfortunate that it happens to be the Aboriginal people who suffer the brunt of the discrimination. It is up to the Senate, based on this report, to see that it does not occur, that it does not continue. If we are to confront the Queensland Government because of this report, let us confront it. In this report there is evidence that the Commissioner approached the Queensland authorities with complaints of blatant discrimination, restriction of freedom, restriction of rights, but the Queensland Government did not respond or reply. The Commissioner is appointed by this Government and operates under an Act of this Parliament. He carries out a responsibility given to us under the referendum for the protection of the rights and freedoms of the Aboriginal people. It appears to me that we still neglect them. If we do not neglect them in any other State then we certainly do neglect them in Queensland and it should not be permitted any further. Debate (on motion by **Senator Durack)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 701 {:#debate-47} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-47-0} #### CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE USSR {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-6H4} ##### Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania -I move: The names of Anotoly Schaharansky, Alexander Ginsburg and Yuri Orlov were household names throughout the world barely eight months ago. Are these names now forgotten in those homes? Though this motion was put down in the Senate on 24 May 1 978 after Orlov had received his sentence and before Shcharansky and Ginsburg had received theirs, nevertheless it is as relevant today as it was then- even more so. I remind the Senate of the significance both to human rights within the Soviet Union and to world peace and prosperity of this particular issue and these particular men. Anatoly Shcharansky who is now 31, a mathematician and computer engineer, had been unemployed since 1973, blackballed by the Soviet authorities from obtaining a job. Why? Because he had made an application to go to Israel and that application was turned down. With an excellent command of English, Shcharansky had been a one-man public relations organisation for the dissidents, arranging interviews for Western correspondents with the Helsinki monitors and often interpreting for Andre Sakharov, the dissident Nobel prize winning physicist. Shcharansky was also the link between Soviet Jews who wanted to leave the country and human rights advocates who wanted to reform their society. The Soviet Government's case against Shcharansky was unusual because it involved alleged United States subversion and espionage and because it led to President Carter's flat denial that Shcharansky had ever worked for US Intelligence. On 14 July 1978 Shcharansky was sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. Alexander Ginsburg, who is now 42 years of age, published an underground poetry journal in the late 1 950s. In 1978 he was arrested and sentenced to a labour camp for two years on charges of forging a certificate to take an examination for a friend. Later he served five years in a camp for 'AntiSoviet agitation and propaganda activities'. Until his third arrest in 1977, amongst a group of 20 other arrests, he administered a fund set up by exiled author Alexander Solzhenitsyn for royalties in Western countries from his book the *Gulag Archipelago* a study of the Stalinist labour camp system. Ginsburg said that the aim of the fund was to help political prisoners and their families. His arrest marked the opening Soviet shot at the Helsinki monitors. On 13 July last year, barely eight months ago, Ginsburg was sentenced to eight years of hard labour. Yuri Orlov, who is now 54 years of age, was the victim of the first major political prosecution after the Helsinki accords. His four-day trial, which ended only six days before I gave notice of this motion in the Senate- that is to say, it ended on 1 8 May 1978- brought him a sentence of seven years of hard labour and five years of internal exile for Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda'. Orlov, Ginsburg, Shcharansky and six others formed the Helsinki monitoring groups in May 1 976. They took care to work within Soviet laws. They published reports on subjects such as prison conditions, abuses of psychiatry for political aims, restrictions on travel and tampering with mail. In support of that I refer to what **Dr David** Owen, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, had to say four days after the trial of Shcharansky and Ginsburg concluded. In an official text headed 'Helsinki Final Act: Foreign Secretary's Statement' and released on 24 July 1 978, **Dr Owen** said: >In Principle VII signatory States of the Final Act recognised that individuals have the right to note and act upon their rights and duties in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Since the conclusion of the Belgrade conference, ten members of Helsinki monitoring groups operating in the Soviet Union have been put on trial, on various charges including malicious hooliganism, anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda and treason. > >This has raised the total number of group members - That is Helsinki monitoring group members- who have been on trial to 1 S. Three more are in detention. Though the indictments did not mention the Helsinki monitoring groups as such, action against these people appears to be related to their activities in monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Final Act and drawing attention to instances of non-implementation of human rights provisions. In addition, there have been further cases since Belgrade of distinguished Soviet citizens who have been deprived of their citizenship while travelling abroad. The Foreign Secretary, **Dr Owen,** points out: >The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which is specifically endorsed in Principle VII of the Final Act recognises the right of all individuals to leave and return to their country. As indicated by the Foreign Secretary's statement, the imprisonment of Shcharansky, Ginsburg and Orlov is only the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, one recalls the many thousands of people who have been subjected to loss of human rights simply because they chose to note or attempted to note the infringements by the Soviet Union of human rights. It extends to the whole of Eastern Europe. I think the world is fortunate that a great son of Poland is now Pope John Paul II. He has described communism as systematic atheism'. We have the Polish groups, the Czechoslovakian groups and the Baltic groups. Typical of these groups is the Lithuanian Helsinki monitoring group. A member of that group, Viktoras Petkus, was also condemned during the week ended 14 July 1978- the same week as Shcharansky and Ginsburg were sentenced- and sentenced to three years of hard labour at a special regime camp, followed by seven years in prison labour camp and five years in Siberian exile. Petkus 's only crime was to draw the attention of the authorities to documented cases of gross violation of the human rights clauses of the Helsinki Agreement. In addition, other human rights violations occur against those who are attempting to ensure their rights as free trade unionists- a matter which is close to my field of activity. On 26 April 1978 I sought to have adopted, and was successful in having adopted, by the Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council a resolution which called upon the Commonwealth Government and the State Government to raise these issues with the International Labour Organisation. I drew attention to the fact that in early 1978 attempts by Soviet workers to organise themselves into trade unions free from control of the state had been met by severe repressive measures by the Soviet Government. Indeed, in 1977 at the ILO conference the committee of experts in its report on the application of conventions and recommendations expressed its reservations concerning the freedom of workers in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to organise as provided by ILO Convention No. 87 of 1948, which is the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise convention. Discussion on that report of the committee of experts was thwarted in the plenary session of the ILO by procedural manoeuvres by totalitarian countries resulting in the absence of a quorum, thus preventing a decision from being made. The committee of experts had requested the Soviet Union to give further consideration to its report as a prelude to the matter again coming before the ILO. Indeed, this morning **Senator Lajovic** pointed out that this matter was still a matter of great concern to the ILO. He asked a question which was answered by the Attorney-General **(Senator Durack)** in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, **Mr Street.** *The Guardian* of 4 March 1979 had this to say: >The Soviet Union has warned the International Labor Organisation against investigating charges that it has harassed self-proclaimed trade unions and it imprisoned their leaders. A letter from Moscow, discussed here last week - That is, in Geneva: by a special ILO committee, says that such an investigation would be 'illegal and inadmissible'. The letter hopes that the ILO 'will take measures to avoid involving the organisation in a dubious political campaign and which could gravely prejudice the activity of the organisation in the effective defence of the interests and rights of workers'. The nine-member ILO committee on freedom of association meets regularly to consider alleged violations against the ILO Convention 87, which concerns the right to form a union of one 's own choosing. At a private session the committee decided to reject the Russian reply. Its report recommends that the Soviet Government be asked about 'allegations that it would be legally impossible to establish in the USSR a trade union independent of the State and the party'. It also recommends asking for information on the whereabouts of five founding members of the union of Free Soviet Workers whose formation was announced in Moscow at the beginning of last year. Two international trade union organisations- the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and the World Confederation of Labour (WCL)- have alleged that the Soviet Government had disbanded the organisation and gaoled its leaders. These are named as Vladimir Klebanov, Valentin Poplavsky, Gabriel Yankov, Eugene Nikolaiev and Fyodor Dvortsky One recalls the statement made by Alexander Solzhenitsyn that 'in our country since the revolution there has never been such a thing as a free trade union'. We do not have to go far afield to get evidence of this because one of the most interesting aspects of the work of this Parliament is its committees. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence SubCommittee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union which was chaired by **Senator John** Wheeldon had before it on 14 April 1978 a person named Leonid Plyushch. Leonid Plyushch is a well known Ukranian research mathematician and socialist. He gave evidence to the SubCommittee concerning the formation of trade unions. **Mr Plyushch** had this to say: >Workers have formed an independent trade union but the initiators have already been arrested. Khlebrikov is in a psychiatric prison. Unless the labour movement and Labor Parties in the free world support this workers' movement, within a couple of years it will also be suppressed. I consider a political campaign for the rights of trade unions independent of the Soviet Government to be one of the chief priorities for the present day. To return to the Helsinki group and the associated denials of what we regarded as the minimum of rights and freedom of association and freedom of speech, one asks why the KGB operates to quash any sign by anyone to exert his rights. One of the reasons is that the Soviet system is frightened of the truth. Again I refer to Solzhenitsyn's famous address in Washington on 30 June 1 975 in which he said: >When many lies have accumulated over the decades we forget the radical and basic lie which is not on the leaves of the tree but at its very roots. The system in fact is based on a lie. But for the free world there is an even greater problem. The Helsinki accords were agreements reached between nations. One must search for an explanation of the action of the Soviet Union in breaching those agreements by punishing the very people who were grouped together to monitor the implementation of the agreements. For that explanation, I refer to what Andrei Sakharov had to say: >The repression, accordingly, can be called a bureaucratic reflex. In the USSR the mechanistic soullessness of political persecution makes it especially cruel and unjust, particularly when little known people are its objects. He then goes on to say something that is very significant for the free world. At present, however, the KGB 'Brains trust' seems to me to be pursuing an even wider aim. By arresting Helsinki Watch members and sentencing some of them with a cruelty no one could fail to notice, the Soviet authorities were issuing a defiant challenge to the Western Helsinki signatories and Belgrade meeting participants. So says Andrei Sakharov. What is the free world saying? More importantly, what is it doing? Because of the terms of the motion I am limiting my comments to the Soviet Helsinki group members and not dealing with groups in other Eastern European countries. After they were tried, convicted and sentenced, there was a barrage of words but very little action. Certainly the heavy sentences and the action of the Soviet authorities deserved and received condemnation throughout the world; but with no practical results. Those men are still languishing in Soviet prisons. The Minister for Foreign Affairs **(Mr Peacock),** just before the trial of Ginsburg and Shcharansky, did issue a statement on 1 1 July 1978 condemning the action proposed to be taken by the Soviet authorities. The Press statement is as follows: > **Mr Peacock** said that the Australian Embassy in Moscow was following developments at the Shcharansky and Ginsburg trials closely. A representative of the Embassy was part of the group representing many Western Embassies which had travelled to Kaluga in a vain attempt to attend the Ginsburg trial. Further on it is stated: > **Mr Peacock** appealed to the Soviet leadership to demonstrate a greater sensitivity to the widespread concern for guarantees of fundamental human rights evident in today's world. On 20 July 1978 the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** issued a statement on the program for the observance of the thirtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, six days after Shcharansky was sentenced. The statement is as follows: > **Mr Fraser** observed that this anniversary comes at a time when there is growing international recognition of the importance of fundamental human rights. The world-wide outcry in recent days against the trials of Soviet dissidents, and the harsh sentences imposed on them, is a clear demonstration of this and serves to bring home the importance of doing all we can to promote understanding of, and adherence to, the principles expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >We in Australia, he said, have a record on human rights we can be justly proud of and over the years successive Australian governments have actively contributed to the work of the United Nations in the promotion and protection of internationally recognised human rights. Australia commenced a three-year term on the UN Commission on Human Rights at the beginning of this year. The matter had of course received the attention of members of the Senate and members of the House of Representatives. For example, on 24 May 1978 **Senator Missen** asked **Senator Carrick,** the Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the trial of **Dr Yuri** Orlov and a possible boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games as a consequence. The Prime Minister supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >In an earlier answer the Government 's deep concern at the recent trial and harsh sentence imposed on **Dr Orlov** was made clear. The Government has also deplored the trials and sentencing of other courageous men and women associated with the human rights movement in the Soviet Union. We have made our views clear to the Soviet authorities, both publicly and privately, and will continue to do so. > >The question of Australia's participation in a particular Olympic Games is not one for the Government to determine. It is a matter for the Australian Olympic Federation. However, as far as the Government is concerned, we are conscious of the fact that the 1980 Moscow Olympics will bring large numbers of athletes and other visitors from all over the world, thereby exposing the Soviet Union to greater contact with liberal values and standards of political rights. This is a view shared by other Western governments. One can argue one way or the other on whether the Olympic Games will be used by the Soviet Union as Hitler used the Olympic Games in Berlin before the war. Indeed, I have pointed out before that the organising secretary of the Moscow Olympic Games appointed by the Soviet Union is one Alexander Gresko In 1971 he was expelled by the British as a KGB operative engaged in unauthorised surveillance. The issue is this: What will be done by the Australian Government in practical terms? Could I suggest that we take up the statement made by the Prime Minister on 20 July 1978 when, after discussing the Orlov trial, he noted that Australia commenced a three-year term on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at the beginning of this year. Could I suggest that the Australian representative on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights pursue the issues that have been raised and pursue them vigorously. Unless something like this is done, unless the free world stands up against the blatant breach of agreements and fundamental human rights, then not only will these men be forgotten, but also we will be digging our own graves. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)-** Is the motion seconded? {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales -- My colleague, **Senator Lajovic,** was originally intending to second this motion. He is not in the chamber at the moment. It therefore gives me great pleasure to second the motion. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 704 {:#debate-48} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-48-0} #### VIETNAM {: #subdebate-48-0-s0 .speaker-6H4} ##### Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania -- I move: This motion was placed on the Notice Paper on 15 August 1978. In fact the announcement of the Government in January of this year would appear to overtake the purpose of the motion. In fact, the motion referred specifically to those Vietnamese approved for entry into Australiathat is to say, those Vietnamese who have letters of authority from the Australian Government. When I say 'from the Australian Government' I mean that since July 1976 some 480 letters of authority have been issued to residents of Vietnam who have immediate family members in Australia. As at the end of 1978 only 92 persons had arrived in Australia under this arrangement and the majority of those have been granted exit visas by the Vietnamese authorities since March 1 978. Some of the letters of authority received since 1978 were renewable letters of authority which had been granted by the then Minister for Labour and Immigration, who I think was the Hon. Clyde Cameron. I put it to the Senate that this is a matter which should deserve the attention and support of both sides of the chamber. These people, as I have just mentioned, have immediate family members in Australia. I think it important that action be taken to encourage the Vietnamese authorities to act in a humane way and to enable these family reunions to take place. Some people who have been to Vietnam, including **Mr Uren,** have indicated on their return that anyone who wants out of Vietnam can get out. I refer to a statement made by **Mr Uren** on his return from Vietnam on 2 August 1978 and published in the Hobart *Mercury* of that date. The report said: > **Mr Uren,** the Opposition spokesman on urban and regional development and a former senior Minister, said Vietnam had spoken to most Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) about the problem. That is the problem of the exodus of refugees. The report continued: >Hanoi had no objection to people who did not want to be part of the new Vietnam leaving the country, **Mr Uren** said. He said it only objected when refugees hijacked boats or stole government property when leaving. He also stated that the Government of Vietnam was 'extremely tolerant and patient' and 'is not oppressive and is gentle and progressive'. He also challenged 'any editor of any newspaper or other people to come forward with evidence to the contrary'. When he said 'to the contrary', he challenged them to show that the Government was oppressive. Further, he denied that it was trying to prevent Vietnamese people leaving the country. Quite frankly, the evidence is and has been that the Vietnamese Government is the direct opposite of those eulogistic descriptions because there are 480 minus 92 Vietnamese who have been approved for entry to Australia, who have received letters of authority to join their relatives in Australia but who for over four years in some cases have been prevented from leaving Vietnam. I certainly do not expect those unfortunate people or their relatives within Australia to come forward and respond to **Mr Uren's** challenge. But I wish on their behalf to respond to that challenge in the hope that everyone concerned will use his or her influence to ensure that these people- and I emphasise that some of them were granted letters of authority by the previous Government- can rejoin their families. I have detailed knowledge of at least two of those families. Fortunately they are amongst the 92 people who have recently come to Australia. If there is nothing to prevent those people coming to Australia, why can they not come? They have been vetted by Australia, they have been provided with Australian Government letters of authority and they should not be subjected to the elaborate procrastination that has occurred and the consequent anxiety which has been caused between parents and children, between husband and wife, and between one family and another. In this morning's edition of the Melbourne *Age* I noticed a statement by the Deputy High Commissioner for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, **Mr Dale** de Haan, who said that Vietnam had told him that it will reduce the number of boat people leaving its shores if other countries take Vietnamese refugees on a family reunion basis. Apparently that is what Vietnam has been saying all along, but what is being said and what is being done are two different things. I make an appeal for the reuniting of these people in the belief that if one cannot get a thing one way, one gets it another way. There has been little movement on this matter for over four years, and that is why I put this proposal before the Senate. However, I do not wish to go into the question of refugees because this motion was not meant to refer to refugees. Descriptions of the sufferings and torments of refugees are heartbreaking. I refer simply to a headline in the Examiner of 3 March 1979 which said: 'Vietnamese girl aged 17 buries 49 refugees'. The story went on to recount how for 20 weeks a 1 7- year-old Vietnamese girl refugee marooned on an old wreck in the South China Sea lived on seagulls, oysters and a little rainwater and that when help finally came the girl had buried the last of her 49 companions. I do not want to go into the whole question of refugees. The motion was designed simply to highlight the situation concerning family group reunions. I believe that the issue has been overtaken by the announcement of the Federal Government in January of this year concerning the cutting off of aid and the recent announcement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees concerning the apparent indication by the Vietnamese Government on family reunions. Under those circumstances, I do not wish to proceed with the motion and I seek leave io withdraw it. Motion- by leave- withdrawn. {: .page-start } page 705 {:#debate-49} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-49-0} #### PARLIAMENT HOUSE SECURITY {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- I did noi expect to participate in debate again so soon. I thought that **Senator Harradine** might have persisted with his motion in order to allow some honourable senators to make comments, some of which would have supported his concern, and others would have taken up some of his statements which I do not believe were entirely accurate. Of course, having given him leave to withdraw, I would be completely out of order if I persisted in debating the matter. Nevertheless, **Senator Harradine** ought to be concerned that he has cut off a