Senate
23 May 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1967

PETITIONS

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On behalf of Senator Keeffe I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

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

This petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that:

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

Australia lags behind other nations with white majorities in providing a Treaty of Commitment to its indigenous peoples giving them: a defined proportion of national income for a defined period freehold title to traditional land, waterways and seaboards

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take urgent steps to concur with the wishes of a majority of the electors at every polling place in Australia at the 1 967 referendum by resumption from the States of the major traditional Aboriginal land areas and reserves and former reserves as at 3 1 .3.78, to become federal Crown land pending prompt determination of freehold title for Land Trusts and eventually for defined community co-operatives.

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

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from 16 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

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

Petition received and read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 191 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That in order to: - facilitate the development of the North of Australia - provide an all-weather rapid land transport system from north to south and vice versa - facilitate better defence of Northern Australia - provide improved transport for primary and mining products to southern markets - boost tourism

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Urge that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to proceeding forthwith with the completion of the contruction of the North/South railway from Alice Springs to Darwin as a matter of priority.

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

Petition received and read.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 68 citizens of Australia:

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

That the credibility of the Westminster Parliamentary system is weakened by the resignation in protest of Ministers of the Crown without adequate explanation of the reason or reasons for the resignations being given to the electorate and that the situation is further exacerbated by the reappointment of the recently resigned Minister within a very brief period, again without any meaningful explanation to the people of Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, take note of the need for the electorate at large to be fully informed so that the confidence of the people is not diminished in the democratic process in general and the Parliamentary process in particular.

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

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 287 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.

Telephone Charges

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 75 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 sheweth:

That: Many Australian citizens suffer considerable distress and financial hardship as a result of inaccurate charges and accounts for the use of telephone, telegraph and other related services.

That: Telecom Australia does not provide adequate information in relation to the subscriber’s number called, duration, and distance of telephone calls and telegraphic services made or used by their subscribers.

Your petitioners do humbly pray that the Senate will initiate moves to ensure that:

Telecom Australia eliminates all abuses of the account system to ensure the details of all customer accounts are accurate, and that

On request from the customer, Telecom Australia provide details of date, subscriber’s number called, duration and distance of all services for which the customer is charged.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Australian Government Employees

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 622 citizens of Australia:

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 every pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from 193 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 1978-79 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 in duty bound will every pray.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

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

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems;

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire:

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

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

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 43 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 1978-79 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 in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Metric System

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems:

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change arc a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

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

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

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

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

Petition received.

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 replaced by 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 Lewis.

Petition received.

Metric System

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the plan to obliterate the traditional weights and measures of this country does not have the support of the people;

That the change is causing and will continue to cause, widespread, serious and costly problems:

That the compulsory tactics being used to force the change are a violation of all democratic principles.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

That weather reporting be as it was prior to the passing of the Metric Conversion Act;

That the Australian Government take urgent steps to cause the traditional mile units to be restored to our highways;

That the Australian Government request the State Governments to procure that the imperial and metric systems be taught together in schools.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume, Cavanagh, Guilfoyle, Hamer, Martin, Mason, Puplick and Sheil.

Petitions received.

Indexation of Pensions

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 1978-79 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:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Davidson, Guilfoyle and Knight.

Petitions received.

page 1970

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Notice of Motion

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

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

  1. That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 28 May 1979, at 2.30 p.m.
  2. That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at half-past ten p.m. on that day.

page 1970

PRECEDENCE OF BUSINESS

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after eight p.m. on Thursdays for the remainder of the present period of sittings.

page 1970

DISCHARGE OF EFFLUENT: GEORGES RIVER

Notice of Motion

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND (New

South Wales)- I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, 1 shall move:

That the Senate expresses its concern at the fact that the discharge of effluent into the Georges River in Sydney from certain Commonwealth Government Establishments namely, the Holsworthy Defence Establishments and the Bankstown Aerodrome, does not comply with the requirements of the New South Wales Clean Waters Act, as disclosed in the Minister’s reply to the Senate Question 949 (see Hansard, 1 May 1979 page 1 528) and requests that the Government take immediate steps to stop further pollution of the Georges River by its establishments.

page 1970

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western Australia -Attorney-General- I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Judiciary ( Diplomatic Representation ) Act 1 977.

page 1970

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

page 1970

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1970

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. The Minister will recall my asking him a question yesterday concerning a letter from Mr Groom to Mr Newman from which he quoted during the censure debate on 8 May 1979. As he has now had a day to reflect on my question and his answer, I ask him would he now say whether he has seen the whole of that letter and is he aware of its contents? If so, did he see the letter before or after giving the answers he gave on 3 May?

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

-If the Leader of the Opposition wishes an answer to that question he will place it on notice.

page 1971

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment a question about drilling on the Great Barrier Reef. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that when the Minister for Mines, Energy and Police in Queensland refers to the Reef he means the outer reef, that is that part of the Barrier Reef complex which lies approximately 100 miles off the coast of Queensland- and apparently he means that exclusively? Since most Australians would consider the Barrier Reef to mean the entire reef complex and not just the outer reef and this ambiguity has led to some confusion on the part of members of the public in the debate on this subject, could the Minister clarify that when he and the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Government refer to the subject of drilling on the reef they mean the entire reef complex and not just the outer reef?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator asked me whether I am aware of how the Queensland Minister for Mines interprets the reef area. My answer is that I am not aware of the state of the mind of that particular Minister. The honourable senator asked me whether I will clarify the area of which I am speaking when I speak of the Barrier Reef or the Prime Minister does so. A variety of areas is spoken about in relation to the Barrier Reef. I imagine that the interest of all Australians is in relation to damage that may eventually be done to the reef itself. I imagine that that is the core of the question. I have said in this chamber previously that damage to the reef can be caused by many problems. One problem is the pressure of tourism in the Barrier Reef area at the present time. I am advised by scientists who have had some experience in this area that the natural discharge of the great rivers of Queensland also has an effect on the Barrier Reef. My understanding is that there is a particular problem relating to the passage of ships through the area. Indeed, the other day a Taiwanese vessel was said to have been scuttled there but in actual fact an oil slick extending up to three-quarters of a kilometre long by some one-quarter of a kilometre wide occurred in the region of the Barrier Reef.

In my opinion the answer to the honourable senator’s question would depend on the area that was spoken of in the question that was posed. My responsibilities insofar as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is concerned is that it has some responsibilities for a region of the Great Barrier Reef which extends beyond the reef itself. It is to that area to which I usually refer. I am unable to speak for the Prime Minister.

page 1971

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to a meeting of Federal and State Ministers in Sydney last Thursday, which I think involved the Attorney-General and the Minister for Science and the Environment, concerning jurisdiction over the Great Barrier Reef. At that meeting did the Queensland Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Lickiss, argue for the Queensland Government having exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas of the reef? Did the Queensland Government’s representatives indicate, as Senator Martin has just sought to elucidate from Senator Webster, what they understand by the term ‘areas of the Barrier Reef? Will the Attorney-General tell the Senate what is his understanding of that? Also, did he indicate that the Commonwealth Government would be prepared to accept Queensland control over certain areas of the reef?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It is true that discussions took place last Thursday in Sydney between Queensland Ministers and Senator Webster and myself, representing the Commonwealth Government, in regard to the jurisdictional questions which have arisen under the broad discussions that have been taking place between the Commonwealth and the States over off-shore areas. One of the questions which is unresolved is the application of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act in relation to jurisdiction over marine parks in the whole Great Barrier Reef region. That was the purpose of the discussions and that was the whole subject under discussion there. The discussions were not, as some of the Press reports would seem to indicate, in relation to what would be policy questions regarding the environment, the protection of the reef and those sorts of issues.

I am not prepared to disclose at this stage what was the nature of those discussions. They were confidential discussions between Ministers representing different governments and discussions of this kind under our federal system are confidential. It is true that the Opposition seems to obtain the transcript of these discussions quite frequently, but the fact is that the governments themselves regard the discussions as confidential. Of course, when decisions are reached by the respective governments announcement will be made, but at this stage all we are doing is exploring the respective views of the governments.in regard to the jurisdiction that they are seeking in this area and the proclamation of marine parks under that legislation.

Senator Wriedt has asked me what is the area of the reef as we understand it. The area of the reef that is under discussion is the whole of the area which is described as the Great Barrier Reef region in the Schedule to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. That area extends over a very large portion of the off-shore area adjacent to the Queensland coast and it includes great areas which are not in fact part of the reef itself. Certainly the question that is being discussed covers the whole of that area. When 1 talk about the Great Barrier Reef area I mean the whole of that area, not just the -

Senator Wriedt:

– What does the Queensland Government mean? That is what I want to know. Does it mean the same thing?

Senator DURACK:

– We are talking about what the Acts lays down. I have no reason to believe that the Queensland Government is not talking about the same thing.

page 1972

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and concerns the persistent rumours, which I believe are grossly misinformed but which continue to circulate, about the reason for the Government’s purchase of two Boeing 707 aircraft. I ask: What security risks would the travelling public of Australia and of other countries suffer if Ministers and prominent visitors to our country did not have access to special flights? Secondly, with regard to the cost of these aircraft, is it true that 80 per cent of their use will be by the Royal Australian Air Force in its normal and necessary transport activities?

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am delighted that honourable senators opposite are excitedly awaiting the answer because I have no doubt at all that they will also concur with it. The fact is that intelligence advice to the Government is that there would be a very real threat to the lives of innocent people travelling on an international aircraft if a head of state, and specifically an Australian head of state, were also travelling on it.

Senator Button:

– That is what he is worried about?

Senator CARRICK:

– The Labor Party finds it funny that we are discussing a situation in which the lives of some 400 people on a Boeing 747 aircraft could be put at risk because a terrorist may be aiming to do harm to a national leader. The fact is that the Commonwealth Government is quite unwilling to put up with that kind of risk. Furthermore, those who understand these things know that when a national head of state travels on an aircraft there are intolerable holdups to the ordinary travelling public, both at the commencement and at the end of a journey. This is because for security reasons the aircraft must be searched, all luggage must be searched and body searches must be done. Therefore, delays of 4, 5, or 6 hours can occur.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– It is clear from the interjections that Senator Cavanagh and his Labor colleagues have no regard for the safety of ordinary people, because the volume of interjections is to exactly that effect. Let the people of Australia understand that. The second part of Senator Teague ‘s question asked what the usage of these aircraft will be. For at least 80 per cent of the time the aircraft will be doing normal transport duties for the Royal Australian Air Force.

Senator Georges:

– Why cut down passenger capacity?

Senator CARRICK:

– As honourable senators who seek to know- and that excludes Senator Georges- will, know, the fact is that we have had to use charter aircraft, involving the spending of many millions of dollars a year, particularly to bring RAAF personnel from Butterworth to Australia and vice versa. In future this will not be done by charter aircraft.

Senator McLaren:

– And cut flowers from Melbourne for functions.

Senator CARRICK:

– As usual, Senator McLaren fails to understand that this does not relate at all to internal transport. The VIP fleet, which was used and abused so extensively by the Whitlam Government, is not involved at all in. this situation. This situation relates to international travel. Emphatically, there will be a great saving in taxpayers’ money as a result of a lack of need for charters in the future.

page 1972

QUESTION

MR JUSTICE FOX

Senator BUTTON:

– Although the Prime Minister has taken a great interest in the matter I raise, I ask the Attorney-General: Does the Government intend to introduce further legislation to extend the appointment of Mr Justice Fox as Ambassador-At-Large for Nuclear Affairs, covering non-proliferation and safeguard matters? Further, what are the present terms and conditions of his appointment?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– One aspect of the question concerns the Prime Minister and another aspect concerns me. A few minutes ago I gave notice that tomorrow I shall introduce a Bill to amend the Judiciary (Diplomatic Representation) Act, which is designed to enable Mr Justice Fox to accept appointment as an ambassador-at-large and to preserve his judicial status and office during the period he is such an ambassador. Perhaps I should not say any more about that Bill as to do so would anticipate a matter which now will be placed on the Notice Paper. But that Bill will simply extend the application of the existing Judiciary (Diplomatic Representation) Act to cover the new situation of the appointment of Mr Justice Fox. The terms and conditions of his appointment are not, as such, authorised by that legislation. They are determined by executive decision. Certainly that part of the question should be referred to the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator BUTTON:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. For what period is it proposed to extend the judge’s appointment?

Senator DURACK:

– The extension of Mr Justice Fox’s appointment would be part of the terms and conditions of his appointment. I understand that his appointment is to 31 December 1980, but the details will be revealed when the answer to that part of the honourable senator’s question is provided.

page 1973

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Science and the Environment, on behalf of the Government, make a statement that no drilling will take place on the Great Barrier Reef being the area from the most southern point of the Barrier Reef to the most northern point of the Barrier Reef, which is covered by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, in order to allay the fears of many Australians and many people throughout the world of what could happen to the Barrier Reef if drilling were permitted in the region?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to answer the honourable senator’s question which relates to the Seas and Submerged Lands Act which, as I think the honourable senator will know, applies to the entire coastal waters of Australia. The honourable senator confined his question to an area commencing at a southern point in Queensland and asked whether a statement about drilling in the area concerned could be made. I think that the honourable senator would be anxious to hear that the Prime Minister has given an unconditional assurance that the Federal Government will not allow drilling or mining on the Reef, or any mining or drilling which would be likely to cause damage to the reef. That is a particularly strong statement made by our Prime Minister. I know that the honourable senator agrees with the proposition. My recollection is that the seas and submerged lands covered by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act extend some hundreds of kilometres from the shore. I think it incomprehensible that anybody should suggest that that area should be considered for exploration of any sort. However, the honourable senator will be aware of the comment that, consequent upon the findings of the royal commission on the Great Barrier Reef, it was suggested that certain types of research, both long-term and short-term, should be undertaken. I am pleased to note from a comment made yesterday by the Prime Minister, that in the near future the Government will be looking at a proposition put forward by AMSTAC, the Australian Marine Sciences and Technologies Committee, which is basically a sub-committee of the Australian Science and Technology Council, to ascertain what type of operation could be undertaken to provide for adequate research into this and other matters concerning the Great Barrier Reef.

page 1973

QUESTION

MORETON ISLAND

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware that objections to the listing of Moreton Island in the register of the National Estate have been lodged by the CoordinatorGeneral ‘s Department on behalf of the Queensland Government, and also by the Mineral Sands Producers’ Association? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the present position of the listing of this important national heritage, in view of its special natural and scenic qualities and its importance as a national park to the residents of Brisbane and surrounding areas?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator has asked a question of me in my capacity representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Ellicott, in another place. It concerns the listing of Moreton Island by, I imagine, the Australian Heritage Commission. I am unable to tell the honourable senator what is the exact situation in that regard. I acknowledge the points that he has made, and if what he has stated is correct I will seek early advice from the Minister and report it to the Senate.

page 1973

QUESTION

MEASLES VACCINATION

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health is prompted by certain expressions of concern within the community regarding measles vaccination during measles epidemics. I therefore ask: Has the United States Public Health Service Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices recommended the use of measles vaccine in children exposed to natural infection up to 72 hours previously? Does a recent report from Finland suggest that live attenuated measles may be usefully administered to contacts for up to 14 days after exposure, without ill effect? Is it also true that all Australian States have now adopted a standardised basic immunisation schedule? Finally, is it opportune for all doctors concerned with child health to encourage the use of proven safe immunisation practices, and should Australia be pursuing vigorously vaccination against, and elimination of, measles?

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

– The Minister for Health advises that the United States Public Health Service Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices, in the weekly bulletin of the United States Centre for Disease Control dated 3 November 1978, stated in a discussion on measles immunisation:

Exposure to measles is not a contraindication to vaccination. Available data suggest that live measles vaccine, if given within 72 hours or measles exposure, may provide protection.

The report from Finland concludes:

Measles vaccine usually prevents the disease if administered even after prolonged interval following the exposure to natural measles and that no untoward reactions can be expected from the vaccination.

The children in this study received vaccination at intervals, following exposure, of between one day and 14 days. However, it was noted:

A rapid onset of the fever reaction following vaccination in 12 exposed children probably reflects a long interval after the initial exposure.

This appears to imply that the disease may be modified rather than entirely prevented. The present standardised basic immunisation schedule was recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council at its 86th session in October 1978.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Could you expand on that answer?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I have a little further to go, Senator, and after that I will have to refer the question to the Minister. It is understood that States are adopting the new schedule. It is also considered opportune for all doctors concerned with child health to encourage the use of proven safe immunisation practices. The possibility of a campaign aimed at eradicating measles in Australia was discussed by the National Health and Medical Research Council at its last meeting in February 1979. The Communicable Diseases Committee of the Council considered that eradication of the disease was not a practical proposition at that stage but that the periodicity of measles epidemics could be controlled to a great extent by intensification of the vaccine campaign, thus increasing public immunity, particularly in the younger age group. At its meeting in June 1979, the Council will be considering a recommendation -

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order. Mr President, you have given numerous warnings to Ministers in this chamber for giving very lengthy answers. When an answer of the magnitude of this one is prepared the Minister should seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. I am not decrying the value of the question or of the answer but I again remind you of the rulings you have given in the past and suggest that they should apply to all Ministers.