debate which could have proved to be interesting, if not to his disadvantage. I shall now speak to a motion I placed on the Notice Paper. I move: The matter of the security of Parliament House has been debated at great length and with considerable emotion and excitement. The escalation of security measures arose from what I would say was an over-reaction on the part of the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** which led to a confrontation between him and the Speaker and the President. It seems strange that there should have emerged during that contest the need to remind the Prime Minister and the Executive that the Parliament is not their instrument but the instrument of the people and the representatives of the people who, through the Speaker and the President, have control of their affairs. That includes the security of this place. My complaint is that there was an over-reaction and that there has been imposed on this place a most unnecessary over-security. To my mind it has created an atmosphere of intimidation at a time when this sense of the need for security was at its highest. It seems unnecessary that we should have in this place staff who have not been allowed to carry out their duties or who perhaps were not even properly informed of their duties, and whose responsibilities were not clearly denned, in respect of the certain places and certain corridors that were to be secured against unauthorised entry. It seemed to me that the best way to achieve improved security in this place would have been to give to the attendants their rightful authority and a proper understanding of their duties because they were in the best position to recognise and to know who was entitled to move from place to place. Since they are familiar with the staff, the members of Parliament and all those who work within the precincts of Parliament, they would be able to recognise those who were not entitled to be in the corridors. Over the years there has been a laxity which has allowed people to move freely through the corridors without any check, hindrance or questioning. This led to a breakdown in the security of Parliament House. The new security arrangements have proved to be an intrusion into the rights of parliamentarians to carry out their duties without interference. We should not have had imposed upon us such a system, which I consider to be completely unnecessary, expensive and, if it came to the test, completely ineffective because it would not prevent a determined person from committing some act of terror against this place. The measures that have been taken will not do that. In fact, I think that the system which has been imposed could be used to facilitate entry. In view of the number of passes that have been issued, it is possible for a person to obtain a pass and gain entry without question because the pass would give him an unquestioned authority to move from place to place. {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: -- Your complaint is not one against the Executive; it is one against the Presiding Officer for proposing these new conditions? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I will get to that point if you want to push me to it. I may have slipped away from the point I was making. When the Prime Minister endeavoured to impose oversecurity on this place, the two Presiding Officers resisted. I think that they then came to a compromise which, I believe, led to an over-security situation. I am critical of the Presiding Officers in that they took upon themselves decisions that should not have been made without reference to this Parliament. The honourable senator has reminded me that a decision has been made without reference to and without consultation with the Parliament. It is an acceptance by them of an authority which is really an authority which belongs to the Parliament. I am critical of this situation. I am not critical of the fact that the Presiding Officers stood up to the Prime Minister; I think that that was the right decision for them to take in protection of our rights. But in coming to the compromise and in failing to consult the Parliament they have implemented certain measures that were quite unnecessary. If the Parliament had debated them and they had understood some of our arguments, possibly they would not have proceeded with what I consider to be an over-security situation. The installation of certain electronic scrutiny devices is a matter that should have been carefully considered. It should have been debated. I would have expected the Presiding Officers to take some note of the necessity for freedom of access to our galleries. There have been references to what happens overseas but my point is that we have not reached that stage. We are nowhere near it and we ought not to accelerate unnecessary adoption of measures that have been taken overseas. Apparently the Presiding Officers have taken upon themselves the decision to expend a vast sum of money in altering the entrance to this place. I do not know that anyone was aware that we were suddenly to have a massive reconstruction of the front entrance to this place. I was not aware of it. Perhaps something was debated or decided somewhere in this place and I missed the debate. I do not think I did. {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: -- It is unlikely that you missed it. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- It was not debated. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- It was not debated; yet we are to have a new procedure for entry into this place. The construction work is taking place outside. It seems to me that we have converted this place into a citadel and entry to the citadel by the people shall be through a series of electronic scanning devices in order to protect us. Protect us from what? Is it the intention to protect us from someone showering a couple of leaflets down from the balcony, or perhaps making a loud comment from the galleries? Are we so privileged as to be protected in this way? Are we all such cowards that we fear for our lives? I take it that every one of us here has come under threat. Recently, I have received a whole series of letters from different directions, from crackpots who talk in such terms as 'What you need is a bullet throught the head'. We all get those threats. I received through a reporter information that at one of the demonstrations in which I was to take part there would be a person with a bomb strapped around the waist, and that person did not really care because he had only three days to live. An element of terror was brought into that situation. But everyone here has suffered those sorts of threats, and what we normally do is make note of them. We might inform the Commonwealth Police of the time and place of such a threat, but we give it no further currency. The style of our lives does lead to that sort of intimidation. But surely, having received that sort of intimidatory threat, we do not panic and surround ourselves with useless devices and some protection that really is not a protection at all. Our protection, I would think, is the style and manner in which we operate and the sense that we can operate freely without over-security. Once we seek this over-security, of course, we place ourselves in the hands of the security agents, who then have a vested interest to make certain that we are reminded of our insecurity from time to time. So we have an escalation of procedures, devices and incidents which lead to and justify the measures that have been taken to protect us. That is a rather garbled analogy, but honourable senators know what I am getting at. If we are to have a security force to protect us, that security force will justify itself by manufacturing the incidents which lead to reinforcing their need. {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: -- But you are raising a much more fundamental issue, and that is the relationship between the Parliament and the Presiding Officers and the extent to which Parliament's power is delegated to them to make decisions of this kind. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I have said sufficient without buying into a fight with the Presiding officers. All I am saying is that the Presiding Officers should not have made a decision of that magnitude without reference of the matter to this chamber for a decision. I do not doubt that the Presiding Officers would have had the numbers to get their own way, but at least they should have given us the courtesy of a debate in this place before that expenditure was undertaken. That it is a useless expenditure is the point I am making. {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: -- I agree it is an important issue, but where is the point where power is delegated to the Presiding Officers to make these sorts of decisions, and where do you get beyond that point to where it is not? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- It gets beyond that point when the President or the Speaker in particular takes it upon himself to think that he has the sole authority to spend money and alter the facilities and the procedures in this place. I would have thought that the Presiding Officers took their authority from us, and if that authority is to be properly exercised, they ought to be referring to us continually. I am a member of the Joint House Committee, but I find I have no rights on that Committee, except in an advisory capacity. I can bow, I can say: 'Yes, I agree' or 'I think it would be a good idea if we did this or we did that'. But when it comes to the crunch the Presiding officer says: No, you have no vote in this matter. You cannot overrule me. I am the power'. Let me return to the matter of security. I would like to reinforce my attitude that it is an affront to identify members of Parliament by badge. This has not happened, although some members have taken it upon themselves to identify themselves in this way in order to be part of the mass. It is also an affront, idle and unnecessary, to identify our attendants who wear a uniform. The symbol of their authority is their uniform. Yet apparently they must now identify themselves by badge. Our *Hansard* people are required to identify themselves by badge. A secretary of a committee is identified by badge, irrespective of the fact that everyone in the area where he works is a part of the Parliament and every other person knows who he is. It is to me an unnecessary identification. It seems to me to be a perfect insult that once the visitors and the public go through the necessary procedure of some basic security check they then have to wear an identification badge and be escorted at all times, into the dining room in particular. We sit in our dining room with our guests all labelled with identifying passes, which I consider to be unnecessary and childish. We find the same thing occurring in our corridors. I find that unnecessary and I think it is a system which can be misused. In fact it has been misused, and people can move around freely wearing one another's badges, because those badges are not properly checked. I am told that at one stage there a badge which carried the photograph of the face of an Alsatian dog, was worn throughout this place for the whole day without its being checked. I am also told that there are thousands of these badges issued and many of them are not returned. Have we gone into a very costly procedure unnecessarily? Let me get back to the point that I was making in the first place. I do not think that the procedures of this place ought not to be changed without proper consultation. We delegate authority to the Presiding Officers. Those Presiding Officers do not take that authority out of the air. Their authority flows from us, and if it is to flow effectively it ought to be by way of consultation. I would hope that at the right time we get a proper explanation of the decision that was made to spend an amount which someone said was $ 1 m- I do not know what it is- to change the entrance to Parliament House. I do know it cost the Government almost $50,000 to convert a sauna room in this building. If it cost that much money for a minor alteration I wonder what it will cost to alter the front of Parliament House to make secure something which it is impossible to secure, as I have endeavoured to explain. I think we ought to be prepared to take the risk. I think we ought to impose that sort of opinion upon our Presiding Officers and save ourselves a lot of trouble and a lot of money. **Mr Deputy President,** I do not know whether I have congratulated you on having acted as President for some two weeks now. May I congratulate you on the manner in which you have carried out your duties? My view of a Presiding Officer is that of a person who does not interrupt the debate. I would say that a President who is capable of controlling this chamber without - {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- He might interrupt the debate fairly soon. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I must complete my remarks. I congratulate you, **Mr Deputy President,** on the manner in which you have supervised this chamber. Had you been in charge of the security measures adopted in this place, I think you would have consulted in the manner which I have suggested. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 708 {:#debate-50} ### ADJOURNMENT Immigration: Passports -Pensioner Telephone Concessions- Answers to Questions Without Notice- Observance of Commonwealth Day- Reports of Standing Committees The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #debate-50-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I rise tonight simply to try to establish the missing link in the utterances of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs **(Mr MacKellar)** in justifying the return to the Bartons of their Australian passports. The Sydney Press of last weekend speculated on what would happen. The Bartons' defence was that they wanted to return to Australia to face their accusers. What I am trying to ascertain is simply whether, their passports had been confiscated, as I understand was the case, and the Australian Government offered them re-entry visas. If so, how could the Bartons justify ignoring that and procuring Paraguyan passports, thereby in effect jeopardising their Australian citizenship? It is quite a simple matter. I have read the statements made by the Minister, which I think displayed brinkmanship, or undue clemency, towards the people concerned. I know of many other cases of people getting into this situation. I am certain that they have not had their passports returned with a minimum of discomfort, as the Bartons did. In effect, I am simply asking the Minister whether he has information whether the Australian Government said to the Bartons in Paraguay that they could obtain re-entry visas and come back to Australia. If that was so, and if they rejected that offer and obtained foreign passports, why has their Australian citizenship not been reviewed? {: #debate-50-s1 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON:
Queensland -- I must admit that this evening I am gravely disappointed that the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** is not able to be in the chamber. I say that because today a matter regarding social security arose which I believe requires an answer before we rise this evening, as we will not be here next week. If we were going to be here next week, when we could discuss this matter, I suppose that my disappointment at the Minister for Social Security not being able to be here would not be as great as it is tonight. But I have the old fashioned belief that Ministers should be in the chamber when we are sitting. I raise this matter because it is of significant importance. Yesterday in the Senate, **Senator Grimes** asked a question, followed by a supplementary question, on pensioner telephone concessions. The answers given to his questions did not reach any finality. After I heard the questions being asked, I noticed an article in the Brisbane *Telegraph* which was written by **Ms Erica** Parker. I think it is worth while my mentioning parts of that article in view of what I plan to say about issues that arose today. The article was headed 'The Phone Concession Reviewed- A check by Social Security ' and read in part: >Social Security is tightening up on one of the most prized fringe benefits of all- the telephone rental concessions. > >In a blanket mailing, pensioners are receiving a questionnaire requiring them to re-establish their eligibility. > >Failure to return the completed form, they are warned, will result in automatic cancellation of entitlement. **Ms Parker** went on to detail what the concession is and to mention some of the conditions of eligibility, which include: >Additionally, a condition of eligibility is that (as Social Security puts it), the person who claims the concession must be living alone or with other people who can get the concession or with another person whose income does not exceed $79.70 a week. One of the questions I want to ask- I hope that the Minister for Social Security will be able to answer it within the next day or so- is how this amount of $79.70 is arrived at. In addition, does the Minister's Department determine the amount of $79.70, or does the Australian Telecommunications Commission determine it? **Ms Parker's** article yesterday went further and quoted a section of the questionnaire. She then detailed some parts of a conversation which she had had with Telecom and with the Department of Social Security. She ended her article in yesterday's *Telegraph* this way: >It's my tip that review of the telephone fringe benefit will be only the first of on-going reviews instigated one by one as Social Security can cope with them. > >All inspired by the scathing report of the Auditor-General last September when, as I seem to remember, he estimated that, overall, over-payments in social benefits could have hit $58,700,000. In round figures. **Ms Parker** had an ankle published in today's *Telegraph* which is even more revealing. In fact, as one reads that article the whole exercise appears to be something that has come from the mad hatter's tea party. I shall read parts of her article in this afternoon's *Telegraph,* which is headed 'Troubles with that phone quiz'. I think you will excuse me, **Mr Deputy President,** if I quote a significant pan of this article because it is quite important that we follow the flow of it to get the full story that she outlined. She stated: >Oh dear, oh dear ... in its rush to weed out pensioners enjoying telephone rental concession without true entitlement Social Security has just about met itself coming back. > >It just didn't print enough of the quiz forms- or, if it did, it failed to supply anything like an adequate number to Queensland. > >The upshot? Some pensioners received the questionnaire and some didn't because they couldn't- and so what has happened to them? > >Why, they're getting a sort of after-thought notice which, in effect, asks them to go hunt up a questionnaire for themselves! > >Says that second Social Security notice (I shared the gist of that original questionnaire with you yesterday): > >Dear Sir/Madam, > >Recently pensioners receiving the Telephone Rental Concession were sent questionnaires by this Department, reviewing their eligibility for the concession. > >IF YOU RECEIVE THE CONCESSION but did not receive a questionnaire, please contact your nearest office of this department so that arrangements may be made for you to complete one. > >Should you decide not to complete and return a questionnaire, it will be taken to indicate that you no longer wish to be considered for the concession. ' > >In other words, if you were left out of the 'lucky lot' who got the quiz (and the reply-paid envelope), you'd best now hop to it to ring, write or personally call in for your copy or- > >Like the little boy who fell out of the balloon, when your concession 's wiped out- you won 't have a leg to stand on She went on to outline the guidelines, some of which I have mentioned already. Later on her article states: >But to get back to where we came in- which is to the subject of the 'shortfall' in the questionnaire print and the issuing, instead, of those secondary notices . . . > >There must, of course, be some logical explanation, but until any such is forthcoming, I only can go on wondering as you must be wondering, too- > >Why, oh why instead of printing that special follow-on didn't they simply get cracking in printing more of the original quiz. Exactly as it was and is- > >And that way save any risk of the feeble and ill being among those who missed out and now have to go chase one. The whole situation is becoming most confused for a group in this community which find it difficult enough to eke out a living without having bureaucratic nonsense like that foisted upon them. It is significant that a number of people on the other side of the Senate think the whole thing is a joke. If they think it is a joke they should come into my office and answer people who are ringing up and wondering where they are situated. The Minister for Social Security could not come into this chamber to answer what is actually happening. The people of Australia are being confused by what is happening and they are not being given any proper explanation. One person who rang my office this afternoon is in this situation: He is an invalid pensioner, and his wife receives the wife's pension. He has a 14- year-old son to put through school. His daughter has just started work and she is living at home. This pensioner tells me that he cannot afford to lose the concession that he has and he is wondering whether he should be honest about the present circumstances of his family. I cannot condone someone saying that he is not going to be honest about a situation, but I can understand what is happening when we get this silly nonsense that I have outlined here this evening being foisted upon people- people who find it difficult, enough to deal with bureaucratic forms at any time. As I said, I am disappointed that the Minister for Social Security is not here so that she could outline what is actually happening. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the Senate will not be sitting next week. This means that it will be about a week and a half before we can expect to receive any explanation in this place. That is really not good enough. What we should have tonight is an explanation from some Minister about what is going on. The people of Australia should be told what is going on. It will be a bad state of affairs if we cannot get an explanation from a Minister tonight. However, if that is the case I would expect the Minister for Social Security to come clean about this whole matter as soon as possible. Even if Parliament is not sitting she should explain to the people of Australia what her Department is doing to the pensioners of Australia. {: #debate-50-s2 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia **-Mr Deputy President** - *Government senators interjecting-* {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Of course we get the usual cat-calls from the other side of the Senate. I wish to speak again on a matter that I raised during the last two adjournment debates. One would have thought that honourable senators opposite who are cackling and cat-calling would have made some effort to speak to their leader and persuade him to make a statement to this Parliament to exonerate himself or else prove that he has not misled the Senate as he did on Thursday last week when he told the Senate that a public inquiry was conducted into the affairs of **Mr Lynch.** As I wended my way to the chamber to participate in the adjournment debate tonight I saw **Senator Carrick** going into the chamber with an armful of papers and I said to myself: 'Ah, at last he is going to tell the Senate the truth of the matter'. But, of course, he has left the chamber now, and I am in the same situation as I was in on Tuesday night and last night. {: .speaker-NG4} ##### Senator Lewis: -- Why don't you sit down and we will go home. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Well, I will not. As I told **Senator Carrick,** I will pursue this matter to the bitter end because the people of Australia want the truth. The Leader of the Government in the Senate came into this place last Thursday and said that there had been a public inquiry conducted into the affairs of **Mr Lynch. Senator McClelland** and I spoke on the same subject last night. **Senator McClelland** made this interjection during the speech made by **Senator Carrick:** >Would you regard it as a public inquiry? **Senator Carrick** replied: >It was a public inquiry to the extent that it was conducted by an independent public figure and was reported. It was reported in a Press statement dated 16 December 1977 put out by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser).** What did the Prime Minister have to say in his Press statement which **Senator Carrick** incorporated in *Hansard* last night? I will not read all of the Press statement because I want to speak on another matter. But the Press statement in part read: >I have considered the position of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party . . . > >I have also taken independent advice from **Mr Stephen** Charles, Q.C., of the Melbourne Bar, who advised me that on the facts available - On the facts available- to him from documents supplied and from information made available from Irish, Young and Outhwaite, and Mallesons, that nothing has been done by **Mr Lynch** or his family which was illegal. He went on to say: >I am delighted that **Mr Charles** has advised as he has. Of course he would be delighted. There has been conclusive proof of how much he was delighted. Consider what took place in this Parliament a fortnight ago. If **Mr Lynch** had not engineered a meeting in **Mr Fraser** 's mother's flat in Melbourne **Mr Robinson** would have been sitting on the back bench in company with **Senator Withers** and there would have been real trouble in the government ranks. I will talk about some of that trouble a little later. The Prime Minister in his Press statement said: >I now regard the matter as closed, and I see no reason why **Mr Lynch** should not be re-elected as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. That was the extent of public inquiry and the way this matter was reported. Both **Senator McClelland** and I have asked repeatedly in this Parliament this week for the transcript of evidence that was taken at this so-called public inquiry to be tabled. We have not yet received this material. As **Senator McClelland** and I said last night, we will pursue the matter and haunt **Senator Carrick** until he tells the Parliament that he misled the Senate or until he produces the transcript of evidence. Thursday is becoming known as a very eventful day in this Parliament. Three weeks ago we had the Robinson affair; last Thursday we had the Fraser-Beggs affair; and tonight we have what we could call the Kilgariff affair. I draw the attention of honourable senators to a date line publication which is available in the party rooms. It is interesting to note that this matter comes on top of an episode we witnessed early today when **Senator Townley** really castigated the Prime Minister for wasting public money by buying VIP aircraft. **Senator Kilgariff** is to resign from the National Country Party to go over to the Liberal Party. I notice that there are not many Liberal senators present in the chamber. Apparently they are all out swarming. They are in real trouble. Honourable senators opposite are trying to drown out what I trying to say because they are so worried about what has happened. The telex to which I draw the attention of the Senate states: >Canberra March 8 AAP-National Country Party (NCP) senator for the Northern Territory, **Senator Bernie** Kilgariff, is to join the Liberal Party, according to NCP sources. > >The sources said tonight that **Senator Kilgariff** had informed the NCP leader and Deputy Prime Minister, **Mr Doug** Anthony of his decision. > >There was no immediate comment from **Mr Anthony,** although he was said to be upset by the switch. > > **Senator Kilgariff** made his decision in the face of apparently strong persuasion to get him to change his mind. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- He is going to be the next Minister for Finance. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- The telex continues: >The sources said there was 'real concern and disappointment' in the party at the turn of events. > >Earlier today **Senator Kilgariff** told Australian Associated Press he expected the matter would be finalised soon. Further, the telex stated: >But his message to **Mr Anthony** has apparently sealed the matter. There had been a strong feeling in the NCP that **Senator Kilgariff's** move was not necessary. > >Sources said they believed that because of the reorganisation of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory **Senator Kilgariff** felt there should be a balance of representation. > >This would mean the NCP would have **Mr Sam** Calder as its Northern Territory representative in the House of Representatives, and **Senator Kilgariff** would be the Liberal in the Senate to balance out Northern Territory representation. > >The Party does not see it this way', one party source said. **Senator Kilgariff** has represented the Northern Territory for the NCP since 1975. Let us examine the balance that the parties talk about. In the Northern Territory we have to elect senators at the same time as we elect members for the House of Representatives. It is well known in the Northern Territory that **Mr Calder** is going to resign before the next election is held and that **Mr Kilgariff,** as he will be then, is going to stand for the seat of the Northern Territory to take a place in the House of Representatives. We can read into this the unholy war that is going on between **Mr Court,** Premier of Western Australia, and the Deputy Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony).** Because of this unholy war **Senator Kilgariff,** as he still is, is deserting a sinking ship. He is deserting the Country Party and climbing on board the Liberal Party, hoping that he will preserve his place in this Parliament. What are the repercussions going to be in the Northern Territory? {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- Hey, Feathers. You will take off in a minute. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Will you be quiet? You are like a monkey on a stick. That is what you are, with your chatter, chatter, chatter all the time. You would be better if you got over here in the rose garden and retrieved that piece of bent wood which you threw into the air years ago but which has not yet come down. I am concerned about what the political situation will be in the Northern Territory because I was a member of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that looked into Constitutional reform for the Northern Territory. After we came down with a democratic system of election for that chamber we found that there was an amalgamation of the National Country Party, or the Country Party- whatever you like to call it- and the Liberal Party. Those parties went to the people under the flag of the Country-Liberal Party. What is going to happen to the Majority Leader in the House, **Mr Everingham,** in the Northern Territory? What is his position going to be now that **Senator Kilgariff** has deserted him? Are we going to see a mass abdication or exodus from the Country-Liberal Party in the Northern Territory? Are they going to form two parties with each party or one of them dependent on the support of Labor members in the Northern Territory to keep the Government there in operation? There will be very interesting things to witness in the next six or eight months. With what **Senator Kilgariff** has done today, on top of what **Senator Townley** has already told the chamber, there are real problems for the Government in - {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- Hey, Feathers. You are naked. Your feathers are showing. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Can't you control that galah over there? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I think we have had a reasonable measure of expression here tonight. I would ask for relative calm. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- I had nearly finished but I had to talk very loudly to be heard over the people opposite. We find that when they have divisions within their ranks all we can hear is shouting and chattering because they do not know what is going on. Their leaders do not tell them and they are just like little boys in the back room- what is handed out to them has to be gospel and they have to live with it. When **Senator Kilgariff** makes a statement to AAP and it is published in documents circulated in this document by the news service of the Library, we see that it is a jolly good service. It has proved its worth tonight as this has been revealed before Parliament gets up tonight and we will have to wait for about 10 days to get Parliament back. What will happen now is that when we come back we will see **Senator Kilgariff** taking another seat in this Parliament. He may hope even to get on the front bench. As my colleague interjected a while ago, he could be even the new Minister for Finance or he could be lining up to fill the position created for the Country Party senator, **Senator Sheil,** who did not last 24 hours as a Minister. It could well be that **Senator Kilgariff** is being lined up to step into that portfolio - {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Or Veterans' Affairs. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -Yes, Veterans' Affairs. He is a veteran. Finally, I remind the Senate that the Northern Territory senators and the Australian Capital Territory senators, particularly those who represent the Government side, should consider themselves very lucky that they are even in this place because it was the Labor Government which introduced the legislation to give the Territories representation. It was honourable senators opposite who were then in Opposition who repeatedly voted against that legislation. Even when the Bill was passed, they had the audacity to appeal to the court to have it repealed- yet they take their places in this chamber. **Senator Kilgariff** in particular, having been elected as a Country Party senator, now changes horses in midstream and calls himself a Liberal Party senator. In my view **Senator Kilgariff** should now have the intestinal fortitude to resign from the Senate, create a casual vacancy in the Northern Territory and let the people of the Northern Territory decide whether he ought to be returned as a Liberal senator or ought to be - {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- I raise a point of order. **Senator Kilgariff** would never come into this place and claim himself as a member of the Liberal Party. He has always claimed himself to be a member of the Country Party in the Northern Territory. That statement is an absolute fabrication. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no point of order. It is only **Senator McLaren** who makes that claim. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- We know that **Senator Bonner** is in no position tonight to understand what I am saying. When *Hansard* is read tomorrow it will be seen that I did not say that **Senator Kilgariff** came into this place as a member of the Liberal Party. I said he was elected here as a member of the Country Party. He has now changed horses in midstream and joined the Liberal Party. That is his own story that he has given to AAP. I say now that he ought to have the intestinal fortitude to resign from the Senate to allow the people of the Northern Territory to have a chance to go to the polls. Then we can see whether they agree with his decision. {: .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator Bonner: -- I raise a point of order. The fact is that the honourable senator is saying that **Senator Kilgariff** came here as a member of the Liberal Party. He did not. He came here as a member of the Country Party of the Northern Territory. **Senator Kilgariff** has carried out his duties in the best traditions of the Country Party. I think the matter should be ruled out of order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no point of order. {: #debate-50-s3 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia -When asking a question earlier today I referred to the observance of Commonwealth Day. This matter of Commonwealth Day is set down by agreement and by Royal Proclamation for the second Monday in March. This year it is Monday, 12 March. When we assemble again that date will have passed. I would like to place this brief observation on the Senate record tonight before the event rather than after it. The place and role of the Commonwealth in the world is well known. The development and significance of Commonwealth nations in the southern hemisphere is of some importance to Australia. The leadership and responsibility exercised by Australia in Commonwealth matters, particularly in our own part of the world, is of some substance and calls for a continuation of special international stewardship. At present Australia is involved in a number of important Commonwealth negotiations and discussions. The conference of Commonwealth Industries Ministers has prepared a plan for the development of projects in seriously affected underdeveloped countries. We are also well represented at the Commonwealth Conference on Youth Affairs where attention is given to the particular contribution that Australia can make in this area. There is also a wide range of contacts and consultations between Commonwealth countries, and value flows from all these. The Commonwealth Secretariat, based in Marlborough House in London, acts as a base for all these activities. However, in the sphere of Parliament, we note at this time the place of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association of which this Parliament is an important member. The activities of the CPA are well known and most of our members have participated in conferences, consultations and study exercises in one way or another. Branches of the CPA exist throughout the Commonwealth and in recent weeks it has been my privilege to be a guest at the branches both in Malta and in the United Kingdom. As a former member of its central executive one has observed the practical value of this link between the parliamentary institutions of the Commonwealth of Nations. It is important to point out that in this year of the 150th anniversary celebrations in Western Australia it was a pleasant experience for me to share in the decision of that executive committee of the CPA to meet in Perth in May of this year. Without doubt, Western Australia will welcome them warmly and the meetings will have considerable Commonwealth value. Finally, on Commonwealth Day we remember with loyalty and appreciation the person and office of Her Majesty the Queen who is head of the Commonwealth. She is, in very truth, the symbol of all that Commonwealth Day stands for- the development of good relationships between the peoples of the earth. {: #debate-50-s4 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland -I do not propose to speak for any length of time, but after that toast of loyalty to royalty I feel rather subdued. I want to touch on the questions that have been raised by my colleague **Senator McLaren.