The PRESIDENT:

– Your comment is noted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

- Mr President, I apologise for the length of the answer. It is of public interest. I conclude by saying that at its meeting in June the Council will be considering a recommendation from the Committee that health authorities conducting measles campaigns be encouraged to intensify their efforts with a view to obtaining a more satisfactory level of immunity.

page 1974

QUESTION

COMPANY TAX

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In the financial columns of the West Australian of 9 May 1979 it was stated that the proposed increase of 4 per cent in company tax would increase the cost of living by 2 per cent. Does this mean that the Prices Justification Tribunal will recognise that an increase in taxation is a valid reason for allowing the costs of goods and services to be increased? In other words, will a tax that is aimed at the higher echelons of society be immediately transferred to those people on lower income levels?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of such an article or statement in the West Australian of 9 May. If I understand the honourable senator’s question correctly, he asked about a suggestion that company tax be increased by a particular percentage. Any such comment in the Press would be purely speculative. I do not intend to respond to speculation in the Press.

page 1975

QUESTION

BANKING

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Following the unfortunate events surrounding the Bank of Adelaide and the intention of the board of directors of the Bank of Adelaide to merge the bank with the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, will the Government, through the Reserve Bank of Australia, consider issuing a licence to a new banking organisation to improve competition in and service to the business community?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Watson has raised a matter of policy. He would understand that I cannot comment on it. I will refer his question to the Treasurer for consideration.

page 1975

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to a recommendation made last night in the other place by the honourable member for Canberra, Mr Haslem, to the effect that dole payments should be withdrawn from unemployed persons who are under 25 years of age. Does- this recommendation follow any work carried out in the Minister’s department as to the capacity for financial independence of unemployed persons who are under 25 years of age? Can the Minister indicate whether the Government intends to adopt Mr Haslem ‘s recommendation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The first knowledge that I had of Mr Haslem ‘s views on this matter followed Press comment on the remarks that he made recently. I am not aware of any work that has been carried out in my department on the financial independence of those under 25 years of age. It is possible that at some stage some work in this area may have been done, but I do not know of any work directly related to anything that was referred to by Mr Haslem. As far as Government policy is concerned, I have no announcements to make with regard to unemployment benefit payments. The attitudes that were reflected by Mr Haslem, I think he claimed to be personal ones. I can only say that they are not attitudes that had previously been brought before the Government by him.

page 1975

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS: SOVIET EMPLOYEES

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is a fact that more than 75 of the Soviet employees in the United Nations Organisation and other international organisations in Geneva are members of Russian secret intelligence organisations? Are the two individuals in charge of the United Nations Geneva personnel and conference sections both colonels in the KGB? Is one of them responsible for the recruitment of people who would, for instance, supervise elections in Namibia? Is the second in command at the Economic Commission for Europe also a known Soviet intelligence agent? Is there anything that Australia and other democratic powers can do to prevent this subversion of international organisations by the Soviet Union?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Hamer asks some five individual questions. My understanding is that the positions in the United Nations Secretariat in New York and in other offices of the UN such as the European office of the UN in Geneva and the headquarters of the Economic Commission for Europe are filled according to the provisions of the relevant articles of the UN Charter. United Nations staff members are appointed by the Secretary-General, under regulations established by the General Assembly. According to the Charter, Article 101 states: the paramount consideration . . . shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity. Due regard shall be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible.

The United Nations Charter also specifies, in Article 100, that UN staff ‘shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to’ the United Nations. The Government is aware of reports such as those referred to by Senator Hamer but is not in a position to confirm their accuracy. If they are true, they would appear to constitute evidence of a breach of the Charter provisions under which the staff in question are employed by the United Nations and the Government would take a very serious view of this.

page 1975

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. The Minister will remember answering a question about Aboriginal field officers retrenched from the Dubbo Aboriginal Legal Service who were reimbursed two weeks ago for unemployment benefit for which they had applied in mid-February. I ask the Minister if she will now also investigate the cases of four non-Aboriginal lawyers also retrenched from the same service on 9 February who are eligible in the same way for unemployment benefit but who have had no pay and no social services for more than three months?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will certainly undertake to seek from my Department any information with regard to this matter of nonAboriginal lawyers. If there is further information that Senator Coleman has which may enable my Department to identify more quickly the applications for unemployment benefit, I would be pleased to have it. I will see that an early reply is given to the honourable senator.

page 1976

QUESTION

LIGHTING IN SENATE CHAMBER

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to you, Mr President. I preface it by saying that no doubt you have noticed the very much better lighting level in the Senate today due to the presence of television cameras. Could you ascertain how much power is used by the television lights here today and investigate the possibility of permanently increasing the light level in this chamber so that we can see our colleagues a little better?

The PRESIDENT:

– I note the question by the honourable senator about the brilliant light today and the cost involved. We have had expert advice in the past in regard to the degree of light in this chamber and what would afford the greatest degree of eye comfort generally. I shall look into the matter.

page 1976

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF: OIL DRILLING

Senator CAVANAGH:

-My question, addressed to the Minister for Science and the Environment, follows a question asked by Senator Martin. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will oppose any move by the Federal Government to give power to the Queensland Government in relation to control of the Great Barrier Reef until such time as the Minister knows the interpretation of the Queensland Government as to what is the Great Barrier Reef? Will the Minister oppose any transfer of powers to the Queensland Government if its interpretation, as Senator Martin suggested, is the outer reef?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator’s question is another which is directed basically at attempting to establish what is the area of the Great Barrier Reef. I take it that the honourable senator has some difficulty in understanding what areas are covered by the Seas and Submerged Lands Act, that he does not fully understand what is the region of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and what may be defined by any re-alignment of responsibilities following the High Court’s decision in the -

Senator Bishop:

– I take a point of order. The Minister regularly offends Standing Order 100, which reads:

In answering any such Question, a Senator shall not debate the matter to which the same refers.

Senator Cavanagh has asked a question and the Minister should respond to that question.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order because I want to help Senator Webster. We know of his backwardness in the chamber. I think that he misunderstood me. I was not trying to find out what is the area of the Great Barrier Reef. I accept it as being the area indicated by the Minister. Apparently there is a difference in interpretation between the Queensland Government and the Australian Government as to what comprises the Great Barrier Reef. I would like the Minister’s firm assurance that he will oppose any transfer of power to the Queensland Government if its interpretation of what comprises the Great Barrier Reef is different from that of the Minister.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I would point out that the honourable senator has just completed an address in raising a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– The point of order which was raised was quite relevant. The questions themselves should not be the medium of debate.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I find no difference in the interpretation, as I understand it, of the Queensland Government as to what it considers to be the Great Barrier Beef and what the Federal -

Senator Cavanagh:

– You replied to Senator Martin that you didn’t know.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator is repeatedly interrupting.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You just said that you didn’t know.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator, can you not be quiet for a little while?

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, not when you make stupid statements like that.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I will not continue while Senator Cavanagh is talking like that.

page 1976

QUESTION

AUDITING OF SCHOOL ENROLMENTS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister for Education. I refer to my earlier question concerning the auditing of school enrolments in the Australian Capital Territory. Has this auditing process been completed? If so, can the Minister indicate the results, particularly as they relate to staffing needs in schools? Can the Minister say what action is being taken on requests from some schools for additional assistance? Finally, can the Minister say whether such audits of school enrolments in the ACT will be carried out each year in the future?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– A detailed examination has been conducted of school rolls for 1979. It is still proceeding at this moment. It is a most timeconsuming task. Therefore, it has not been completed. The information which has been derived from this examination indicates the basic teacher requirements for 1979. I will give the figures because I am sure that the Senate will be interested in them. They are: Pre-schools, 123 teachers; primary schools, 1,245; high schools, 856.9; secondary colleges, 390.3; counsellors, 39; schools office, 88; anticipated increases in 1979, 7; making a total of 2,749.2. I am sure that all honourable senators will have engraved on their minds that the appropriate ceiling of 2,772 was set by the Government. The total that I have just quoted is 2,749.2. The ceiling of 2,772 was actually reduced to 2,770 through the abolition of two Commonwealth Teaching Service positions located in the Schools Office and the concurrent creation of two Public Service positions to replace them. With regard to the requests made by the schools for special staffing considerations, the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has appointed an advisory panel to examine submissions and report to the Authority. I expect this examination will be concluded in the near future. I should also mention that in the last few days the Schools Authority has released a short discussion paper dealing with aspects of educational development in the Australian Capital Territory in the coming years. As this paper is relevant to the question asked by Senator Knight and will be of interest to all honourable senators, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN CANBERRA 1979-1985

A Discussion Paper

ACT Schools Authority May 1979

Introduction

The Authority is currently considering future arrangements for secondary education in Canberra. It has reached no conclusions on what these arrangements should be. lt is doing this because enrolment projections indicate there will be a substantial decline in secondary enrolments in older areas of Canberra with some continuing growth in newer parts of the city.

When enrolments are considered at the same time as economic and staffing limitations, the question of the continued operation of some high schools and colleges arises. The Authority is, therefore, examining the educational and economic implications of declining enrolments for existing and new high schools and colleges. It has already decided that Wanniassa and Charnwood High Schools should not open in 1980. It has discussed, but made no decision about, opening Erindale College and the possible phasing out of Narrabundah College, Watson High School and Deakin High School.

This paper sets out the data which the Authority is considering and the constraints within which it has to operate. It also contains suggestions about options for the future operation of secondary schools.

Some Enrolment Facts

Current enrolments (February 1979) and projected enrolments are given in Table I for high schools and Table 2 for secondary colleges.

These projections are based on current enrolment figures in primary and high schools and on estimates of population growth made using information about the rate of land release and household occupation. Even if significant changes in population trends were to occur, the projections show that serious problems would still exist in some areas of Canberra.

HIGH SCHOOLS

Table 1 shows that from 1979 to 1985 enrolments will: increase steadily in Belconnen: fall from 2,080 to 1,180 in North Canberra (Campbell, Lyneham, Watson): fall from 1 ,340 to 800 in South Canberra (Telopea Park Deakin); fall from 1,780 to 1,390 in Woden (Woden Valley, Melrose); rise from 1,480 to 1,530 in Weston (Holder. Weston Creek); and rise from 670 to 1,820 in Tuggeranong (Kambah, Wanniassa ).

SECONDARY COLLEGES

Table 2 shows that in the period 1 979 to 1 985: total enrolments will remain fairly stable: the balance between north and south will remain even:

Erindale enrolments will rise from 1 50 to 530;

Narrabundah enrolments will fall from 5 10 to 250: as high school enrolments fall at Deakin and Telopea Park and rise at Kambah and Wanniassa the balance between Erindale and Narrabundah Colleges will shift.

Educational Issues

As enrolments and staff numbers fall, schools cannot provide the same range of courses as at present under existing arrangements. For example, Narrabundah College has many fewer registered courses than other secondary colleges because it is now the smallest and has the least staff. A secondary college beginning with 220 students rather than 110 could offer 55 times more subject combinations because of the differences in staffing. Once a secondary school’s enrolment falls below 500, significant penalties in choice of subjects occur.

Schools with low enrolments and the reduced staffing which results from this cannot provide enrichment, remedial, or special programs on the same scale as larger schools. This has already been shown this year with the small staffing reductions made to high schools and colleges.

Small secondary schools require teachers with unusual combinations of teaching subjects. Such teachers are difficult to recruit and replace.

The security and morale of teachers could be seriously affected in schools with continually falling enrolments. Individual teachers must bc compulsorily transferred on an annual basis. For example, one high school will have to lose a total of 14 teachers over the next five years through declining enrolments. Staffing adjustments can be more easily handled in larger schools through retirement or promotion.

If schools are consolidated or amalgamated there would be an increase in the proportion of secondary classroom teachers in the system as a whole.

Careful phasing out of some schools would ensure that no staff redundancies occurred, and that the transferor students could be carried out in the least disruptive way.

Staffing Factors

Under present arrangements each secondary school has the same staff allowance for administrative and supervisory responsibilities regardless of size. As enrolments fall the proportion of teachers available for classroom teaching drops also. This means that a school of 800 has a significantly higher proportion of classroom teachers than one of 400.

The Government determines staff ceilings for teachers for ACT schools each year. Current staffing allocations allow the Authority no capacity to provide special supplementary staff for small secondary schools.

Economic Factors

The Government has directed the Authority to allow no real increase in operating costs per student. Since total secondary enrolments will be static the level of operating costs for secondary schools will remain fixed for the foreseeable future. The opening of new schools will not affect this.

The fixed cost of operating a secondary school is about $300,000 a year. That is, this amount of money is required in addition to salaries for classroom teachers, funds for equipment, teaching materials, library and textbooks. The cost is the same for a new school, a large established school, or one with rapidly declining enrolments.

The effect of opening new secondary schools and keeping all existing schools open too. is an increase in cost of about $20 per student in all secondary schools. This must be found from non-salary funds. Because of the Government’s direction on recurrent costs, this means either reducing expenditure on equipment and materials in all secondary schools, or an increase in parental contributions in all schools to maintain existing standards. lt costs about $370 more to maintain each student in a school with an enrolment of 400 than it would in a school with 800. This creates penalties to the system as a whole. If the number of schools were reduced, resources could be provided for high priority needs in all schools from existing Government allocations.

Possible Action

There appear to bc three courses open to the Authority and these are discussed briefly below.

Continue to operate all existing schools and open new schools as required.

Under present arrangements for staffing and funding, this means that schools in the inner area of Canberra with declining enrolments will have reduced educational programs and annual decisions on teacher transfers.

Every time a new school is opened, parental contributions will need to increase or all schools must suffer reductions in funding for equipment and materials.

High schools and colleges on the southside of Canberra (where strict zoning could become essential) will increasingly be disadvantaged in comparison with the larger schools on the northside where continued larger size will provide better staffing and subject choice.

Eventually the system will have more smaller and poorer schools, creating major long term problems.

Additional Government funding would be essential to overcome cost increases and the range of educational offerings occurred by continuing to operate schools with small enrolments.

Phase out some old schools as new schools are required.

This will cause community dislocation in the affected areas and a serious loss of educational tradition and continuity.

Some students would have more travelling, and bus transport would be essential for some students eg. from Woden Valley to Erindale College.

All schools would be able to offer a similar range of courses as now, and maintain current levels of equipment and materials at no extra cost.

Changed Approaches

It might be possible for new schools to be opened as required and for some existing schools with falling enrolments to continue if changes to present arrangements were introduced. Such changes might include: reversion to year 7-12 high schools in the south Canberra area and the closure of only one school; operating one year 7-9 high school on the southside and making Narrabundah College a year 10-12 institution into which SWOW could be incorporated as an annexe; the development of schools with specialised curriculum where some subjects are not available at all; the development of community colleges by the sharing of facilities and programs with community groups and/or TAFE colleges with joint funding; clusters of schools and shared staffing.

New approaches to staffing and funding arc involved in most of these suggestions and this could entail fewer promotions positions, higher pupil teacher ratios and limited choice of subjects, but the continued existence of existing institutions with long educational traditions and good records of educational achievement.

The Authority is willing to consider such approaches but they must be possible within the limitations of finance and staffing set by the Government, and acceptable to all interested groups.

Summary

The Authority is faced with a choice between:

an increasing number of smaller secondary schools with less educational choice and reductions in resources for all schools;

closing some schools causing adverse effects on students, teachers and the community and the loss of important educational traditions;

adopting new approaches to the provision of secondary education in areas affected by declining enrolments.

This paper sets out the major issues needing consideration before any of these choices is adopted, lt is also designed to provide a basis for comment from schools, boards, teachers and parents.

When the Authority has received and considered reactions, comments and suggestions, it will be in a position to reach conclusions on the best course of action for Canberra ‘s secondary students.

Senator CARRICK:

– I was asked whether the audits would in future go ahead. This is a matter for consideration by the Schools Authority. I believe that arising out of the success of the current audit, it is highly likely that the Authority would continue with such audits.

page 1980

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I have pleasure in drawing the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a delegation of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, led by Mr Pavel Gilashvili, ViceChairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. On behalf of all honourable senators I extend a warm welcome to the members of the delegation and trust that their stay in Australia will be a pleasant one.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

page 1980

QUESTION

INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSITS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry whether he is aware of a study by a Queensland Department of Primary Industries economist which demonstrated that, due to changes in primary producer averaging provisions in the 1 977 Budget, use of income equalisation deposits could increase farmers’ tax liabilities. If the Minister is aware of it, why does he continue to exhort farmers to put money into income equalisation deposits?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I thank the honourable senator for the question. I am not aware of the study to which he refers. I would be very pleased if he would give me a copy of it so that it may be studied. I can assure the honourable senator that the purpose for which averaging provisions were originally introduced by this Government was to enable the fluctuating incomes of primary producers to be more amenable to a normal rate of tax in any one year.