** The resignation of **Senator Kilgariff** from one party in order to join another party without notice, or at such short notice, points up the instability of politics in the Northern Territory. The Territory has the highest unemployment of any area in Australia. It is running at about 1 7 per cent in the general community and as high as 90 per cent in the Aboriginal communities. This indicates that the passing over of State powers to the Northern Territory was probably many years before its time. {: .speaker-NG4} ##### Senator Lewis: -- Is it true that you are going to form a Country Labor Party? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- I do not mind intelligent interjections, but I will not answer inane interjections. Tonight's news story indicates a whole new change. Thursday night is becoming a bit of a disaster for members of the Government parties. It was on a Thursday night that **Mr Robinson** went into limbo for a weekend of fishing. This Thursday night, **Senator Kilgariff** dumps one party in order to go to another party. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- You will be next. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- I am not terribly disturbed by that sort of interjection, either. I was trying to make a point in respect of the instability of politics in the Northern Territory. It is a very great worry to all thinking people. If honourable senators opposite are incapable of thinking, they should not worry about it. The decision by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** to reappoint **Sir Gordon** Freeth for another year as Australian High Commissioner to Great Britain - > *Honourable senators interjecting-* {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -This has a bearing on the matter. I quote from this document, which states: > **Mr Fraser's** decision to ask **Sir Gordon** to take the extra term is regarded in political circles as an indication there are no plans for immediate changes in the Ministry. During Question Time the other day one of my colleagues on this side of the Senate chamber asked whether the second Minister who was about to resign when **Mr Robinson** resigned was the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Carrick).** A denial was made by **Senator Carrick** at the time, but I think that everybody, including that now famous character Blind Freddie, knew that **Senator Carrick** was the other Minister. Unstable government is creating a great crisis in this country. The Prime Minister has now become known as **Mr Heinz,** the man who has 57 different varieties. The moment there is a rebellion by a back bencher, the Prime Minister immediately offers him the first vacancy in the Ministry to keep him quiet. The one exception to this rule is **Mr Goodluck** from Tasmania. Apart from him, everybody has been offered this incentive to sit on the back bench and behave. {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator Puplick: -- What did **Senator Townley** get? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Honourable senators opposite did not give my colleague, **Senator McLaren,** a proper go. He was trying to indicate that there are many more things in this telex that became known at five o'clock this afternoon. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- He is trying to save his embarrassment. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- I do not have to save **Senator McLaren.** He is more than capable of saving himself. I believe that the contents of this telex should go into the permanent record of the Senate. I will read it. {: .speaker-NG4} ##### Senator Lewis: -- You are not going to read it, too? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Honourable senators opposite did not give **Senator McLaren** an opportunity to read the telex. If they want to defend **Senator Kilgariff,** he ought to be here in the Senate chamber, not around in the Prime Minister's office celebrating his move from one party to another. The telex states: >Northern Territory **Senator Bernie** Kilgariff, a National Country Party member, revealed today he is considering joining the Liberal Party of Australia. That is no longer a point of consideration, I might add, because he has in fact made the transfer. The telex continues: > **Senator Kilgariff** told Australian Associated Press in an interview ' the matter will be finalised very soon '. > >He said the matter had been discussed with Deputy Prime Minister and National Country Party Leader, **Mr Doug** Anthony, recently and the Liberal Party which has its headquarters in Canberra. I can tell honourable senators that my information from quite reliable sources is that the National Country Party thinks it is a disaster that one of its members whom it nurtured and brought into the Senate hoping that he would stay with the party, has suddenly gone into limbo and joined the Liberal Party at the behest of the Prime Minister. The telex continues: > **Mr Anthony** is understood to be upset by the senator's consideration to switch parties - {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- You can borrow my handkerchief. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- If honourable senators are embarrassed about this matter, they should at least remain silent and not act like school children. I continue to read from the telex: . . but was not immediately available for comment. **Senator Kilgariff** has represented the Northern Territory as a National Country Party senator since 1 975. I might say that in 1977 **Senator Kilgariff** had made a decision to transfer from the National Country Party to the Liberal Party. The Northern Territory is a very colourful place. For example, I doubt that very many people in Australia knew Tiger Brennan 's given name. **Mr Calder,** the representative of the Northern Territory in the other place, has long been known as Silent Sam. I was told by a friend in Alice Springs tonight that a new name has been fixed for **Senator Kilgariff.** He is now known as the switcher. That will be the tag that will stick to him throughout the Northern Territory. These things are not always done in a bad mood. Such names are frequently given as a local tag. With some people, it is probably a term of affection. But the situation now is that the switcher has gone from one party to the other. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- Tell us what Ed Casey had to say today. What did he have to say about Bill Hayden? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- I will deal with a couple of other points. We on this side of the chamber are quite capable of looking after our own affairs. Honourable senators opposite are not capable of doing this. The telex also states: >A spokesman for **Mr Anthony** said later 'I would doubt that he would come into it unless Bernie makes an announcement'. > > **Senator Kilgariff** said during the interview 'At the moment the matter is being discussed. The matter will be finalised very soon. ' > >He said it naturally needed discussion and this had been taking place over the past few weeks. > >The Chairman of the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party, **Mr Barry** Wyatt, said from Darwin today **Senator Kilgariff's** consideration resulted from a special party conference held on Saturday, February 3. Many people in the Northern Territory knew that this move was on, just as they knew that it was on in 1 977, prior to the Federal elections in that year. Many of us who have friends around the Territory knew of the story at that time. It is a pity that honourable senators opposite did not find out about it. If they kept their ears to the ground they would know something about it. The telex continues: >He said the conference had adopted a new constitution and decided to sever its affiliations with the National Country Party and enter into 'an association' with both the NCP and the Liberal Party. It is stated in a further message regarding **Senator Kilgariff** in Canberra: >We would then have access to their expertise and resources and receive financial backing from both parties', said **Mr Wyatt.** > >The CLP (Country Liberal Party) in the Northern Territory would be a truly independent party under that arrangement'. > > **Mr Wyatt** said the conference agreed that its parliamentarians in Canberra would have the right to sit in the party rooms of their choice. Obviously, of course, the switcher will now have to sit in the Liberal Party rooms. The telex continues: >Bernie has been discussing this with both parties down South', he said. That is the party that today holds the majority in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. But it went further than that. There was still great fear that the conservative parties would not retain control of the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, two actions were taken under the then Majority Leader, **Dr Geoff** Letts, who incidentally is affectionately known throughout the Northern Territory as the 'horse doctor'. These are tags that are applied to people in these country areas. I might say that he is a very competent horse doctor but he was a holy mess as a politician. The situation now is that the horse doctor wants to come into this chamber as a senator for the Northern Territory and the switcher will come into the other chamber as the representative in the lower house. That is the situation. If honourable senators opposite do not know that, they ought to keep up with what is happening in their own mixed parties. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- We don't have the information that you have. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- Silent Sam was on the skids in 1976. There was a type of homosexual association. I am not talking about people. I am talking about a political sort of thing where people may temporarily get together. A heterosexual association often lasts for a long time. But homosexual associations do not always last for a long time. It was a political association. What happened was that a temporary alliance was reached in order to try to retain both seats. At that point in history, that was successful but that sort of association has now been severed. Obviously, there was nowhere else for **Senator Kilgariff,** now popularly known as the switcher, to go. He had to join another party. **Senator Missen** can shake his head. All that will do is cause a rattle. Nevertheless, the situation is a matter of political reality. If either or both were to survive, if the horse doctor was going to take the other seat, nothing else could be done. This is the only situation that could have devolved in the combined parties in the Northern Territory. What I am saying is that I hope that there will be less of this sort of dealing going on. We saw this in the chamber today. We saw a very disenchanted Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in **Senator Chaney.