Senator Walsh:

– The changes in 1977 were a panic reaction to mistakes you made in the Budget.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Does the honourable senator think that the introduction of averaging provisions was an error? Apparently the honourable senator does not think that it was wrong, and I note that. He then went on to discuss income equalisation deposits, as I understand it. Apparently the article suggests that farmers could pay -

Senator Walsh:

– More tax.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Pay more tax? That would be a surprise to me, but I do not know the source from which he speaks. I will certainly draw to the attention of the Treasurer the matter of eligibility to make income equalisation deposits.

page 1980

QUESTION

CRUDE OIL: PRICE INCREASES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he has seen reports that the International Energy Agency has urged all countries to reduce crude oil consumption to avoid an impending further world oil shortage. Has he seen reports that Algeria has raised the price of its crude oil by $2.45, or 13 per cent, to $21 a barrel, and that members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries may soon follow suit? In the light of these two important factors I ask whether the Minister will have further discussions with the States of South Australia and New South Wales in an endeavour to see whether they will change their minds on the introduction of stage 3 of Australian Design Rule 27A, which the other States have agreed to defer. If South Australia and New South Wales do not defer its introduction and we have to implement stage 3, it will not only cost the Australian Government and Australian motorists many millions of dollars, but also involve the wastage of hundreds of millions of gallons of crude oil.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have seen reports of the International Energy Agency making the plea referred to by the honourable senator in his question. That, of course, is in line with the concern being expressed around the world with respect to the general oil shortage. I was not aware of the other facts to which the honourable senator referred, in particular the fact that Algeria had raised its oil price by the percentage which he has mentioned. All honourable senators will know that there have been very significant rises over the earlier part of this year. In light of the facts which the honourable senator has mentioned, I will refer the matter to Mr Nixon, who has already reported to the Parliament on the recent Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting, to see whether it will be possible to take the sort of action with respect to New South Wales and South Australia which has been requested by the honourable senator.

page 1981

QUESTION

RESEARCH TRAINING FELLOWSHIPS: TAX FREE LIVING ALLOWANCE

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Education: Is the Education Research and Development Committee offering research training fellowships for 1 980? If so, are successful applicants to receive a tax free living allowance? If such a tax free living allowance is payable, why are Commonwealth post-graduate award holders required to pay tax when other postgraduate students are not?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not sure what stage the Education Research Development Committee has reached with regard to its offers to various people. Therefore I will seek precise information with regard to 1980. There is no doubt that there was an anomaly in the last Budget with regard to the taxing of post-graduate awards. Other post-graduate scholarships and awards are tax free. This matter needs consideration. It is a policy matter and, therefore, a matter for the Government. However, as to the earlier part of the question I will bring myself up to date on that and let Senator Colston know.

page 1981

QUESTION

TASMANIAN ELECTRO METALLURGICAL CO. PTY LTD

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations aware of the situation which has arisen at the Tasmanian Electro Metallurgical Co. Pty Ltd plant at Bell Bay which has resulted in three members of the Federated Ironworkers Association being fined by their union because they failed to take part in a strike? What action has been taken or could be taken by the Industrial

Relations Bureau to protect the rights of those union members who have refused to strike?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Minister for Industrial Relations has indicated to me that he has some information in relation to this matter. The State executive officer of the Industrial Relations Bureau has informed the Minister that the employees who are referred to by Senator Walters are employed under a State award. The Deputy Chairman of the Industrial Wages Board is conducting a conference in Launceston in order to establish the full facts surrounding the matter. The Industrial Relations Bureau has been in contact with that Board and is awaiting details. Until there is further information the Industrial Relations Bureau cannot indicate what action it will take in this matter.

page 1981

QUESTION

STUART HIGHWAY

Senator BISHOP:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, refers to the Stuart Highway. The Minister will be aware of conditions now prevailing and the consistent requests by local people that the highway should be surfaced. He will also be aware of recent requests by members of Parliament to the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, that funds should be provided from Federal sources. Of course, in addition, the Minister took part in a recent debate in the Senate about the matter. I ask: Does the Federal Government intend to honour its 1977 election promise to provide special funds for the sealing of the Stuart Highway in South Australia. If so, when might that happen?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Bishop is correct in saying that this matter has been raised on other occasions in the Senate. There have been requests for funds to be provided by the Commonwealth Government. There have also been references to the 1 977 election promise to which he has referred. The total detail of this matter is no longer with me but my recollection is that the Commonwealth provides funds to the State Government for national highway construction. Those funds are subject to approval for specified projects. In fact, Mr Nixon has made representations to the State Government to ensure that funds would be spent on the improvement and upgrading of the Stuart Highway. This matter has been raised before in the Senate both in answers to questions and in debates. The record, as I recall, will show that it was on the specific intervention of Mr Nixon that any work was done or is currently being done on the Stuart Highway. If I can obtain any further information for the honourable senator I will do so.

page 1982

QUESTION

MINERALS: EXPORT CONTROLS

Senator ROCHER:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. Did the Minister for Trade and Resources announce on 15 December 1978 that export controls on a wide range of minerals would be removed? Was removal of controls to be contingent upon prior consultations with the States and industry? Will the Minister advise the Senate when consultations are likely to be concluded? Is it intended that each of the minerals to be removed from export control will be dealt with separately or will finalisation of the proposal be delayed pending resolution of outstanding matters regarding all minerals which were the subject of the Minister’s announcement?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-It is true that the Minister for Trade and Resources announced on 1 5 September 1978 that the Government was considering removal of export controls on a significant range of commodities. In his statement the Minister gave two lists- list A and list B- of minerals which would be dealt with somewhat differently. I do not propose to read out all the minerals included in each list, although I may seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard because they could well be of interest to readers of Hansard and to the Press. In relation to list A, the Minister indicated there would be consultation with the States before these commodities were removed from export control. However, in relation to list B, the Minister indicated that there would be consultation with both industry and the States before reaching final decisions.

As far as the commodities in list A are concerned, the consultations with the States have been concluded and procedures are in hand for the necessary amendment to the Customs regulations to remove the list A commodities from control. In regard to list B, the consultations with both the States and industry have been completed and the Minister will be putting the matter to the Government for decision in the near future. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard list A and list B.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

List A included construction materials, gypsum, silica sand, magnesite, quartz, mica, felspar, barytes, chromium ore and concentrates, tantalum, niobium, vanadium, beryllium ores and concentrates, antimony ores and concentrates, silver ores and concentrates, gold ores and concentrates, and other industrial and minor minerals (other than salt).

List B included salt, nickel, copper ore, concentrates and matte, refined copper, lead ore and concentrates, zinc ore and concentrates, manganese ore and concentrates, tungsten ore and concentrates and bismuth.

page 1982

QUESTION

AVIATION: SECOND SYDNEY AIRPORT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct my question to either the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I ask: What recommendations, if any, have been made to the Government concerning the provision of a second airport for Sydney? Has the Government received any recommendation that a parallel runway should be laid down at Mascot for the purpose of coping with additional aircraft movements in and out of Sydney? When will a decision and an announcement be made on the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question of an expansion or otherwise of runways at Mascot or a second airport in New South Wales, as Senator Douglas McClelland would know, will be a matter for joint consultation between the Wran New South Wales Government and the Commonwealth Government. Therefore any decision must be a joint decision. Senator Douglas McClelland must also understand that the Major Airport Needs of Sydney committee- the MANS committee- currently is considering the matter. I suppose it would be a matter for both the State Government and the Commonwealth Government as to when the report will be made public. The ultimate decision in this matter will be a joint one between the two governments and therefore is one for the future once the evidence is before the governments.

page 1982

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: Is it a fact that TransAustralia Airlines annual report for 1977-78 was tabled, together with its financial statements, and therefore first made public yesterday? Is it a fact also that the annual report, including financial statements, of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd was filed and published to shareholders and the public on or about 28 October 1978? Is it a fact that TAA had prepared its financial statements and submitted them to the Government by letter dated 6 September 1978? What was the cause of the delay between September 1978 and yesterday in the presentation of TAA ‘s financial statements and annual report? Does the Minister agree that for reports of statutory authorities to be useful and relevant they should be made public as soon as possible after the close of the financial year to which they relate? If we must retain commercial statutory authorities, can steps be taken to ensure that government bureaucracy does not delay and disadvantage aspects of their operation and accountability?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Rae asked a series of questions. The first is whether it is a fact that the TAA report was tabled and made public for the first time yesterday. The answer to that question is yes, it was tabled yesterday in the Senate and, I think, in the other place. Another question related to when Ansett Transport Industries made its annual report. Senator Rae referred to 28 October 1978. I am unable to confirm or deny whether that date is correct but as the honourable senator gave me that date I have no doubt that it is correct. I am not aware that TAA submitted accounts to the Government on 6 September 1978. 1 will make an inquiry of Mr Nixon to see whether that is so. If it is so, I am not aware why there was a delay between last September and yesterday in the production of those figures to the Parliament. I certainly agree that reports of that nature are most useful and relevant when they are produced close to the time to which they relate. Obviously it is of assistance to honourable senators and honourable members in their assessments of the operations of public statutory bodies to have up-to-date reporting on them. For that reason I think that Senator Rae has raised a matter of serious interest. I will endeavour to get a reply from Mr Nixon to his questions.

page 1983

QUESTION

EXTRADITION OF FORMER PHILIPPINES CHARGE D’AFFAIRES

Senator GIETZELT:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral recently agreed to the extradition to Australia from the United States of a former Philippines charge d’affaires in Australia, Mr Joselito Azurin, following a complaint by the Philippines Government alleging the embezzlement of Philippines Government funds? Is he aware of suggestions that this complaint is a politically motivated attempt to have Mr Azurin eventually forcibly returned to the Philippines because of his active public opposition to the Marcos regime since his arrival in the United States last August? Has the Attorney-General’s attention been drawn to the apparent inconsistency on the part of the Philippines Government in waiving immunity in this case after having refused to do so in the case of serious allegations of defrauding the Australian Customs by purchasing large quantities of spirits for resale to a Canberra motel which were made against two other Philippines diplomats?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– An application has been made to the United States authorities for the extradition of Mr Azurin to face certain charges arising out of alleged breaches of Australian law. I am aware that there have been suggestions that this is politically motivated to enable Mr Azurin to be returned to the Philippines. That is not the case. The extradition is for Mr Azurin to face charges that have been laid against him for breaches of Australian law. That does not involve his return to the Philippines; it is simply a matter of his being returned to Australia to face charges in Australia. The question of whether he will be extradited to Australia will be determined by the American courts, to which the application is made. It is true that the Philippines Government has waived any claim to diplomatic immunity in relation to the acts of Mr Azurin at the time the offences are alleged to have taken place. I am not aware of other cases to which Senator Gietzelt referred. My decision in the matter was taken purely in relation to the facts relating to the case of Mr Azurin.

page 1983

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: In view of the concern being expressed at the present time by Public Service unions about legislation presently before the Parliament, can the Minister give the Senate an explanation of how the Bill will operate and of the grounds on which employees will be retired?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question requires a very detailed answer. With the approval of the Senate, I will seek to put in words a substantial answer to the question and tomorrow shall seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

page 1983

QUESTION

DEATH OF MR TOMMY WHITE

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question, which I preface by asking the Minister whether he is aware that a tracker, Mr Tommy White, of Ti Tree in the Northern Territory, was killed in a motor accident about 5 miles north of Aileron and that two members of his family were injured. Is the Minister aware also that the driver of the other vehicle was a policeman from Alice Springs who allegedly was under the influence of alcohol and that the vehicles involved were a Holden station wagon and a four-wheel drive Toyota Land Cruiser? In addition to the death of Mr White, his wife, Lucky White, and Alice and Michele Gorey were injured. Can the Minister advise the name of the policeman, whether any legal action was taken against him or whether any court inquiry was held? Can the Minister also inform the

Senate whether any legal aid was given to the widow and whether any compensation was paid to the people who were injured.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not aware of the matters which have been brought to my attention by Senator Keeffe ‘s question. I will make some inquiries into the matters and give the honourable senator a reply. However, if there were a motor vehicle accident in which passengers were injured, unless the law in the Northern Territory is very different from the law anywhere else, those people normally would be entitled to receive some form of compensation. Of course, there are legal aid services in the Northern Territory which ought to be able to ensure that those people receive their legal rights. I will follow up the matters and make sure that, if the situation is as indicated by Senator Keeffe, the legal rights of the people concerned are being pursued.

page 1984

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I regret having to take the time of the Senate, even if only briefly, to make an explanation and I regret the circumstances under which it has become necessary to do so. It arises from a question which was asked in the House of Representatives yesterday by the honourable member for Moore, Mr Hyde, and directed to the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). In the question Mr Hyde referred to a statement I made in a speech at the weekend. In reply to the question, when referring to my speech, the Minister said: lt is to be deeply deplored . . . This Government will not yield to pressure to break the American alliance, withdraw from the ANZUS treaty or divulge secrets about American defence bases in Australia. 1 doubt very much whether the Minister had even seen a copy of my statement when he gave his answer. Presumably, he was depending upon the quite erroneous and misleading Press reports which were published in some newspapers. For example, the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial ran the headline: ‘Labor plan to end secrecy’. The West Australian ran the headline: ‘Lab. plan to reveal U.S. secrets’. The Sydney Daily Telegraph ran the headline: ‘Labor will reveal secrets on U.S. bases’. The Courier-Mail ran the headline: Labor planning to tell all on secret bases’. That is the sort of reporting to which, as members of parliament, we are subjected either by secondrate journalists, third-rate sub-editors or maybe fourth-rate editors. Whichever it is, it is an example of professional incompetence or professional mischief-making.

By contrast, the Sydney Morning Herald gave an accurate account of what that meeting was about. It was accurate because the author, Richard Eckersley, was present at the meeting and discussed the speech with me. He heard the debates that went on and the questions and answers that were given. Fortunately, the Hobart Mercury also gave an accurate account of it. The Daily Telegraph ran an editorial based on the story that had been given to it by a correspondent by the name of O’Neill. I rang the editor, Mr Brian Boswell, who said that he had not written the editorial and had not seen the speech but had seen the report in the Sydney Morning Herald, to which I have just alluded. He saidthe last thing I want to do is misquote him- that he was sufficiently concerned about the difference between the story that had been given by his own journalist and the correct story that had been run in the Sydney Morning Herald that he had then asked for a copy of my speech and also that Mr O’Neill, his own correspondent, report to him. When I spoke to him, he had not seen Mr O’Neill, but I did say that I would write and point out the correct version that he should have run. He has done that today. He has run another article by Mr Greg Hartung, a different journalist, which is an accurate story of what transpired. It is a pity that Mr Boswell had not had, the day before, the benefit of the story written by Greg Hartung in today’s Daily Telegraph rather than the erroneous story that he then had. If he had there would have been no need for me to stand up here and talk about it now.

I know that, in making a point in explanation and clarification, I am not at liberty to debate the substance of the matter. I just want to make the observation that I believe it is reprehensible that the Press should take it upon itself to write such stories and that newspaper editors should write editorials and allow headlines to be run when they have not even seen the substance of the matter on which they are writing. I do not know what we can do about it in the Parliament. I can assure honourable senators that I would like to debate it.

Senator Carrick:

– Could we have your speech incorporated in Hansard?

Senator WRIEDT:

-Certainly, I do not have the speech with me but Sentor Carrick is most welcome to have it incorporated in Hansard. The point I am making is that we do not want a repetition of what happened in this Parliament 12 months ago when Senator Button, I believe, asked about the increased installation facilities at North West Cape and in the other place the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) berated the United States Government for not telling him about it. That sort of thing is wrong and should not occur. If there is to be a proper trust between governments on these mutual security arrangements we should see that proper procedures are followed. That is the substance of what I was trying to get across in the speech that I made. I welcome the chance to incorporate my speech in Hansard. In response to Senator Carrick ‘s invitation, I shall do so later this afternoon.

page 1985

QUESTION

OMEGA BASE

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I should like to clear up a much more minor misunderstanding. On 9 May, Senator Primmer asked me a question about the Government’s failure to respond to an inquiry about an Omega base. At the end of Question Time I indicated that a letter had been sent to Senator Primmer some time before but that I would await his permission before seeking leave to incorporate it in Hansard. Senator Primmer has indicated that he has no objection. Accordingly I seek leave to have the letter incorporated.

Leave granted.

The letter read as follows:

Minister for Transport Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 27 March 1979

Dear Senator Primmer,

On 22 November 1978 and again on 13 March 1979 you raised in a Question Without Notice several matters with respect ofthe capability of Omega.

I am aware of statements attributed in the media to Mr Ireson of Ansett Airlines of Australia. I am also aware of the replies by Mr Ireson to correspondents who quoted his comments out of context. In the Melbourne Age of the 4th of January this year Mr Ireson wrote:

The remarks accredited to me by Mr J. B. Ellis (28/12) are only part of the story. As stated in the Courier Mail article quoted, my remarks referred to the Omega system “as it is developed at the moment”.’

He went on to say: the utility of Omega for commercial aviation and shipping would be vastly expanded by the introduction ofthe proposed Australian station ‘.