** A deal that was made back in December 1978 suddenly saw the light of day but nobody told the Minister about it. As far as I know, the only people who knew about it were **Mr Everingham,** the Leader of the Majority Party in the Northern Territory, and the Prime Minister of this country. They refused to or refrained from telling the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that they had made a deal by regulation. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- You didn't know about it. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- If I wanted to I could tell you a couple of the things that I know about what has happened concerning some of the complementary legislation which, incidentally, is also a secret. I would think that in view of things that have happened over the last three or four days, neither you, **Senator Missen,** nor I, nor the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs knew anything about it. But the Prime Minister knew about it and so did the Leader of the Majority Party in the Northern Territory; and they kept it under wraps. That is precisely what happened. It is like the deal that was made at the time the land rights legislation was being drafted. A delegation of 15 led by the horse doctor arrived in Canberra and they were going to change the legislation to suit the Northern Territory. The draft legislation was produced. Overnight, several pages were removed from the draft and the new pages were inserted. That happened overnight and I mentioned it at the time. What happened, of course, was that the whole lot had to be pulped and rewritten. That is why the 1976 land rights legislation was not produced in this chamber according to the schedule that had been marked down by the Government. There was not only dirty work at the crossroads but also dirty work in the Minister's office because somebody removed pages that were unacceptable to the Northern Territory and inserted pages that were acceptable. When that sort of double dealing is going on, obviously the Prime Minister has to be involved. He will probably do what the switcher has done. He will change parties. He will probably finally go to the National Country Party because that is where his heart really lies. It does not lie with the Liberal Party and in particular, it does not lie with the small '1' Liberals of the Liberal Party, and honourable senators on the other side of the House ought to know that. The point I am trying to make is that the political instability that will result from a continuation of things of this nature is bad for this country. I would suggest that the people who have any influence in the Liberal Party have long given up the National Country Party as being a reliable organisation. I am talking now to the small ' 1 ' Liberal people- the left wing of the Liberal Party when I say: If you do not pull your party together, you are going to wreck this country. I suggest that you take the lesson of the switcher- just one more lesson- and see what you can do about it. {: #debate-50-s5 .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE:
Tasmania -- I raise very briefly the question of a Senate standing committee report which the Government has neglected to act upon with the haste, or at least with the decent speed, that we were told such reports would be responded to by the Government. On 25 May last year, the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** announced that henceforth all standing committee reports would receive a response from the Government which would be made known to the Parliament within six months. On 2 June 1978, the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs entitled 'Priority of Crown Debts' was brought into this chamber. Whilst nine months have elapsed, as yet no response has been forthcoming from the Government. It is not as though the Attorney-General **(Senator Durack)** in particular has not been aware of the concern of many members of this chamber over this particular report. In midNovember of last year I asked the AttorneyGeneral when we could expect a response from the Government. At that time he said that whilst a response was unlikely within the week, nevertheless he would ensure that the six-month deadline was met. Given the time that we had during the summer parliamentary recess, that should have entailed a response by the Government in the first sitting week of the present session. But that did not occur. It may seem that a report on the priority of Crown debts is a rather esoteric legal subject of no great significance, but in fact it is a matter which I know from contacts in my home State of Tasmania is of great concern, not only to chambers of commerce but to trade unions. What happens at the moment is that in the case of an insolvency or a bankruptcy, Telecom Australia or the Commissioner of Taxation or some other Commonwealth agency comes in and takes priority in the distribution of assets which by definition are very meagre, and make their claim over and above and certainly before, those claims which are properly made by ordinary unsecured traders who have dealt in good faith with the insolvent company or with the bankrupt, which is the concern of the chambers of commerce. Also Commonwealth agencies take priority over ordinary employees who find that they are unable to get accumulated long service leave entitlements, holiday pay or annual leave entitlements because the Commonwealth has decided at that point that it is in the interests of the community that the Commonwealth coffers be filled before trading debts or obligations that an employer has to an employee are met. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- But, **Senator, are** the priorities or preferences not laid down in the Bankruptcy Act? {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator TATE: -- That is why it requires a response from the Attorney-General and from the Government to the Senate Standing Committee report. What I am concerned about is that with the delay now in the autumn session, this particular matter may be put off until the Budget session. Of course, in the whole context of raising revenue for necessary government expenditure and given the difficulty which we know the Government faces in that regard, it may be that this is a matter of justice, fairness and equity to employees and ordinary traders will become swamped in considerations of raising revenue for government, not that this particular priority raises much more than $6m or $8m for government. In fact the giving up of this priority may not have a very significant effect on government revenue because if ordinary traders and employees can recover their commercial debts and annual leave and long service leave payments, I believe that would create a situation in which the revenue would do very well out of the fact that these ordinary traders would not have so many bad debts and employees would of course have spending power within the community. For those reasons I raise this matter again and ask the Attorney-General to indicate whether the Government has come to a decision and will act in the next few weeks- certainly in this autumn session- in order to remedy what I think is acknowledged by all sections of the Australian community to be a situation which works unfairly against small traders and employees of insolvents and bankrupts. {: #debate-50-s6 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs **(Mr MacKellar)** has provided me with information on the matter raised by **Senator Mulvihill.** There is no evidence available to suggest that the Bartons sought visas to return to Australia. They arrived as passengers in transit, for which visas are not required, and on arrival were granted temporary entry permits. The question of the citizenship of the Bartons was the subject of consultation with the AttorneyGeneral's Department and presumably the matter is still under consideration as a result of that. **Senator Colston** raised a matter for the consideration of my colleague, the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle),** who regrets that she cannot be here tonight. However, I will ensure that the remarks he made and the matters he raised will be brought to her attention. I am sure she will take note of them and make a response to them as soon as possible. The only other matter which I think calls for any response from me is the matter raised by **Senator Tate.** I am aware that he asked me a question on the same matter in November of last year. I in fact said in answer to him then that as I had no information about it I did not expect that I could make a response because we were in the last week of the session. I have made inquiries, although bankruptcy does not come within my own portfolio but within the portfolio of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs **(Mr Fife).** He and his Department have been working on the matter. They are finding a good deal of complexity in it. It has been considered by the Government Parties Law and Government Committee, which has provided its views to the Minister. He is now in the process of preparing a submission to the Government on the matter. He expects that a decision will be made by the Government in early April. Presumably, as soon as a decision is made a statement will be made to the Parliament. Admittedly the decision will be outside the time originally indicated but, as I said, that is due to the complexities of the subject and not to any financial considerations, as **Senator Tate** feared may be the case. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.24 p.m. until Tuesday, 20 March 1970, at 2.30 p.m., unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. {: .page-start } page 717 {:#debate-51} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Whyalla: Relocation Assistance Scheme (Question No. 848) {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many persons have received payments under the Relocation Assistance Scheme because of the downturn of employment following closure of the shipyard at Whyalla, South Australia. 1. How much has been paid to each recipient. 2. How many of the re-located persons have been placed in comparable employment in their new location. {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As at 14 February 1979, 243 persons have received payments under the Relocation Assistance Scheme because of the downturn of employment following closure of the shipyard at Whyalla. The figure of 243 is made of 197 who have had an actual re-location approved under the Scheme, and have been paid their entitlements under it, and an additional 46 persons who have been paid fares to attend a job or training interview in a new area, but who, for one reason or another, did not proceed with the re-location. A further 3 persons have been approved but no payments had been made at 14 February 1979 because the claim was being processed or no claim had yet been lodged. 1. Information on the amount paid to each recipient is not readily available. However, the total amount paid under the Scheme to persons from Whyalla is $224,031. This amount comprises: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. $219,475 paid to 197 persons mentioned in (1) above, an average payment of $1,1 14. 1. $4,556 paid in fares to the 46 persons mentioned in ( 1 ) above, to attend employment interviews, an average payment of $99. 2. Of the 200 persons from Whyalla who have been approved for re-location under the Scheme: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 195 have obtained employment which is considered comparable to their last employment at Whyalla. 1. 5 have obtained employment related to their experience or consistent with their own choices. {:#subdebate-51-1} #### Departure Tax (Question No. 1 168) {: #subdebate-51-1-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many times has the Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978. 1. Did the Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not. {: #subdebate-51-1-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >I have not been out of Australia since 24 October 1 978. {:#subdebate-51-2} #### Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Employee Statistics (Question No. 1174) {: #subdebate-51-2-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many people are employed by the Minister's Department (a) throughout Australia; and (b) in Western Australia. 1. How many Aborigines are in each of the above categories. {: #subdebate-51-2-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a)922;(b)96. 