With regard to your second question, it is true that the Omega signals are affected by both the earth ‘s magnetic field and by dry soil conditions. These effects are however well known and documented in technical literature. Use of Omega signals in the Australiasian area will take into account these points along with other technical effects already well known and recorded.

Yours sincerely,

P.J.NIXON

page 1985

PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 22 May 1979 from Senator Ryan:

Dear Mr President,

Pursuant to Standing Order 64, I give notice that tomorrow I shall move ‘That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The failure of the Government to clarify issues surrounding the proposed communications satellite for Australia. ‘

Yours sincerely,

SUSAN RYAN

Senator for the Australian Capital Territory

Is the motion supported?

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

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

-I move:

The Opposition raises this matter today because of its significance and seriousness and because of the negligence, amounting to irresponsibility, in the treatment of it by the Government. The Government has under consideration a proposal which would change the nature of the broadcasting and communications industry throughout Australia and which would have the most serious of implications for employment, particularly for Australia’s largest employer, Telecom Australia. Yet virtually no serious, accurate or sound information is given to the public on most of the issues concerning the establishment of a communications satellite for Australia. When I say that the matter is of significance to all Australians, I point out also that it is of particular significance to people living in remote areas who may, as a result of the Government’s decision to proceed with the communications satellite, experience a marked improvement in their access to communications facilities. On the other hand, they may, according to some critics of the proposal, find that their hope of getting improved communications, particularly in areas such as telephony, will be jeopardised by the communications satellite.

A very disadvantaged section of the community whose access to what we city dwellers would consider to be a basic range of communication facilities is very much engaged in this debate, yet the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) and the Government generally have failed to clarify all the major issues surrounding it. The Government has not clarified why, at this stage of the development of the Australian communications system, this particular form of satellite is being considered. I must make it clear, for those honourable senators and members of the public who are listening, that the proposal concerns a particular kind of satellite- a relay satellite. It does not concern a direct broadcast satellite, which would be extremely flexible and extremely useful for remote areas. It does not involve the same thing as is involved in the Government’s decision to lease a part of the Intelsat satellite. Many discussions that I have heard by members of the community show great confusion in the community about the capability of a direct broadcast satellite, which of course is not yet available on the market, compound with the very limited capabilities of the relay satellite, which is the one currently under consideration by the Government.

Why at this stage should we have a relay satellite? The Government needs to clarify that point. Who is the satellite being erected to help? The Government needs to clarify that matter. In particular, the Government needs to clarify the relationship between the services that could be offered by a relay satellite and the services which are currently being offered through the terrestrial system by Telecom Australia and which are planned by Telecom to be offered up to the mid 1 980s when, according to the Telecom plan, the communications needs of all but 40,000 remote dwellers will be brought into the communications system. We need to be told who will pay for this satellite proposal and we need to be told- this is a fundamental requirement- how much the proposal will cost. The Government has done nothing to clarify any of these issues. At the same time, it has not clarified the relationship of the proposed relay satellite, and the increase in broadcasting facility that will accompany it, with the current provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. Quite clearly, as foreshadowed in the report of the Task Force on National Communications Satellite System, there would need to be significant amendments to the Broadcasting and Television Act if new television licenses were to be provided in relation to the satellite.

At the same time we have heard nothing from the Government as to the role of the Australian

Broadcasting Tribunal in the allocation of new licences which may become available in order to use the facilities provided by the satellite. But the major concern of that section of the community which has concerned itself with this subject, of the Opposition and of other critics of the Government ‘s satellite proposal is the complete failure of the Government to give us hard evidence with regard to the cost of the proposal. Scepticism or concern about the cost of a communications satellite for Australia did not originate with members of the Opposition. It originated, I remind honourable senators, with the Government’s own Task Force report on a National Communications Satellite System. In that report the Department of Finance dissented from the main recommendation. I remind honourable senators of some of the reservations raised by the Department of Finance in bringing down its dissenting report. I raise them again at this stage of the debate because it seems to me to be quite scandalous that the Government has not addressed itself to the cost reservations expressed by the Department of Finance. On page 1 32 of the report, the Department of Finance states:

In my view the improvements to Australia’s communications capacity which could evolve from the basic model system are marginal improvements to a communications infrastructure which provides already a sophisticated, high quality service by world standards. I am not satisfied that it has been established that these marginal benefits could bc provided necessarily at less cost by means of a satellite system.

As to improvements in existing services, the Department of Finance says this:

In respect of the improvements in quality and reliability that are envisaged, I consider that the Task Force has not established that the cost of a satellite solution is justified by the marginal improvements likely to be achieved and the relatively restricted segment of the community which would benefit from those improvements.

With regard to the provision of additional services, in particular telephony, the Department of Finance states:

The Task Force has estimated that a communications satellite service would provide facilities for high quality automatic telephone services to about 2,000 locations (accounting for not more than 40,000 people) in remote areas of Australia. I appreciate that a satellite system could provide a solution to the telephony problems of remote areas which probably would be less costly than a terrestrial solution, but it would be most expensive nonetheless. The Task Force has indicated that . . . the capital outlays involved for this service alone could be of the order of $60m. Taking account of operational costs, annual charges and revenues, the total outlay by the Commonwealth or its agencies during this period could approach $ 1 20m.

The report goes on:

It is pertinent also to note that, to the present time the . . . amount of capital expenditure which . . Telecom has been prepared to incur … to the individual subscriber has been of the order of $20,000 . . . If it were expected to provide a service to the more remote locations, it would seek some assistance from the Government to meet the costs involved.

I add that, on these figures, that would be about $40,000 per service. In the conclusion of the dissenting report the Department of Finance states:

As indicated above, the Commonwealth and its agencies could have to outlay of the order of $ 190m (in 1978 prices) during the period to 1991-92 for a basic national communications sattelite system as envisaged in this report . . The inclusion in the proposed system of a remote area telephony service might add to the order of $ 120m to these Commonwealth outlays and the further addition of the suggested form of direct broadcasting to remote areas could add in the region of another $90m.

If the Government is prepared to provide the several hundreds of millions of dollars which are to be spent to initiate a satellite communications system in this country, let it say so. But the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has not said this. The Minister, in any public statement he has made, has used figures which are quite conflicting with the figures of the Department of Finance. He has spoken of a much lower outlay. He has spoken of recent developments in Canada. He has presented no evidence of technology or the pricing of the technology which in off-the-cuff remarks he has claimed to be available. Whilst the Opposition is totally sympathetic to the needs of remote dwellers for improved communication services, and sympathetic to the reality that those services will have to be heavily subsidised by the public, we believe- I think the community as a whole believes- that a better attempt at costing the proposal needs to be made before the community and the Parliament can make up its mind that the expenditure is justified.

As far as benefits, other than telephony, for remote area dwellers are concerned, we believe a great deal of confusion surrounds the potential beneficiaries of the satellite proposal. Certainly it is clear that a number of large corporations would benefit. It is certainly clear that the television entrepreneur, Mr Kerry Packer, would benefit from the facility to have a commercial national network. It is clear that companies such as Western Mining Corporation Ltd, Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd, IBM Australia Ltd and the Australian Mining Industry Council, all of which made submissions to the Task Force inquiry, would benefit particularly from the data transmission facilities which would be available through the satellite. Large corporations would welcome the satellite facility. They would welcome it particularly because it would seem that their facility for profit making activities would be heavily subsidised and underwritten by public money, in particular by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which is nominated by the Task Force report as a prime user of the satellite.

If it is the Government’s intention to put the country further into serious debt to provide services for these big corporations, then let it say so clearly. Let the Minister for Post and Telecommunications not pretend that his main concern is for the communication needs of outback dwellers. So far the Minister has not clarified the extent to which the public would be subsidising data transmission facilities for corporations such as the ones I have named. Other possible beneficaries have been nominated in the Task Force report and the Federal Opposition is extremely sympathetic to the possible benefits that could flow to such groups. These groups include, of course, the remote area dwellers whose communication needs are very severe. The Opposition believes that there is a serious need for the provision of telephone, radio, perhaps television, and certainly a need for improved health and education services which could flow from satellite facilities. We believe that the special needs of the Aboriginal communities in remote areas could be met to some extent by improved communication through satellite technology. We believe that there is a need for better broadcasting in the regional areas of Australia, although I wish to make it quite clear that I do not believe that improvements in regional broadcasting would come about by allowing the Channel 9 network to establish a monopoly and put out of business the current broadcasters in regional areas. Experience of city dwellers proves beyond doubt that more television does not necessarily mean better television, and more television stations do not necessarily mean a better choice for the viewers. So I warn people in regional areas that although they properly are agitating for better broadcasting, the current proposals in the satellite report certainly would not provide this.

We are sympathetic to the requirements of public broadcasters who are hopeful that in the years to come they may get public access to improved television services as, in recent years, they have been able to get access to radio services. The Opposition is sympathetic to all these groups and to their needs. We are not opposed to satellite technology. I must say that very clearly at this stage of the debate, because other impressions have been gained or alleged by some sections of the community and the media. The Australian Labor Party, the Federal Opposition, is not opposed to satellite technology in principle. We would welcome any developments in communications technology if the Government could guarantee the following principles. I will enumerate these as being our requirements for a satellite proposal which the Federal Opposition could support. First of all, we would want to see telephony and broadcasting to remote areas at a cost that the taxpayer could afford. We would want to see protection of the existing massive investment of $6.5 billion of the taxpayers’ money in Telecom Australia. We do not want to see a massive public subsidy of private corporate activity through the satellite. We want to see employment creating activities rather than employment destroying effects of satellite technology. We want to be assured that there will be no increase in the current private ownership monopoly in the broadcasting area. We want to be assured that there will be a preservation of local services that are currently provided by regional broadcasters. Finally, and I say this very clearly, the Federal Opposition would insist on public ownership and management of all communications facilities so that they could be operated and managed in the interests of the public.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Before Senator Ryan spoke I was a little mystified as to why the Opposition was bringing forward this motion. I remain somewhat mystified about it. Senator Ryan concluded her speech by making a series of statements as to the broad matters the Opposition would like to achieve. With some possible qualification as to the last matter, on which as far as I know the Government has made no decision, I thought that she made a series of statements with which all honourable senators and indeed the Government could agree. At the end of her speech she suggested, as the motion of urgency actually states, that the issues surrounding the proposed communications satellite for Australia have not been clarified. That proposition simply has not been made out. Rather, although Senator Ryan said that the Government should have declared a position on some of these matters, I suggest that quite clearly we have some way to go before we can make a final decision on many of the matters she raised.

The history of this matter clearly shows that the Government has been concerned to isolate the very real issues that arise when one is considering the establishment of a satellite system. In the limited time that we have agreed should be devoted to this debate, I would like to refer to three things: Firstly, the lead up to this matter, which took the form of a public inquiry; secondly, the result of that inquiry; and thirdly, the follow-up to the inquiry undertaken by the government. To complain about a failure to clarify the issues flies in the face of the document from which Senator Ryan quoted in her speech. If one looks at the report of the Task Force on a National Communications Satellite System, put down in July 1978, one will find in the terms of reference a Government awareness of the substantial issues that arise. There is a reference in the opening pages of this document to the fact that the inquiry was asked to investigate and evaluate the social, economic, technical, policy and other issues associated with the establishment and operation of an Australian national communications satellite system. There is a requirement that particular regard be paid to various matters, including the potential to provide high quality radio and television broadcasting and other telecommunications services to all Australians.

In 1977 the present Government established that a range of issues required determination before any final decisions could be made on a satellite system. The report was brought forward in July 1 978, and it canvasses these and other areas and makes a series of recommendations. That public document has been available now for some eight or nine months and has enabled those members of the public and organisations who are interested to focus on the sorts of issues which Senator Ryan has raised here today. I think that some reference to the statement of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), when he put down that report in the. Parliament on 27 September 1978, gives the lie to the motion that has been brought forward today. Mr Staley commended the report and pointed out that the Task Force had drawn on existing expertise in government departments and statutory authorities. It had received submissions and had conducted public hearings in all States. The Minister then dealt with the various issues raised by the report, which largely coincide with the questions raised today by Senator Ryan. From there the Government proceeded to ask for public participation in the consideration of the recommendations of the Task Force report. The Government has done a substantial amount of work to ensure that it receives the benefit of the differing views that exist in the community.

I am a little puzzled about Senator Ryan’s opening remarks. She complained- in fact I think that this was her very first complaint- that only a particular form of satellite is being considered and that the Government is looking only at relay and not direct broadcasting arrangements. I should have thought that there was plenty of evidence on the public record, and in particular in the statements of Mr Staley on his return from Canada, to indicate that the Government is extremely interested in the possibility of having a satellite that will enable direct broadcasting to occur. Australian officers have gone to Canada to examine the technical matters seen by Mr Staley on his trip overseas and Canadian officers will be coming to Australia to examine and demonstrate the technology of direct broadcasting. I am at a loss to know how Senator Ryan can suggest that the Government is interested only in relay broadcasting.

The Minister has accepted the Canadian Government’s offer to demonstrate in Australia the capabilities of direct broadcasting by moving the Hermes satellite into a location suitable for transmitting signals to a large area of New South Wales and Queensland. Arrangements have already been made for trials to be held in Australia which will enable experiments to be conducted over a period of four weeks in August. Canadian officers will be bringing a number of small earth stations to demonstrate, in a number of locations, the direct broadcasting capabilities of the satellite. The Minister has also advised that Dr John Chapman, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Canadian Department of Communications, will be in Australia during the week commencing 28 May 1979 and will be available to discuss Canadian developments with members of the Government and the Opposition. As part of the Government’s public consideration of this report and of the prospect of satellite communication, it is considering the very matter that Senator Ryan complained was not receiving consideration.

I am sure that Senator Ryan will be aware that since the report was published the Government has established a working group of senior officials who were available to receive submissions from the community until 31 March 1979, some six months after the report was tabled. It is the work of those officials to evaluate the submissions, together with the Task Force report, and they have been asked to report to the Government by 30 June 1979. To suggest that the Government should in some way declare its position on the matters raised by Senator Ryan, prior to the submissions being considered and the officials having a chance to report, in my view flies in the face of normal and sensible procedures. The working group has received 165 submissions from individuals and organisations throughout the community. I know that Senator

Ryan has had contact with many of those groups at the public seminars that have been held, and I suggest to her that it is quite clear that the issues about which she has expressed concern are issues which have attracted the interest of many of those individuals and groups and on which views have been expressed to the Government and the community generally. The process which is being followed ensures that the Government is getting the benefit of the views of all those people who are interested and that it will be in a position to make decisions which are sensible and in the national interest and which in no way diminish the importance of the points of principle raised by the honourable senator in her address.

I suppose that one of the difficulties in this area is the fact that technological development is occurring at a rate which can make decisions that are made today the wrong decisions tomorrow. One of the marked features of the reaction of the Government to this area of policy since the report was published has been the public statements by Mr Staley about the technology that is available through Canada, as against the technology that was thought to be available at the time the report was published. I should have thought that all those people who are concerned about the paucity of communication in some of the remote areas of Australia would welcome the fact that this Government is examining seriously the recommendation that it should establish a domestic satellite system. I am sure they would welcome the fact that the Government has given the public and interest groups an opportunity to participate and they would welcome the fact that we are pursuing technological inquiries not only in Canada but also in other countries which have something to offer.

One complaint that cannot be made is that the real changes which will occur in Australia if any extensive satellite communication system is introduced will have a substantial impact on a number of areas. All those areas are receiving attention. The Government will make its decisions on these matters in the light of the public debate that has been held and the best information which can be found by using the procedures available. The Government of course opposes the urgency motion of Senator Ryan and assures the Australian public that it will continue to give careful consideration to the issues surrounding the proposed communications satellite for Australia. It looks forward to the developments in the next year which will do much to ensure that the remote areas of Australia will receive better services than they are receiving at present.

Senior BUTTON (Victoria) (4.6)-The Senate is debating an urgency motion proposed by Senator Ryan which refers to the failure of the Government to clarify issues surrounding the proposed communications satellite for Australia. Senator Chaney expressed concern and worry about why that should seem to be either a matter of public importance or a matter of urgency. Of course, the Government itself has said that there should be public debate on this issue. I take it that the Government envisages that the expression ‘public debate’ would include debate in the Senate- unless this matter is one of those matters which we are not allowed to debate which is being debated everywhere else. In the introduction of the report of the Commonwealth Government task force on the National Communications Satellite System to which Senator Chaney referred, the task force made two points under the heading of ‘Public Consideration Of This Report’. Firstly, it made the point that the hearings that were conducted made it clear that there is a limited understanding in the community, of many of the features of a national communication satellite system and, in a number of quarters, apprehension regarding its likely impact upon certain interests.

The report goes on to say that there are grave doubts about employment consequences and so on. These matters are properly matters of community concern. I agree with the task force that there is a limited understanding in the community about the satellite and there is indeed a great deal of apprehension about its consequences. If one watches the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) on television talking about this issue or indeed any other issue, one sees that brilliant imitation that he does of a cross between a cherub and a chartered accountant. As he comes to deal with the question of a satellite he takes on the aura of a clean-cut father Christmas as he explains the great benefits which the satellite will bring to certain very small sections of the Australian community.

As a sort of aide memoire of what he is talking about, one can see him saying to himself: Twinkle, twinkle DOMSAT star, how I wonder what your are, up above the world so high, like a diamond in the sky’. I wish to illustrate the essential issues about which the public is properly concerned. The satellite will be a diamond in the sky. Clearly many members of the public do not know what the satellite is and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications does not intend to tell them when he talks about these issues on television. It is very important that, in a debate in the Senate or in public, or when we try to engender discussion about this topic, we raise some of the matters that are not dealt with. There is legitimate public apprehension and concern which the Government has not only the opportunity but also the responsibility to alleviate.

If the Government is as diligent as its rhetoric would suggest in terms of cost benefit analyses, it has a responsibility to give the public one suggestion about what the likely cost of a satellite would be rather than the three or four which have been given. There are vast discrepancies in the estimates of the cost of a domestic satellite. One has to have regard to the Treasury position on this. One would have thought that by now the Government would be in a position to give some indication of its views about the ownership of a domestic satellite. It ought to be in a position by now to give some indication of the likely users of a domestic satellite and perhaps give some indication in technological terms of what an appropriate audit of the value of its use might be. It might also be in a position to state the situation in relation to the real issue of concern, the question of social costs and particularly the question of employment.

A number of organisations with members employed by Telecom and other bodies which might be affected by the introduction of a domestic satellite, have made estimates of the likely unemployment consequences. Opposition senators- Senator Ryan in particular- have asked questions on notice- which have been unanswered for a long time- on a number of really important issues, lt is in relation to these matters that I believe the Government has a responsibility to relieve the apprehensions of sections of the community and also a responsibility in time- I appreciate what Senator Chaney said about that- to resolve some of these issues. Time and time again, when public statements about the satellite are made by members of the Government they do precisely what Senator Chaney did here today- concentrate on one aspect of the proposed communications satellite, its benefit to outlying communities in Australia. This question has been raised in Australian politics over a very long period. In the 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government there were great technological opportunities to make communication services available to outlying communities which electorally had been taken for granted by Liberal-Country Party governments. Nothing was done to take advantage of those opportunities in that period.

The essential issues relating to the satellite can be seen as the tip of the iceberg in relation to the whole technological debate which is taking place in Australia now. For that reason if for no other I think that the Government has an obligation in this matter. The satellite is a small part, a microcosm of that debate. It is an issue on which clear guidelines should be laid down. Clear explanations should be made to the community about the issues involved. We in the Opposition have no doubts about the communications benefits which a domestic satellite could bring to Australia. It could have immense advantages to outlying communities in terms of telecommunications generally. It could have immense advantages particularly to the 2 per cent to 3 per cent of Australians who now live beyond the reach of conventional telecommunications and who do not have the benefit of television or telephone services- or in some cases even radio, I suspect. More importantly, it could have immense advantages for the 35 per cent of Australians who live beyond the reach of a second television channel. That is important.

There seems to be undue concentration on that 2 per cent of Australians, although I understand that they are very important. But one of the great advantages of the satellite is that it could bring a two-channel service to 35 per cent of the Australian community which are presently denied it. Whether an extra service is provided by an additional commercial television channel or a further Australian Broadcasting Commission channel is a matter for debate. In the circumstances of a satellite there is probably no reason why the extra services could not be provided to outback communities by both types of television services. That is of tremendous cultural importance to Australia, apart from its merely improving the normal communication system. So we regard that as important and we in the Opposition are very sympathetic to it. Again I repeat that this is all the Government has said about the issue. Again and again the Minister repeats it. Indeed, he spends time in outback communities telling people about the benefits it will bring to them. There is little information provided regarding other issues of concern which relate to a far wider community in Australia.

The second great benefit which a communications satellite can bring to Australia- I think it is of the utmost importance- is a first class communications system. This is essential to a modern economy, something we hope we will have the benefit of creating after the present Government is defeated at the next election. For this reason, if for no other, we have a vested interest in the creation of a first class communications system. It is absolutely crucial in terms of the perceived needs of the Australian economy in the remaining years of this century that we have a first class communications system of this kind. I would like a great deal more information to be provided by the Government about the way in which such a communications system would be used not only by the Government but also by private industry.

I have already alluded to another opportunity it provides and that is additional broadcasting services throughout Australia. As Senator Ryan has said- it has been said publicly on numerous occasions in the context of discussion about the satellite- there is grave concern, perhaps misapprehension, about the results of the introduction of the satellite. It is as a result of those questions that we think that the Government should be prompted by a debate of this kind to provide quickly a little more information about the Government’s intentions and about the possibilities and matters of that kind which have not been alluded to in the course of this or any other debate. More particularly, the Government should provide as quickly as possible further information about the other costs involved to the people of Australia. I can assure honourable senators on the Government side that as soon as possible after this Parliament resumes in August we will give them the opportunity again to engage in a debate on this issue. Perhaps on that occasion we will be able to get a little more information from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications than the trad lore that we get from the Government about the benefits to outlying communities.

Senator Chaney:

– Debate the wording of the motion.

Senator BUTTON:

– The motion relates to the failure to clarify. Senator Chaney was provided with the unique opportunity to clarify the situation and, with the greatest respect, he did not seize the day in the course of his contribution to this debate. It is the question of other costs about which we are most concerned. After all, the Australian economy is in a parlous state. One can only see items of expenditure justified by this Government when they have something to do with putting something in the sky. It can put two Boeing 707s into the sky for the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and it can put a satellite into the sky for the benefit of we know not whom. It is on other issues of expenditure that the Government expresses a great degree of strictness and stringency. We would like to see the same sort of guidelines applied to the issue of a domestic satellite. But, more particularly, in the current context we have to be concerned about the employment implications of the introduction of a domestic satellite. I suspect that there is a lot of apprehension in the community about this issue. It is apprehension which senators opposite, as members of the Government side and also as politicians, ought to be concerned about. If honourable senators opposite, as a government, are perceived not only as caring little about the consequences of unemployment but also are embarking on expensive endeavours which go a long way towards creating it, there will be real and greater difficulties for the Government parties than is the situation at the present time.

It is for those reasons that the Opposition raised this matter in the Senate today. We hope to do so again when further information becomes available from the Government about the issue. We have to keep raising this issue in the public mind because it is of vital importance. There is limited knowledge of the matter and misapprehensions exist. We hope that next time the Government will be more responsive in clarifying the issues referred to in Senator Ryan’s motion.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

– Today we are debating a matter of public importance raised by Senator Ryan- the failure of the Government to clarify issues surrounding the proposed communications satellite for Australia. I sat in amazement and listened to Senator Ryan ‘s contribution. I have heard Senator Ryan speaking previously on the domestic satellite situation and I must confess that I am often slow to catch on but today I realised at last that she does not know what the heck she is talking about. That was proved conclusively throughout her speech. Senator Ryan, a member of the front bench of the Opposition who seeks to speak at length and give direction to her party on communications, does not know what she is talking about. At one stage she used a minority report to give weight to her argument, a report brought out by the Department of Finance. Paragraph 2 on page 132 of the Report of the Commonwealth Government Task Force on a National Communications Satellite System reads as follows:

In my view the improvements to Australia’s communications capacity which could evolve from the basic model system are marginal improvements to a communications infrastructure which provides already a sophisticated, high quality service by world standards. 1 am not satisfied that it has been established that these marginal benefits could be provided necessarily at less cost by means of a satellite system.

That is well written by a Department of Finance bureaucrat but to think that it would come from a person seeking to represent her party in the field of communications and to go out and talk to the people of Australia just leaves me cold. It is the sort of thing one would expect out of Sydney,

Melbourne and Canberra but if the party of which Senator Button is a member wishes to attain the Treasury benches at the next election its members had better smarten up their footwork. I will refer to the Task Force’s recommendations which appear in paragraph 9.22 on page 1 1 6 of the report. It stated:

A system which can enhance Australia’s defence communications, its aeronautical and maritime communications, its public telecommunications both national and international, its broadcasting services, which can offer high potential for improvements in the delivery of health care services, in education, in helping our Aboriginal settlements and the people of the remote outback, offers advantages which cannot be measured solely in financial terms.

I cannot agree more. Basically that is what it is all about. For the first time we have the best chance of providing good quality communications for all Australians in the shortest time. Senator Button took the Government to task at one stage by saying that the communications satellite is only going to be of advantage to a small group of people. So what! Are they not as important as people in any other part of Australia? The fact that they have not got communications means that we should be working flat out to give it to them. In the minds of members of the Opposition it is only incidental that the people to whom we refer are the people who probably are doing more to produce the wealth of this country than any other section of the community. Yet, because they are a small group, it seeks to exclude them from the communications systems which we have. In paragraph 9.25 on page 116 the Task Force stated:

Recalling that approximately 6 years would be required from the time a decision is taken to having a satellite system in service, the Task Force believes thai further delay will only serve to retard development of the nation’s advanced technologies and exploitation of the unique capability of satellite communications for the benefit of Australia’s business and social life into the 1990s or beyond. In light of the information contained in this report, this seems to be unthinkable.

Indeed it is. As soon as it is technically possible we should be rectifying this position. One of the aspects that has been brought up is unemployment. All my reading about the proposal suggests that it would probably increase employment within the communications industry as new technology developed. It would be of great assistance to Australia in developing new technologies. We have proved that we can be world leaders in communications. We can be quite innovative in such matters. This development would give us the opportunity to prove that and to provide more employment.

Senator Button:

– You are not suggesting that we would be a world leader with a satellite, are you? They have been up for 20 years everywhere else.

Senator COLLARD:

-Not with a satellite; of course not. But new technologies are always being developed, I will touch on that later as far as satellite communication is concerned.

For the benefit of those who have been confused by Senator Ryan’s rhetoric over the last few months I point out that in the first instance we will be using a relay satellite. We will not be manufacturing one and shooting it up. The satellite is already there. The Government has announced that the translators to be built over the next three years will not be using relay stations. In the first instance it was intended to use programs that had been transmitted, recorded and sent to the relay stations. That would have involved great cost. Also a considerable infrastructure would have been needed to keep tab of all the videotapes throughout the country to see that they were played at the right time and at the right relay station. By using spare transponders on the INTELSAT satellite, which is over the Pacific, we will be able to supplement our terrestrial system and all the translators that are set down for the three-year program will be able to provide instantaneous transmission of the programs that are being broadcast. We will be able to use the INTELSAT relay satellite in this way. I welcome such a move as it will provide greater television coverage to people in the more remote areas of our country. Any existing satellite system will work only with the current terrestrial system. Of course, satellites will help us to achieve the provision of a better service.

It is important that we do not rush into this field until the technology is complete. I instance our entry into the colour television field. We could have rushed in and adopted one of the lesser systems. I think everyone agrees that the PAL system- the phase alternating line systemwhich Australia uses is second to none in the world. We could have rushed in and ended up with the National Television Standards Committee system- the NTSC system- which is used by Japan and the United States of America. It is conceded that this system is not of a standard comparable with the PAL system. By holding back and watching world developments we have the PAL system, which is second to none. I believe that we should do the same as far as our own domestic satellite is concerned. I would be very much against shooting up a satellite just to provide for extra television broadcasting. It is no use putting up a satellite until it is able to provide complete telephonic communication. That is a little more complicated than just putting a television receiver at the other end. One has to have suitable transmitters to send a signal back to the satellite and so forth.

The whole purpose of our domestic satellite system is to provide not only for television broadcasting but also for telephonic communication and extra radio communication. Such a satellite should be used to transmit DATEL information to computers, to provide telex services and so forth. It is most important that we do not put up a satellite until it is capable of doing all those things. The satellite that we do put up will of necessity be a mulit-purpose satellite. It will be used for health, welfare, education, defence, communications and transport. It will be of great benefit particularly to people in remote and isolated areas. That is what the whole thing is all about. At present the working parties are looking at this proposal. They are still receiving input from people throughout the community. Although Senator Ryan has been to many conferences about this proposal she still has not grasped the significance of it. People are making inputs to the Government and the Task Force to ensure that we get the satellite we need so much for Australia.

Senator Chaney mentioned that we will be doing some experimental work towards the middle of this year with the Canadian Hermes satellite. The Canadians have agreed to move this satellite a little so that it can be used by Australia for direct broadcasting purposes. One of the problems with satellites such as INTELSAT is that they carry very low-powered transponders. I believe that the transponders have an output of only 4 or 5 watts. That, of course, is not good enough for telephonic communication. I understand that the Canadian Hermes satellite has transponders with an output of about 20 watts and that experiments are being carried out on transponders with an output of up to 100 watts. It is essential that we get that sort of output from these satellites so that we can have the two-way communications that we so desperately need. Remote homesteads will be able to use a very small parabolic antenna on the ground to pick up a signal. These antennas can be fixed. They will not require a tracking device that follows the satellite as it moves marginally in its orbit. It is essential that this new technology be developed fully so that smaller antennas can be used and ground stations can be constructed at the least cost. It is envisaged that the cost of ground stations at isolated townships and homesteads will be brought down to about $1,000 or less. I think it is important that this technology is fully developed before we put up a satellite.

One of the matters of concern is the direct broadcasting of television. I must say that I have not yet run into anybody who agrees with this proposition. I have had discussions with Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, which basically is not interested in transmitting from Sydney or Melbourne and blanketing the whole country. It is interested only in using the satellite to provide communications to regional stations so as to give them better access to the programs that are available in the metropolitan areas. These stations in country areas will be able to choose programs transmitted by three major networks. Once the contracts are signed people will be able to pick up simultaneous broadcasting by the domestic satellite. It is important that direct broadcasting is made available to people in the more remote areas. But there is a Catch 22 situation in that we will have to be able to provide for the regional broadcasters and let them maintain their autonomy and look after their regional interests whilst providing direct broadcasting to people in the more remote areas who will not be able to receive television by ordinary terrestrial means.

I believe it is of utmost importance that this proposal be considered thoroughly and completely if it is to be of advantage to all the people of Australia. I think the proposal is clear to most people who have studied it. However, it seems that Senator Ryan and Senator Button are a little confused about it. I do not think there is any doubt about what this domestic satellite should be able to achieve. I reiterate that it should provide not only for television but also for telephonic communication, radio broadcasting, DATEL information, telex and so forth. The satellite should provide a blanket cover for Australia. As I have said, it should be capable of use in the fields of health, welfare, education, defence, ordinary communications, transport and so forth. It is also most important that we have a satellite to assist us in the event of a national disaster, such as a cyclone. We would then be less susceptible to loss of communications during such a disaster. We would be able to carry on with our communications in the way that a country as modern as Australia should. I reject completely Senator Ryan’s motion.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I think Senator Collard has just convincingly demonstrated the justification for a motion such as the one before us, which condemns the Government for its failure to clarify in technical and monetary terms precisely what it is proposing. There were several ironies in Senator Collard ‘s speech, but perhaps the greatest irony of all was that his remarks directly contradict the statement made by the leader of his party- the National Country Party of Australia- in June of last year at a seminar in the Northern Territory. On that occasion the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) said:

Many people, particularly in remote parts of Australia have had their hopes built up that a communications satellite could greatly improve their telephone, radio and television services . . . the needs of people in remote areas could perhaps be better met by extending and improving ground facilities and people would be unwise to place too much hope in them as a means of solving their communications problems in the immediate future.

By ‘in them’ he meant ‘in a satellite’. If the case for the need for the Government to clarify its intentions has not been established already by previous speakers, it certainly has been clarified by the contradiction between Senator Collard ‘s remarks and the statement made by his party leader less than one year ago. Even if we overlook the contradiction between the National Country Party rank and file, as represented by Senator .Collard, and its leadership, there was a host of internal contradictions in the honourable senator’s speech. He said that it is important that we do not rush into it- that is, the satellite- until technology is complete. I find it rather difficult- in fact quite impossible- to reconcile that exhortation with his apparent advocacy that we have to get a satellite up in the air immediately, because even if the technology is to be complete it certainly is not complete now and a number of technical matters quite crucial to this proposal have not been specified by the Government.

He said- and this is the most important internal contradiction- that it is no good putting up this satellite if it is for television services only. He said that there is no point in putting up a satellite unless it is one which can provide a full range of communications for people in outback Australia. Evidently he does not know that the proposal, insofar as it has been enunciated by the Government, is to put up a satellite which in the first generation will not provide telephone facilities. So by Senator Collard ‘s own standards of judgment he would have to be opposed to the proposition of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), insofar as he has spelt out anything at all.

I want to make it perfectly clear that neither I, Senator Ryan, Senator Button nor anyone else in the Labor Party, as far as I am aware, is opposed to the installation of a satellite per se. Certainly we are greatly concerned about the communications and other disadvantages suffered by people living in the remote parts of Australia. One practical manifestation of that concern, of course, was the isolated children’s education grant introduced by the last Federal Labor Government after Liberal-National Country Party governments had had 23 years in which to initiate such a move to overcome the financial disadvantages educationally of people living in the country. Following 23 years in which Liberal-National Country Party governments did nothing, within less than a year of the Labor Government’s being elected it provided for those people complete financial compensation in relation to education. As Bill Hayden remarked at Orange the weekend before last, a demonstration ofthe Labor Party’s long standing concern for the disadvantaged people in remote Australia and for people generally in remote Australia is the fact that the Labor Party was gestated in these areas of outback Australia as much as it was in metropolitan Sydney. Of course, as I come from Western Australia, I have a particular and personal appreciation of the problems in communications and in other areas of people living in the outback.