1. (a) 229; (b) 26. The above figures are at 3 1 January 1979. Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1211) {: #subdebate-51-2-s2 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1979: >What procedures exist within the Minister's Depanment to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists. {: #subdebate-51-2-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >My Depanment does not have formal procedures for recording approaches made to staff by lobbyists. The extent to which records of any such discussions are kept depends on a number of factors, such as the type of inquiry. 'Lobbyist' is not a clearly defined term. In the field of education many bodies and public interest organisations which in some circumstances could be regarded as lobby groups participate in the work of various advisory committees which put forward recommendations on education policy issues for consideration by Government. There is ongoing contact, both formal and informal, between such bodies and my Depanment, and other pans of the portfolio including the education commissions. Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1217) {: #subdebate-51-2-s4 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979: >What procedures exist within the Minister's Depanment to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists. {: #subdebate-51-2-s5 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The Depanment of Social Security is not aware of any precise definition of the term lobbyist and has no procedures for recording approaches made by lobbyists. Approaches are often made by welfare organisation personnel in respect both of individual clients on benefit matters and of groups in respect of grants and subsidies. Where these approaches are of a substantive nature they are normally recor ded on an appropriate file. Farmers: Carry-on Assistance (Question No. 1257) {: #subdebate-51-2-s6 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 February 1979: >How many farmers: > >left their farms premanently in 1977-78; > >is it estimated will leave their farms in 1 978-79; > >applied for carry-on assistance in the years 1976-77 and 1977-78; > >were refused such assistance in 1976-77 and 1977-78. {: #subdebate-51-2-s7 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. As advised in my answer-to the honourable senator's question upon notice on 9 November 1978 *(Hansard,* Senate, page 1 926) statistics showing the number of farmers leaving the industry are not collected. Australian Bureau of Statistics data on the number of agricultural establishments in Australia is not yet available for 1 977-78. 1. Estimates of the number of farmers expected to leave farming are not made. 2. During 1976-77, 524 applications were received under the carry-on provision of the Rural Adjustment Scheme which commenced on 1 January 1977. In 1977-78 the number was 967. 3. In 1976-77, 98 applicants were rejected. In 1977-78 the number was 164. Farmers: Off-farm Income (Question No. 1263) {: #subdebate-51-2-s8 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979: >How many bona fide farmers are estimated to have off-farm sources of incomes providing: > >less than $5,000 per annum; > >between $5,000 and $ 10,000 per annum; > >between $10,000 and $15,000 per annum; and (d) over $15,000 per annum. {: #subdebate-51-2-s9 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >In its 1975-76 survey of the Australian Grazing Industry, which represents well over half of the commercial rural enterprises in Australia, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics collected information on off-farm income. The numbers and proportion of farms in the grazing industries earning various levels of off-farm income are as follows: {:#subdebate-51-3} #### Farm Costs: Effect of Increased Price of Crude Oil (Question No. 1268) {: #subdebate-51-3-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 February 1979: >What has been the percentage increase in direct farm costs as a result of the increased price of crude oil since August 1978. {: #subdebate-51-3-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that, assuming no change from the previous year in fuel utilisation, increases in crude oil prices since August 1978 would result in a 1.2 per cent increase in direct farm costs in 1978-79 as a whole. {:#subdebate-51-4} #### Department of Social Security: Field Officers (Question No. 1302) {: #subdebate-51-4-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the establishment of field officers within the Department of Social Security for each State at: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 30 June 1976; 1. 30 June 1977 2. 30 June 1978; and 3. 30 January 1979. 1. How many persons were employed by the Department of Social Security at: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. 30 June 1976; 1. 30 June 1977; 2. 30 June 1978; and 3. 30 January 1979. {: #subdebate-51-4-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: (l)- >(2)- {:#subdebate-51-5} #### Meat Inspection (Question No. 1318) {: #subdebate-51-5-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 February 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the cost per kilogram of beef, sheep, and pigmeats of: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a) Commonwealth export meat inspection; 1. b ) Victorian domestic meat inspection; and 2. Commonwealth domestic meat inspection in South Australia and Tasmania. 1. What is the ratio of inspection staff to throughput in each of these categories for each type of meat. {: #subdebate-51-5-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The cost of inspection is seldom calculated on a per kilogram basis except for purely theoretical purposes since in practice the inspection effort and hence cost is not greatly influenced by the size or weight of the carcase. The costs of inspection sought by the honourable senator will therefore be provided on a per carcase basis: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Commonwealth inspection at abattoirs registered for export is the same whether or not the resultant meat is consumed locally or is exported. The calculated cost of this Commonwealth inspection is: These costs do not include the cost of providing Commonwealth inspection at non-slaughtering establishments such as independent boning rooms, canneries, smallgoods establishments, cold stores and shipside. However they do include the cost of employing at least one Veterinarian at each export slaughtering establishment. If the cost of this non-slaughtering inspection is added to the cost of primary inspection at abattoirs then the cost per carcase becomes: {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The Depanment of Primary Industry is not in a position to cost the Victorian domestic meat inspection, however the following inspection charges are published by the Victorian Abattoir and Meat Inspection Authority: It is not known whether these charges are intended to recover costs of inspection services at local Victorian non-export meat handling establishments but the degree of such inspection would be less exacting than that required by the Exports (Meat) Regulations and the requirements of importing countries, and the Victorian inspection service is not required to provide a Veterinarian at each slaughtering establishment. {: type="a" start="c"} 0. In South Australia, the Commonwealth performs meat inspection on many non-export as well as export abattoirs under an agreement with that State, whereas in Tasmania Commonwealth inspection is supplied at only one non-export abattoir. On export abattoirs the inspection for both local and export purposes is identical and the charges are those provided in the answer to pan (a) of this question. On the purely local abattoirs the Commonwealth makes a charge on the State or local authority for the man hours involved which is calculated on the basis of $16,577 per man year. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The ratio of inspection staff to throughput is influenced by many factors other than the straight forward requirements of meat inspection per se. Method of dressing, lay out of the dressing chain, speed of the dressing chain and the special requirements of individual importing countries are some of the factors which have an influence on the staff to throughput ratio. There is thus a variation in this ratio which is assessed on an establishment by establishment basis. Because of the mobility of inspection staff on inspection tasks between the three species of animals it is not possible to allocate an overall number of inspectors to each species. The complexity of inspection and the time taken to inspect the different species varies and the Department has devised an inspection unit which is calculated on the following basis: 1 beef inspection unit equals: 1 bovine animal over 32kg dressed w 5 calves less than 32kg dressed w 10 sheep/lambs 3 pigs Based on the inspection unit it is calculated that the ratio of Commonwealth inspection staff (including supervising meat inspectors and veterinary officers) to throughput is of the order of: 1 : 8020 inspection units p.a. Iran {: #subdebate-51-5-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 21 February 1979, **Senator Wheeldon** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >Was the Australian Government warned by our Embassy in Tehran or by the Department of Foreign Affairs as to the possibility of the conflagration taking place in Iran which in fact did take place, or was the Government caught unawares by the events which occurred in Iran? * > >Will the Minister consider making a statement to the Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity on the situation which has arisen from the events in Iran, both in so far as the energy resources of the world are affected by the events in that country and also the political significance of the resurgence of Islamic militancy in Iran, as in other parts of the Islamic world? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. The Government was not caught unawares by the events which occurred in Iran. Over the past year the Government has had available to it extensive information and assessments of the Iranian situation as it evolved towards the events of January and February 1979 which saw the departure of the Shah, the installation first of the Bakhtiar Government and then of the Bazargan Government. The Embassy in Tehran and the Department of Foreign Affairs have kept the Government closely informed about events in Iran, and regular assessments have been prepared by the Office of National Assessments. I have made a number of statements relating to the Iranian situation in recent weeks. I refer in particular to my statement in the House of Representatives on 27 February 1979, and to statements on Foreign Policy Issues for Australia and the Situation in Iran issued on 11 and 16 February. There is no question that the resurgence of Islam as a political and social force, as witnessed in various forms in a number of countries, including Iran, is a significant new and important factor on the international scene. In my statement of 27 February I said it was our hope that it will be harnessed effectively to the benefit of both Muslim countries and the world as a whole. Australia and Indonesia: Off-shore regions {: #subdebate-51-5-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 27 February 1979, **Senator Young** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >What is the position regarding discussions between Australia and Indonesia on the off-shore region between Australia and East Timor? When will a statement be made on this matter? *(Hansard,* 27 February 1 979, page 253 ). The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >In accordance with the agreement I reached with the Indonesian Foreign Minister in December 1978, Australian and Indonesian officials met in Canberra from 14 to 16 February to commence negotiations on the delimitation of the seabed between Australia and East Timor. > >There was a valuable and detailed exchange of views on the factual situation and principles involved in the negotiations. The delegations examined in an exploratory way the various areas between the two countries where there were outstanding questions of delimitation by maritime boundaries. > >I regard the outcome of these initial discussions as positive and reflecting the spirit of the agreement between Professor Mochtar and myself. It is envisaged that a further meeting will be held in Jakarta at an early date.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 March 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790308_SENATE_31_S80/>.