One of the things that concerns us about this proposition is that the Government and, in particular, the Minister have misrepresented the proposition which has been put forward as something which will solve the communications problems of remote Australia. If that were the objective of the Government- if the satellite were aimed in fact at overcoming the communications problems of outback Australia- the limited message transmitting capacity which the satellite will have, especially the first generation satellite, would be reserved for providing telephone communications for outback Australia, which at present is inadequately served, and perhaps also for providing television restricted only to those areas. In other words, there would be no provision for networking arrangements or for instant transmission of television between the major capital cities and the other capital cities and regional centres. But under this proposition the priority goes not to outback Australia but to providing instant television transmission between the major centres of population. The proposition is directed not just towards that objective of providing instant television transmission between the major centres of population. The satellite having provided that service, there will be little capacity, if any, for picking up any of the demand for other communications services. That applies at least for the first generation satellite. The Government has done a very successful public relations job and has presented the Minister’s proposal as a panacea for all the communications problems of outback Australia when in fact it will do nothing- it may even exacerbate the communications problems of outback Australia- at least until the second generation satellite is in use, for which we are looking at some period in the 1990s.

One of the difficulties I find in speaking to this matter- and I daresay that this applies to a number of other speakers- is that even at this stage it is a highly technical matter and that rational decisions on what technology is most suitable always entail an element of prophecy, expectations, predictions or speculation about what technical improvements may be made. in the future. The incorporation into the current decision of this obvious uncertainty about future technological change, improvement and development increases the degree of difficulty we face when we have to make decisions at this point in time. I heard the Minister speak last month at Cobar, I have heard Mr Packer speak at Orange and, of course, I have read a good deal of material on the question.

The two most disturbing aspects of the Minister’s attitude which have struck me are, firstly, the degree to which, consciously or otherwise, he has misrepresented the first generation satellite proposition as the panacea for all the communications problems of the outback and, secondly, the evangelical fervour with which he espouses his cause- a fervour which seems to have developed to the point where either he has lost touch with the technical and economic realities of the situation or he conveniently overlooks them. He has said that a satellite can be obtained for $100m, which I understand to be a fairly accurate figure for the cost of launching a limited capacity satellite. But the expenditure does not stop when a satellite has been launched and fixed above the continent. There is no point in putting up a satellite unless we can provide the further investment in ground reception facilities which are required to use it. That looks like entailing another $200m or, some would say, another $300m.

To put up a satellite and then to decide that we could not afford the additional investment in the ground support facilities would be tantamount to building another Ord River dam, which a previous government of the same political colour as the present Government built about 12 years ago. I heard directly at Cobar a month ago the Minister suggest that 190cm dish ground receiver stations- and he implied that they would be for telephone as well as television communications- could be procured by the mid-1980s for $1,000 to $1,200 each. Allegedly these things are being produced in Canada. It is highly significant that when Mr Packer’s engineer, Les Free, was questioned on this matter and asked to explain it- because it was news to me- he declined to support what the Minister had said. Even Mr Packer’s engineer does not believe, by inference, that the Minister’s euphoric expectation of future costs of a ground receiver station is justified. I suggest that that is highly significant.

I note also that other members of the Liberal Party and, I suppose, other members of the National Country Party have been misrepresenting, in the way that Senator Collard was doing in the Senate this afternoon, the potential for providing to people in the outback the service outlined in this proposition. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Cotter, has led his constituents in the Nullarbor, 100 or 200 miles east of Kalgoorlie, to believe that they will be able to get television reception from that first generation satellite. The truth is that they will not be able to get reception from the satellite except after making a prohibitive investment in a ground station. The first generation satellite will provide no telephone communications. It is important to stress that. Perhaps technically it could provide television reception, if about $30,000 or $40,000 were invested in a ground station for the receipt of the message.

With a second generation satellite in the 1990s, perhaps the situation could be quite different. It might be technically and economically feasible at that time for a full range of communication facilities to be provided via satellite at a cost which is acceptable. But that leaves a gap of about 15 years. What will happen with outback communications during that 15-year period? If the objective of the Government is to improve communications to the outback, it could do one of two things. Either it could direct a satellite towards that area, which it has not done, or it could invest the capital which otherwise would have gone into the satellite in extensions to the existing terrestrial service. In the medium termthat is, within 1 5 years- there is no doubt that the communication facilities likely to be provided in outback Australia will be superior without a satellite when compared with what the Government is proposing. In the longer term, beyond 15 years, that situation might well be reversed. But I think it is grossly unfair, not to say immoral, for the Government to present this proposition, insofar as it has defined it at all, to people in the outback of Australia as a panacea for their communication problems.

There are genuine problems in the proposal. The forecast cost of ground receiver stations in the mid-1980s, which on present technology appears to be around $30,000 to $40,000, as the Packer organisation has argued, might well be reduced to $10,000 because of technical improvements. That is an uncertainty which no government can completely remove. If we are committed to a satellite, in the interim period what do we do with places such as Wyndham, where the telephone line reminds me of the old farm line we used to have when I was a boy. It had sagging wires in between rotting posts. Any further investment in the terrestrial system would be, in a sense, money wasted if at some time in the future the satellite were to take over telephone communications.

Our concern, apart from many nebulous and euphoric attitudes on crucial issues, expressed particularly by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on cost and on technical feasibility, is that the Government will commit itself to that proposition- as the Minister seems to bewithout being fully aware of its economics or its technical possibilities and that that proposition will be sold to people, as it has been sold by Senator Collard, Mr Cotter in Kalgoorlie and by the Minister, in the false expectation that it will provide adequate communication facilities for people in the outback. However, at least in the medium term, the consequences of adopting the proposition put forward by the Minister for people in the outback will be minus.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-The Senate is debating an urgency motion moved by Senator Ryan. Having sat here all this time and having listened to the Opposition speakers in this debate, I can only say how pathetic their speeches were. Not one of them asked for any clarification of the situation. All they did was talk about what a satellite and communication meant. Senator Ryan argued against herself. Firstly, she said that because of the small number of people in remote areas the Parliament would have to look at the cost involved, implying that if there were not sufficient people and if the cost of a service were too great we should not provide it. In the same breath, she said that large corporations would welcome the provision of a service for people in remote areas because they could make large profits from it. If there are not sufficient people to warrant giving them that kind of communication facility in the first place, how could large corporations make large profits out of providing a service for such a small number of people? The types of arguments put up were rather pathetic.

Then we heard Senator Button say in part of his speech that the Government was putting a satellite in the sky, but for whom he knew not. If Senator Button and Senator Ryan would come down from their ivory towers and go out to the remote parts of this vast continent and sit and listen and talk with the people out there who have little or no communication facilities at all, they would know for whom the Government is trying to do something. The Government has gone to great lengths to try, to the best of its ability, to provide adequate communication facilities. Certainly it has taken into account the economics involved because it is handling taxpayer’s funds. Towards the end of the last year the Government established a task force which had specific terms of reference requiring it to investigate and evaluate the social, economic, technical, policy and other issues associated with the establishment and operation of an Australian national communications satellite system. The Government is moving in the right direction. It is doing something. It wants to receive an input from all areas into what it is trying to do. Conferences and all sorts of meetings have been held. As we were told earlier, even Senator Ryan has attended those conferences. The National Communications Satellite System Task Force was required also to study overseas experience in those areas and to assess the satellite proposal presented to the Government by Television Corporation Ltd. To say that the Government is not doing anything in that regard is quite untrue. It is a misrepresentation of what the Government is endeavouring to do.

I can tell the Senate and the two honourable senators opposite to whom I referred, particularly Senator Button, for whom the satellite is required because only last week I was out in remote parts of Queensland- places such as Charleville, Longreach, Alpha, Jericho, Barcaldine, Roma and Mitchell. They are not the most remote places in Australia, but they are part of my State and of our continent. People there do not have the kind of communications facilities which Senator Ryan has. When she goes home tonight she will have the choice of two, three, maybe four channels on her television set. She can pick up a telephone and ring wherever she likes. She can switch on a radio set and probably have a choice of five, six, or maybe seven radio stations. People who live in remote parts of Australia, particularly in areas such as in Cape York Peninsula or in the Gulf Country in my State of Queensland, receive their only radio communication from Papua New Guinea. Except on odd occasions, perhaps late in the evening when the people might be able to pick up broadcasts from Radio Australia, those people do not receive any broadcasts from Australia. That is the situation about which the Government is concerned and is trying to improve. I certainly support everything that the Government is trying to do for the people in the remote parts, not only of my State but also of other States and the Northern Territory. I think of areas such as the Kimberleys and other areas in the remote north of Western Australia, through which I have travelled and in which I have met with people and sat with and listened to them. I suggest that that is what some Opposition honourable senators should do instead of coming in here and moving pious motions such as the one we are debating today.

Honourable senators opposite did not seek any clarification of the situation from the Minister. They just went on with a lot of rhetoric. It is fortunate that they were not speaking in a debate on a Bill because, had they been doing so, one of us on this side of the chamber would have had to attempt to bring their remarks back to matters contained within the Bill being debated. Certainly honourable senators opposite in their speeches did not keep within the matter of the motion which one of them moved today. I am certainly conscious of the need for a satellite or for better communication facilities. However, there are still some honourable senators on the other side of the chamber who would remember the airy fairy schemes of the three years from 1972 to 1975, into which money was poured without those schemes being properly investigated and researched, until the coffers of the Treasury were drained dry. This Government will not do that. It will ensure that when money is devoted to this area of communications, for the people of Australia, it will be spent wisely and in the best interests of those whom we are here to serve. That is what this Government is all about. It is the kind of government that I support. I certainly do not want to see a repetition of the stupid schemes, and public waste, that I saw in the disastrous three years in office of the people who now have the audacity to stand up and criticise this Government, which is doing the right thing, in this field in particular.

I shall not continue to debate this question because I believe that Senator Chaney, representing the Minister for Post anc! Telecommunications (Mr Staley), and my colleague, Senator Collard, have answered all the points that have been raised on the other side of the chamber. I wish merely to reinforce what my colleagues have said. I certainly would not support the motion before the Senate, which should be rejected out of hand. Accordingly, I move:

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I object. The honourable senator put his case and then moved the gag. He is the one who has been talking about improved communication. Having stated his case, he is endeavouring to prevent the Opposition from doing likewise.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order. A motion is before the Chair and it must be put.

Question put.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 25

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put:

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

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

AYES: 24

NOES: 32

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1998

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to Section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 19781 present a report of the Australian Science and Technology Council on the next generation of Australian telescopes.

page 1998

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS COMMISSIONS

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Western Australia · LP

– Pursuant to Section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 I present the 1978-79 reports of the New South Wales, Victorian, Queensland, South Australian, Western Australian, and Tasmanian local government grants commissions on financial assistance for local government in each of those six States. Due to the limited number available, copies of the reports have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library. The determinations on allocations to local government authorities for1978-79 were abstracted from the reports and have already been presented to the Senate.

page 1999

FISHING INDUSTRY ACT

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

– Pursuant to Section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1 956 I present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1999

FISHING INDUSTRY RESEARCH ACT

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

– Pursuant to Section 19 of the Fishing Industry Research Act 1969,I present the annual report of the Fishing Industry Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1999

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION RESEARCH LABORATORY COMPLEX

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

-In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969 I present a report relating to the following proposed work:

Research Laboratory Complex for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s Division of Chemical Technology at Clayton, Victoria.

page 1999

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Western Australia · LP

– by leave- I wish to advise the Senate of the Government’s decision to hold an independent review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In accord with that decision, a three-member committee of review will be appointed to consider and report to the Government on the services, policies and performance of the Commission under its present statutory charter, and recommend appropriate future objectives, functions, statutory powers and policies of the Commission. It will be obvious from the terms of reference, which I will detail, that this is a wide-ranging review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which will not only identify current problems but, hopefully, will also offer solutions to maintain the ABC as an essential part of the Australian broadcasting system in the years ahead.

There has not been a review of the ABC’s role since the Commission was established in 1 932. In other countries, publicly funded national broadcasting services have been subject to such public inquiries. In 1976 the Green Inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting System came to the conclusion that the policies and performance of the ABC should be subject to review every seven years, starting in 1 980. The Government at that time adopted in principle the concept of an inquiry into the ABC, and has now decided that this review should begin later this year. It has also decided that the committee of review should report by March 1981.

The Government has given careful consideration to the appropriate type of inquiry required, and has decided that the most satisfactory approach is for an objective and independent review conducted by a chairman and two other members specially appointed for the task. The Government believes that this will provide the necessary flexibility and informality, particularly in view of the Green Inquiry recommendation that such reviews of the Australian Broadcasting Commission be held periodically. The committee of review will invite submissions from all sectors of the community. The invitation for comment will extend to staff of the Commission who will be encouraged to put forward their views. Whether discussions should be sought with persons or organisations making submissions will be for the committee to judge.

During the Green Inquiry, concern was expressed that the Commission ‘s policies and performance were constrained by the legislative, administrative, regulatory and funding framework within which it operated. It was submitted that the ABC’s ability to hold its place as an essential and innovative force within Australian broadcasting was made difficult under the present broad terms of its charter, and a definitive description of the ABC’s role and responsibility to the community was long overdue. The Government has therefore decided that the Terms of Reference for the review should be as follows:

  1. . Having regard to the statutory powers and functions of the ABC as set out in Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, the committee of review shall examine and report on the services, policies and performances of the Commission.
  2. The committee shall examine and make recommendations on the appropriate future objectives, functions, statutory powers and policies of the Commission, with particular reference to its provision of national, State and regional services, having regard to the extent of likely available resources, reports relevant to the field of broadcasting and the services provided by public and commercial broadcasters.

  3. Without otherwise limiting its scope, the Committee shall also review, comment on the effectiveness of and make recommendations as necessary on the Commission’s:

    1. relationships with other government bodies;
    2. programming policies and procedures for the maintenance of program standards;
    3. funding arrangements, including forward planning, budgeting and revenue;
    4. d ) management systems, including:
    1. the relationship between the statutory Commission and the management structure which services it;
    2. lines of authority in management and constraints on managerial effectiveness;
    3. manpower planning and staff utilisation;

    4. recruitment, staff development, tenure of appointment and training;

    5. industrial relations;

    1. arrangements for management improvement, review and systems development; and

    2. resource allocation practices and planning for technological developments.

Mr President, the Government is committed to the continued existence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as a vital and innovative force within Australian broadcasting. It looks to this review as a vehicle whereby the ABC can be made fully aware of its success or otherwise in serving the Australian community. It is an important initiative both for the ABC and for the future of broadcasting in Australia. I present the following paper:

Australian Broadcasting Commission- Ministerial Statement, 23 May 1979 and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition welcomes the announcement by the Government that at last there is to be a wide-ranging inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Commission. For some time the Opposition has been calling for a major inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In our view there should be a royal commission. It appeared that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) had accepted our suggestion that it should be a royal commission when he said on 2 June last year that he believed it would be best to call such an inquiry a royal commission. But, the ABC is not to be investigated by a royal commission. The Minister, as usual, has bowed to the views of his more senior colleagues. However, a wide ranging inquiry, with broad terms of reference, is to be held into the ABC. We are pleased to see that the terms of reference are wide and not restrictive. A number of subjects which I had hoped the committee of review would consider have not been mentioned in the terms of reference but the terms are not restrictive and I hope to see them considered.

The Opposition would seek clarification and reassurance however on a number of matters outlined in the statement made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). There has been, as Senator Chaney has just said, no review of the ABC’s role or structure since it was established in 1932. It is for this reason that the inquiry is of very great importance. This inquiry will set the pattern for future periodic reviews, as outlined in the Green inquiry. It will, I believe, set the pattern for the future of the national broadcasting service, and to some extent the complementary broacasting services throughout this country.

The Opposition wishes to make the following suggestions to the Government. First of all, the three members of the committee of inquiry should set the precedent that the public will not only be able to lodge written submissions but will also be able to present oral evidence at public informal hearings. As the Government is aware, the business of establishing a proper form of public inquiry in the broadcasting area is not an easy one. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has fallen into difficult times in this respect. I would hope, from the experience of the Tribunal and the improved guidelines for the conduct of future public inquiries, that the committee of review and the Government may have learned some lessons as to how to set up and conduct a public hearing. It is of the utmost importance, in our view, that as ail Australian taxpayers pay for the national broadcasting service, all Australians should be able to contribute to this very crucial inquiry if they have anything of significance to contribute. We hope it will be a public inquiry.

Secondly, we are pleased to see that members of the staff of the ABC will be able to put submissions to the inquiry. I would like to hear from the Government an assurance that staff members will be free to put their views about the ABC without prejudice to their career prospects within the ABC.

Senator Archer:

– Why wouldn’t they be?

Senator RYAN:

– I notice that Senator Chaney takes note of that point. One honourable senator seems to be surprised that I should raise this matter. It is no secret to those who work within the public sector that it is not always easy to express frankly and freely one’s views about the organisation in which one works. It is no secret that such expressions of views are not always accepted by one ‘s senior officers. As the staff of the ABC has, I believe, experienced many frustrations in recent years, particularly about the management and role of the ABC, I take this opportunity to say that I hope that every freedom will be given to staff members so that the people who are working to produce a national broadcasting service can contribute to the inquiry and can make improvements as a result of it.

I am also concerned to ensure that the committee of review, plus the secretariat which will be servicing it, will be given sufficient funds and support facilities to discharge its functions adequately. I suggest that the secretariat staff for the inquiry should not be drawn from the already depleted ranks of the ABC, unless staff ceilings are eased, and that money for extra salaries be made available.

I now wish to express the views of the Federal Opposition, and my own views, about what we hope the outcome will be. We hope that there will be no attempt throughout this inquiry to consign the ABC the role that the commercial lobbies, the Federation of Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters, have long sought. I would state again the Federal Opposition’s view that the ABC should not be relegated to minority programming for a cultural elite. Its statutory responsibility, as defined in the Broadcasting and Television Act, is that it ‘shall provide, . . . adequate and comprehensive programs and shall take in the interests of the community all such measures as, in the opinion of the Commission, are conducive to the full development of suitable broadcasting and television programs. ‘ I would hope that that particular provision of the Broadcasting and Television Act will be retained.

This inquiry will be the first opportunity to spell out fully the relationship of the ABC with the other sectors of broadcasting. I think one matter of interest to the public, particularly to the ethnic groups within the community, will be a definition of the relationship between the ABC and the new special broadcasting service which has been set up by the Government to provide a form of broadcasting for ethnic groups. At this stage the Opposition and, I believe, many ethnic groups are unhappy about the current relationship between the special broadcasting service and the ABC. We see the special broadcasting service as being far too vulnerable to ministerial whim and as encroaching upon the independence of the ABC. We hope that that unsatisfactory relationship will be rectified as an outcome of the inquiry.

Close attention should be paid to the role of the Commissioners of the ABC, to the method of their appointment and their relationship with the ABC management. The Federal Opposition would suggest, as it has suggested on previous occasions, that important appointments such as appointments of Commissioners to the ABC should not be made unilaterally by an individual Minister but should be considered by a bipartisan committee of the Parliament. Of course we recognise that the government of the day, even if it pursued this procedure, would still be able to appoint the people that it wished to appoint as Commissioners of the ABC. But we would suggest that, by having a bipartisan committee of the Parliament review prospective appointments as Commissioners, we might find ourselves with a body of Commissioners who more broadly represent the aspirations of the Australian public than has been the case from time to time under the current method of appointment. I am also concerned to see a new and clearer definition of the role of the General Manager of the ABC. I would suggest that, as is the case with the British Broadcasting Commission, there be a limited life to the appointment of the General Manager.

I will not delay the Senate at this late stage of our session by outlining all the views that the Federal Opposition has in respect to the review.

Senator Archer:

– We have just had it.

Senator RYAN:

– No. There are many other matters which I could raise but, because of the situation in which we find ourselves, I will not raise them. I am sure that I and all members of this chamber will have the opportunity to express opinions to the committee of inquiry into the ABC. I hope that the ABC inquiry will be a serious one; that it is not simply a strategy by which the Government hopes to defuse the ABC situation as an election issue. Undoubtedly it would have been an election issue because of the savage cuts and other treatment by the Federal Government. Quite clearly any criticisms which we might like to make now about the Government’s treatment of the ABC will be answered by a reference to the inquiry. I hope that in the Government’s view the inquiry is more than just a way of avoiding criticism for its treatment of the ABC and really is a genuine attempt to restructure Australia’s national broadcasting service in such a way that it can properly serve the interests of all members of the Australian public for the rest of this century and into the next one. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

-by leave- Mr President, I rise to offer my congratulations to the Government, and particularly to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), for at last taking the necessary steps to establish this inquiry. Although, as Senator Ryan has said, it was suggested in Mr Green’s report of 1 976 that an inquiry of this nature would be needed, it had in fact been suggested at a far earlier stage. In 1 974, a report presented to this Parliament by McKinsey and Co., entitled ‘Australian Broadcasting Commission Resources’, made it quite clear that there was need for a comprehensive review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That report commenced by saying:

We -

That is, the consultants- . . are convinced that many of the basic problems facing the Australian Broadcasting Commission . . . stem directly from its special characteristics as an organisational form.

It has taken us from 1974 until now to get to this stage of an inquiry. I hope the inquiry will be as productive as the inquiry conducted by Lord Annan into the nature of broadcasting in Great Britain, when the review of broadcasting matters in the light of current developments allowed the British broadcasting system as a whole to be set in a number of new directions in a very profitable and productive fashion. For instance, we know of the case that Professor Harding attempted to make out in his recent book on Australian broadcasting. Without agreeing with the conclusions drawn by Professor Harding, I think that many of the matters that he raises as matters requiring attention are ones that ought to fall within the scope of this inquiry.

I note that the committee of inquiry is to consist of three persons. I note also that it has been suggested elsewhere that one of those persons might be drawn from overseas and that, in particular, the name of Sir Hugh Greene, the former Director of the British Broadcasting Corporation, has been mentioned. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to select, as one of the members of this inquiry, a person who has had extensive experience of national broadcasting services outside Australia. Sir Hugh is the sort of person who would be admirably fitted to that role. In addition to his work with the BBC, in 1973 he completed a report on the establishment and restructuring of the Israel Broadcasting Authority and in 1975 he did the same thing in Greece. I think that an extremely valuable addition to the inquiry would be the appointment of somebody who has an appreciation of national broadcasting systems in other countries. His appointment would be of benefit to the people who are not the usual run of AngloSaxon viewers of Australian television. When the three commissioners are selected, I think that somebody who has had that broad range of experience should certainly be considered.

Once again the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has demonstrated an awareness of the fact that broadcasting is changing in a very marked fashion and that there is a need for structures such as those related to the national broadcasting system to be brought up to date whenever possible. I hope that this inquiry will be a productive one, and one in which the Government will find initiatives which it will be able to follow being proposed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is not required.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I take the opportunity to express the point of view that when an honourable senator seeks leave to continue his remarks, especially on broadcast day, that should be the end of the matter. The practice has developed of honourable senators rising and seeking leave to speak after such leave has been granted. If that practice is to be extended the Whips may as well go home because the matter is being taken completely out of their hands. Honourable senators could then proceed to debate matters merely by seeking leave. I would suggest that honourable senators should be aware of the situation and should make the necessary arrangements to speak to a matter before any honourable senator seeks leave to continue his remarks. The practice of seeking leave to make speeches after leave has been given to another honourable senator to continue his remarks later opens us to a procedure which could be to our disadvantage.

Senator CHANEY (Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs)- Rather than risk the Whips going home, as was foreshadowed by Senator Georges, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2003

CRIMES (AIRCRAFT) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move.

That the Bill bc now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to insert two new offences in the Crimes (Aircraft) Act to deal with threats and false statements directed at Commonwealth aerodromes and air navigation facilities, and with conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger those places or the safety of persons using those places. Whilst bomb hoax telephone calls involving threats and warnings that explosive devices have been placed in airport buildings and facilities are a relatively new phenomenon- in Australia, the incidence of such calls is on the increase. In order to ensure the safety of persons using those premises, each threat call must be treated as genuine until subsequent action proves otherwise. This will often necessitate a thorough search of the relevant airport, baggage and waiting passengers. In several cases, it has been necessary to recall aircraft in flight. Furthermore, fake as well as home-made bombs have been found at airports in recent times. These bombs, had they exploded, would have at the very least caused panic due to the smoke they would have generated.

Incidents of the type I have just mentioned often lead to delays and considerable inconvenience of passengers and other persons at airports as well as adding to the cost of the airline companies. Whilst the Telecommunications (General) By-Laws made under the Telecommunications Act 1975 deal with hoax telephone calls and State laws make offences some of the other actions causing concern, it is considered that, having regard to the seriousness of these actions, special provision should be made for these matters in the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963. Sections 17 and 19 of that Act already proscribe similar actions in relation to aircraft. Moreover, the penalties provided in respect of the proposed new offences correspond to those specified in sections 17 and 19 of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act.

I turn now to the specific provisions of the Bill. As will be noted, clause 4 inserts in the Crimes (Aircraft) Act a new Part IIIA, titled ‘Crimes Affecting Certain Aerodromes and Air Navigation Facilities’, containing proposed new sections 20A, 20B and 20C. Proposed new section 20A defines ‘Commonwealth aerodrome’ and Commonwealth air navigation facilities’ in terms of Commonwealth-owned aerodromes and facilities. When this legislation has been enacted by the Parliament, I propose to have discussions with the State Attorneys-General with a view to the enactment of similar laws to cover airports within the responsibility of State governments. Proposed new section 20B makes it an offence, punishable by a maximum of 7 years imprisonment, for a person to do any act or thing that to his knowledge is likely to endanger the safety of a Commonwealth aerodrome or any Commonwealth air navigation facilities or persons who are, or may be, within the limits of those premises.

Proposed new section 20C ( 1 ) will make it an offence, punishable by a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, to threaten to destroy, damage or endanger the safety of a Commonwealth aerodrome or Commonwealth air navigation facilities or to threaten to kill or injure persons who are, or may be, within the limits of those premises. Proposed new section 20C (2) makes it an offence, punishable by a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, falsely to threaten to take or exercise control, by force or violence, of a Commonwealth aerodrome or Commonwealth air navigation facilities, or to destroy, damage or endanger the safety of, or to kill or injure persons who are, or may be, within the limits of such an aerodrome or facilities. Clause 5 amends section 26 of the Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963 to extend the existing power of search provided in that section with respect to aircraft to cover persons, luggage, freight or vehicles found within the limits of the subject aerodromes or facilities where a person authorised to make searches for the purposes of the section reasonably suspects that an offence against Part IIIA has or may be committed. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 2004

PRICES JUSTIFICATION BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Opposition will be moving an amendment to the second reading of the Prices Justification Bill as well as a number of amendments at the Committee stage. The purpose of the Bill is to water down even further the powers of the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Bill is not presented in those terms by the Government but that is quite clearly the Bill ‘s underlying purpose. We all remember that in November 1975, Mr Fraser promised, as part of his election manifesto, that the PJT would be abolished. Although he has not overtly done that, in practice he has honoured that promise to a far more significant degree than he has honoured just about any other promise that he has made. In 1976 the Government introduced amendments to the Prices Justification Act which significantly reduced the Tribunal’s powers. On 18 October last year the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) made a statement inviting from business, unions and other interested parties submissions on the operation of the Tribunal. The Bill, which was finally introduced in the House of Representatives in March of this year, purports to be the product of those submissions.

One major change contained in the Bill is the repeal of those sections of the Act, as it now stands, which impose the mandatory requirement that companies with an annual turnover in excess of $30m or the subsidiaries of those companies with a turnover in excess of $5m notify the PJT of impending price increases. The Bill also removes the price freeze provision of the Act under which prices, once notified to the Tribunal by the companies within those categories, were frozen until the Tribunal’s inquiry had been completed. The responsibility to monitor price changes has now been put back almost entirely, with one minor exception which I will mention shortly, on to the PJT. Under the provision of the amending Bill, the Minister, at his discretion, may instruct the PJT to initiate price inquiries.

One of the Opposition’s major reservations about the Bill is that, given the way in which the law is administered by the Government, the holding of a public inquiry, either at the initiation of the Minister or the PJT itself, is conditional upon obtaining ministerial approval for it under what will become new section 19AA (4), assuming that this Bill is passed. I expect that it will be passed in spite of the Opposition’s objections and the arguments that it will be putting forward. The companies into which a public inquiry has been held will be required to notify the Tribunal for a mandatory period of 12 months of any further price increases- a period which may be extended at the discretion of the Minister. To use the euphemism of the Minister in his second reading speech, ‘the Bill modifies the confidentiality provisions’ of the existing legislation, so that companies may claim that evidence or documents which are being tendered to the Tribunal in evidence in public inquiries are confidential to the company and so that the contents of those documents shall not be disclosed unless the Tribunal decides that it is in the public interest. I have outlined the major changes which this Bill seeks to make to the existing Act.

Taking the broader view, the Government might think that it has done a very clever thing in surreptitiously emasculating the PJT in the way that it did with the 1976 amendment and again with the amendment which is before the Senate tonight. The Government may think that it has managed to get rid of the Prices Justification Tribunal, to which it has ideologically rooted objection, without overtly incurring the wrath of any section of the community by openly abolishing it. I suggest that if that is the Government’s attitude, it is one which the Government might well reconsider. I will go into that matter shortly.

If we look at a couple of other factors concerned with the Government’s administration of the Prices Justification Tribunal over the last three and a half years, we see that there is a consistent administrative pattern, as well as a legislative campaign, aimed at reducing the powers and effectiveness of the Tribunal. For example, the staff, which numbered 138 when this Government came into power, has been progressively whittled down to a current level of 99. We know, of course, that Mr Fraser at least purported to be committed to massive cutbacks in the public sector, particularly in the Commonwealth Public Service. There has been much more rhetoric than action in that area. But I draw attention to the very significant decrease in the staff of the tribunal- a decrease in excess of 25 per cent compared with a minuscule one per cent or 2 per cent decrease for the Commonwealth Public Service as a whole. It is quite clear that the Tribunal, like the Industries Assistance Commission, has been singled out by the Government for particularly vindicative treatment, because the Government has an ideological objection to its existence and because it does not want too much public scrutiny of matters pertaining to business.

The second aspect of the administration of this Act which I wish to mention now is concerned with the Tribunal member, Mr Long, who was not reappointed by the Government when his term expired. I suggest that it is not coincidental that Mr Long was associated with both the Colgate-Palmolive Pty Ltd and the Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort Ltd public inquiries- the latter mentioned being the more recent. He was associated with the running fight between the Prices Justification Tribunal and Elder Smith Goldsborough Mort over whether that company would comply with the Tribunal’s findings. I was about to add ‘and the instructions of the Tribunal’ but one cannot really say that because I understand that the Tribunal did not have the legal power to implement its finding that, if it was necessary to recover the costs for the physical handling of wool, the company should charge at cost for the purely handling service and reduce its commission charges. Ultimately Elder Smith did comply with the Tribunal’s recommendation but the issue dragged on for, I think, five or six months. One does not have to be very suspicious to see some connection between Mr Long’s direct association with both those inquiries, the political influence which a firm such as Elder Smith has with this Government and the fact that Mr Long was not reappointed.

I move back to the wisdom or otherwise of the Government’s general attitude towards the Prices Justification Tribunal and what appears to be a government belief that it will do something advantageous to itself if it emasculates the Tribunal. Many people may have doubts about the effectiveness of a body such as this, especially when it has no direct legal power to enforce its findings, in controlling price increases. But very clearly it does have a symbolic value. I guess that even the Prime Minister recognised this when he did not overtly implement his 1975 election promise to abolish the Tribunal. The view is held deeply within trade unions, and probably among the public generally, that it is unfair that applications for wage increases should be subject to public scrutiny, to public debate and to strenuous opposition from this Government on almost every occasion that they come before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. However, pricing decisions of noncompetitive public firms- that is firms which have sufficient market power to significantly set their own prices- are not subject to the same rigorous public scrutiny of their applications and the justification for them. There is no doubt that that view is widely held within the trade union movement and probably within the community generally.

Therefore it follows inescapably that an essential part of any package deal on wages policy, aimed at getting on top of inflation, should not only incorporate some reasonable assurancethat is something which is seen to be a reasonable assurance to the unions- but also that applications for price increases by companies with a great deal of market power should be treated in the same way as are applications for wage increases by the unions. That is not the situation in Australia today. The law is and is seen to be discriminatory. It is in favour of companies. The unions must justify their claims in a public forum but companies need not. For example, as far as I am aware, there is no provision in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act under which unions can claim that submissions made by them are confidential and are not to be released. The examination of union applications for wage increases is much more rigorous and much more public. For example, if this amending Bill is passed the companies are not even obliged to notify the Tribunal of impending price increases. The Tribunal from its limited resources and staff, which have been progressively whittled down over the last 3Vi years by this Government, will be obliged to monitor on its own initiative what is happening in the pricing area. While this Government is in power I think we can forget about the provision which permits the Minister to direct the Tribunal to study the pricing policies of particular firms. Perhaps one possible exception is when the Minister or this Government may use that provision against particular companies which it wants to discipline for some other reason. Is the second reading amendment available yet? It was to have been circulated. If it has not been circulated I will leave it for Senator Tate to move afterwards.

The PRESIDENT:

– It has not been circulated as yet, we understand.

Senator WALSH:

– As the second reading amendment has not been circulated, it will be moved by Senator Tate after the suspension of the sitting for dinner.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– The Prices Justification Amendment Bill 1979 represents a real breakthrough in the realisation of the facts in respect of the economic market place since the years of the Whitlam Government, that is between 1972 and 1975. During that period we saw an attempt by that

Government to establish a control over business which had not been witnessed in this country before but which, as we all know, stifled investment, reduced the creation of job capacity within the Australian economy and led to the disastrous results of 1975 and the unemployment which persists today.- Quite apart from those particular matters this Bill will lift a lot of the weight from the shoulders of businesses which have been forced, in a very strictive way, to produce information at great cost to the community generally. I ask the Senate to remember that the cost of putting forward submissions to the Prices Justification Tribunal are borne in the end by the consumer, are passed on into the costing structure and eventually flow on to the wage structure. Accordingly, it is not something that is imposed on some entity in the community which does not bear any relationship to anybody else. A cost that is imposed on business is a cost imposed on the consumer. This is the case whether we like it or not. To assume otherwise is totally fallacious.

This legislation therefore represents a step in the right direction towards alleviating pressure on the consumer because costs will be reduced on business in such a way that the degree of surveillance of price increases in the community will not be reduced in any way. This will not lessen the effectiveness of the Government taking action against undue price rises. I think that that is the essential distinction between the Labor Party’s attitude and that of government members. The fact is that by establishing more effective price surveillance methods and better methods of inquiry and by ensuring that the Minister who is going to direct the inquiry is given more power to ensure that he can get more information on price rises he will be able to survey and keep control over prices more effectively than he can under the method applied up to now which is by ensuring that there is a reporting procedure within the community, imposing costs not only on business but, more importantly, on the consumer. That to me is the essential philosophical difference to which this legislation addresses itself. Consequently, I support it wholeheartedly. 1 am very keen to see that this legislation has a speedy passage. While honourable senators on this side of the Senate can only applaud that the Government has taken such measures to relieve the cost to the consumer from this sort of activity, it must be recognised in the community as a whole that this will not reduce the capacity of the Government to ensure that price rises are occurring within due bounds. We had the example recently of the oil price increases. We have seen that that has been a proper and effective way of ensuring that companies are not put in a position of ripping off the consumer. It is that sort of activity which I believe is the proper role of a price surveillance body, such as the Prices Justification Tribunal is conceded to be. I believe that it is that sort of action which will lead to better consumer protection in the future. Of course that is the fundamental difference between the attitude of government members and that of the Opposition.

Members of the Opposition see the tribunal as some part of the conciliation and arbitration system and as bearing some relationship to the industrial relations framework. They believe that in fact it is and remains and always has been as it was originally envisaged, even by the then Labor Government, as part of the consumer protection legislation of government. In fact, the amendments that have now been undertaken by virtue of this Bill provide more effective consumer protection. I hope that as time goes by there will be integration of the powers of the Prices Justification Tribunal, and of the wider areas of the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act in relation to consumer protection, and those laws, including the prices laws, which apply in the various States. This is certainly an area of great confusion at the present time, and it is something which ought to be integrated properly to achieve more effective administration between the States and the Commonwealth. Senator Rocher asked a question only yesterday about the integration of the consumer protection powers of the States and the Commonwealth. I believe that that would be an excellent move in the right direction in order to ensure better control on a national basis in the future.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-The Bill before the chamber represents the final blow to the function of the Prices Justification Tribunal as a consumer watchdog, and all Senator Messner’s comments and pleas on behalf of consumers are so much baloney. His tears are crocodile tears and no more. The Prices Justification Tribunal was undoubtedly the fairest and possibly the only effective way of providing some control over prices in a peacetime situation. Rather than having a watchdog on behalf of the consumer, we are now presented with an emasculated Prices Justification Tribunal which has been reduced to the status of a lapdog- a lapdog to the executive government of the day.

I believe that this proposal will rebound on the Government, as I will point out later. The Government will not be able to distance itself from the approval of price increases that will flow into the economy because the Prices Justification Tribunal is now clearly seen to be an instrument of government policy. That is what this series of amendments is all about. It is to reduce the Prices Justification Tribunal, to strip it of its powers as an independent statutory authority, and to make it subservient to the government of the day.

I believe that this Bill completely undermines the credibility of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Fife. The consumer affairs aspect of his dual portfolio is rendered absolutely subservient to that aspect designated ‘Business’. I will be claiming later, and I hope to substantiate it after the dinner break, that the only honourable course open to such a Minister is to resign. This is no sudden decision on the part of Mr Fife. A long war of attrition has been waged by him since he took over the portfolio. It is a war of attrition against the consumers only statutory independent watchdog on the national scene.

The Prices Justification Tribunal was established by the Labor Government to require companies publicly to justify and argue the case for raising the price of their goods, in the same way as unions publicly are required to justify and argue the case for raising the price of their labour. This Bill is designedly divisive. It creates social disparity between the treatment of capital and labour in a way which reveals the ideological bent of this assault. It is little wonder that trade unions are champing at having to accept that while the wages of their members are determined in significant part by arbitration, firms are to be relatively free to set prices without any automatic notification to an independent statutory authority. If it suits the convenience of the Senate, I will outline after the suspension of the sitting for dinner the history of the sabotage of the PJT by this Government.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator TATE:

– Before the suspension for dinner I was alerting honourable senators to the fact that in the view of the Opposition the Prices Justification Amendment Bill, which is before the chamber at the moment, represents the final blow to the functioning of the Prices Justification Tribunal as a consumers’ watchdog. I was pointing out that the Tribunal, which was initiated by the Labor administration under Mr Whitlam, at its inception was probably the fairest and certainly the only effective way in which prices could be controlled during peace time. We find now, as a result of a series of pieces of legislation culminating in tonight’s Bill, that the Tribunal is being reduced from a consumers’ watchdog to a lapdog in the service of the Executive Government of the day. I believe, as I pointed out to honourable senators before dinner, that this Bill thoroughly undermines the credibility of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in that the aspect of his portfolio dealing with consumer affairs is rendered absolutely subservient to the business interests which have managed to secure his attention. I was saying before dinner that this is no sudden decision on the part of the Government but is the culmination of a long war of attrition which has been fought by Mr Fife and the Government since he took over the portfolio some time ago. I was about to outline the history of the sabotage of the Tribunal by the present Fraser Government.

In July 1 977 the Prices Justification Tribunal had to consider an application by the ColgatePalmolive group for a price increase. This claim for a price increase was based only on higher advertising costs and the Tribunal thought it right and appropriate in examining this claim for a price increase for items used in every household throughout Australia that it ought to distinguish between advertising which was designed to compete with other enterprises on the market, with their soaps, powders and so on, and that advertising which was merely adding to the proliferation of that company’s own brands- in other words, advertising directed to brand competition within the Colgate-Palmolive group. After all, in 1974 the Joint Committee on Prices had concluded that in the soap and powder industry there was no substantial price competition in the market, that what competition existed was aimed to enlarge market shares and that the so-called competition had led to excessive advertising, unnecessary proliferation of similar products under different brand names and higher costs and prices, with little benefit to the consumer.

When the Prices Justification Tribunal attempted to analyse these advertising costs it was confronted with an illegal directive from Mr Fife which was issued without any statutory basis within 10 days of his assuming his portfolio as the Minister responsible for consumer affairs. That particular action within 10 days of his assuming his portfolio bought a very strong response from the Australian Federation of Consumers Organisations which quite properly protested at this ministerial instruction which had no statutory basis. So, early in his ministry, within a few days, the Minister responsible for consumer affairs had alienated and shown contempt for one of the more socially conscious lobbies in our society which he, as the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, should have been encouraging.

We were then given notice- this Bill confirms itthat the Minister, with regard to the consumer affairs aspect of his portfolio, is utterly subservient to the business aspect of his portfolio, or is subservient at least to those business lobbyists who can obtain his ear to intervene in and instruct what is thought to be an independent statutory tribunal.

What was not understood in that ColgatePalmolive case shows the lack of understanding by this Government of what a prices justification tribunal in Australian society is all about. The Prices Justification Tribunal needs to be strong to prevent abuse of market power. Trade practices legislation alone cannot do this. A small and dispersed market such as the Australian market, with only 1 5 million consumers, may require that only two or three companies operate to achieve economies of scale. In those situations an independent authority is needed more than ever to put under scrutiny the prices charged by those in an oligopolistic position. It is not merely the socially responsible thing to do to instil confidence in consumers; even on the Liberal Government’s own premises it is also the sensible thing to do to ensure the best functioning of market economy.

Having abandoned earlier any support for the PJT as a consumers’ watchdog, how did Mr Fife see its justifying its existence? It will surprise no one to learn that in his view and in the Government’s present view the only function of the PJT is to intimidate those business enterprises which dare to negotiate directly with employees as to the level of wages. I can quite easily verify that statement by pointing to a statement of the Minister of 1 6 August 1 977 when he said:

I will make it clear to those companies which grant increases outside arbitration they will be referred to the tribunal for inquiry into their price structure.

He said that there would be no inquiry into the blatantly exorbitant costs of advertising concerning products which enter every Australian home, but that there would be an inquiry into those business operations which dare to negotiate with employees outside the arbitration system. In other words, the PJT is to become completely vulnerable to political pressures and partisan considerations so that it may carry out the Government’s policy. What the Government has been unable to do to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission because of its constitutional autonomy, it feels quite free to do to the Prices Justification Tribunal; and that is what this Bill is all about.

There have been other decisions and other segments of the history of the sabotage of the

PJT. Honourable senators will recall the PJT’s decision on wool broking charges in May 1978- a decision to effect savings of $4.5mwhereby Australia’s 90,000 wool-growers were to be relieved of a certain system of commission taking. The PJT was defied by the major wool brokers and got very little comfort from the Minister. It is the PJT, which has so well attempted to look after the interests of our rural industriesone recalls also its excellent report on stevedoring charges- that the Government now wishes to dismantle or leave as a mere skeleton organisation to do its bidding under ministerial direction.

Oil companies have waged a continuous war against the PJT. Their attitude was perhaps best put in a telegram from the Caltex company to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and various other Ministers about mid-October 1978. The submission by Caltex at that time was reported in the Australian of 14 October in an article by John Alexander which said in part:

A Caltex spokesman said on Friday the company wanted the whole question of oil prices taken away from the PJT and placed in the hands of the Department of National Resources.

That was in October 1978. Of course, the energy enterprises operating in this country- I did not say ‘of this country’ because they are invariably responsive to foreign voices and not to those of the Australian people- want to deal in secret with the Ministers and departments. They have now achieved their aim. On 19 October 1978 the Adelaide Advertiser, a newspaper which is not one of the more radical journals circulating in the Australian community, stated: . . the tribunal is firmly and publicly placed under Ministerial control. Thus any guise of an independent arbiter of prices acting in a comparable manner to the independent Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which sets prices for labour has been scrapped. Given that the PJT was approving most of the increases sought and that there was little evidence of its having adverse economic effects, the timing of the changes is puzzling. The impression that the Government is acting in response to vested interests will inevitably gain credence.

Those comments appeared in an editorial of that newspaper. No honourable senator can doubt the identity of the vested interests that are referred to by the Advertiser. The vested interests to which Mr Fife responds are not ordinary consumers buying everyday washing and cleaning products. They are not our rural producers purchasing the services of the pastoral and stevedoring companies. Rather they are the providers of the goods and services, who have eventually rid themselves of this troublesome tribunal- except in circumstances in which the Government wants to advance its own peculiar economic policies. Under the Bill the responsibility for calling an inquiry into oil company prices will rest with Mr Fife. The oil companies, the providers of goods and services, will have achieved their end. I predict that such monitoring as goes on will be no more than the collating of figures supplied by the companies themselves, and certainly will do nothing to stem the relentless increase in the price of petrol which this Government has pursued as a policy. Since it came to office, the price of petrol has doubled.

As honourable senators will appreciate there is a pattern in all of this. Whether it be the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Industries Assistance Commission, the Temporary Assistance Authority or the Trade Practices Commission, the Government is determined to eliminate any independent forces at work within the economy. It is a frightening prospect that a Cabinet that is manifestly insensitive to the needs and aspirations of millions of Australians should now deliver every Australian consumer into the unrestrained hands of the commercial enterprises, private and public, of this country. I say private and public commercial enterprises because I would have had no objection to a requirement that the PJT be notified of prices to be charged by corporations owned by the Australian public via statutory corporations. Indeed, the PJT itself, in a recent annual report, said that it was capable and willing to complement its role in regard to private enterprise by undertaking the scrutiny of prices charged by public corporations. But rather than come to this chamber and make a significant and valuable addition to the responsibilities of the PJT on behalf of consumers, the so-called Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has bowed to the propaganda put out by private commercial enterprises and has now rid them of the compulsory notification procedure on prices. It is the notification procedure which is the vital heart of the legislation which, by the passage of this Bill, will be radically altered. I should have thought that it would be obvious that effective prices justification was not possible without a mechanism for notifying the Tribunal of intended price rises. Even surveillance of prices- the watered-down version of the responsibilities of this Tribunal in the context of no notification- represents an empty, ineffective role, and no doubt designedly so. Additionally, the prior notification process represented an important form of discipline over firms because it forced them to consider whether their price increases were in the public interest and could be justified. Even that minor discipline requirement of public accountability on the part of companies which were considering a price rise is now to be abandoned.

As for the propaganda which Senator Messner, from his remarks earlier, has obviously taken to heart- that is, that the Tribunal’s procedures were inordinately expensive- let us not forget two factors: Firstly, we are speaking only of firms whose annual turnover is in excess of $30m, firms whose enterprises turn over tens of millions of dollars. In that context, the cost involved to those firms of appearing before a tribunal to discharge their social responsibility to Australia’s consumers would be fractional. Can one believe that if these great corporations were acting efficiently they would not have done most of the homework in other forms already? lt seems to me to be incredible to suggest that such companies, which have to inform their subsidiaries, agencies, customers and the like of all price changes, could not meet the extra cost of informing the PJT. Surely great commercial firms with a turnover of more than $30m have to analyse rationally the reasons for price increases. Where is the great cost to them of providing some of that information to the PJT? These are some of the simple tasks which private industry has been asked to undertake, but which have been pictured as putting an intolerable burden upon them. The Government has fallen for the propaganda sweeping the world, which would have it that no government regulation, no public accountability, should be visited upon private enterprise.

We of the Australian Labor Party, speaking on behalf of the Australian consumers, reject the particular philosophy that is being pursued in this Bill. In short, it represents the capitulation of this Government to those forces within our society which believe that the fair price is what the market will bear- not the price which represents a fair return on capital, which allows funds for further investment to accumulate, and which allows employment opportunities to be created within the enterprise. That is what we call a fair price.

Senator Puplick:

– Socialists relying on the market!

Senator TATE:

– The Australian Labor Party, as will be seen from its federal platform, is committed to a mixed economy, but it says that those who operate in a mixed economy by way of contributing, accumulations of private capital ought to get a return which will allow them to invest in further capital works and employment opportunities to be created within the enterprise. That seems to me to be fair and reasonable and I fail to understand Senator Puplick ‘s intervention.

This Bill represents the abandonment of the consumers of this nation by a government which in the next breath will encourage consumers to go out and purchase Australian goods so as to stimulate the economy. If consumers lack confidence- a basic ill of our economy- much of the blame must rest on the shoulders of the Minister who is meant to plead their cause in Cabinet. When one examines the Bill, only one honourable course is open to Mr Fife- to resign.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- I am advised that the honourable senator intended to move an amendment. Does he wish to proceed with it?

Senator TATE:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, for drawing my attention to the need to take a formal step in that regard. Accordingly, I move:

I commend the amendment to honourable senators.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-I second the amendment. This evening the Senate is debating the Prices Justification Amendment Bill 1979. I had in mind that one of my duties when I rose was to second the amendment of my colleague, Senator Tate. So I am glad, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you brought to his attention the need to move it. I point out for the benefit of those who are listening to the broadcast that I am the third speaker from the Australian Labor Party in this debate today. The opposition to the Bill was led by Senator Walsh. We have just heard Senator Tate outline certain aspects of the Bill with which the Opposition cannot agree. Before proceeding to a discussion of some aspects of the Bill I shall take my memory, and, I trust, the memories of many other senators, back to 1975. During the 1975 election campaign, the then caretaker Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, indicated quite clearly that he would abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal. Let us remind ourselves of what he said back in 1975. He said:

We will abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal.

Lest I be accused of selective quotation, I shall quote in full the relevant part of Mr Fraser’s policy speech. It reads:

We will abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal. It has presided over the worst inflation in our history, lt has damaged jobs. We will use the restrictive practices machinery to see that we have fair prices by competition not bureaucracy. There are many ways of achieving fair prices other than by Government direction. We need to understand that profits are necessary for investment, and investment is necessary for jobs. Profits will no longer be a dirty word.

I quoted that part of the speech in full for two reasons: Firstly, so that I could not be accused of selective quotation, and, secondly, so that I could point out the errors in the statement. Mr Fraser did not point out that the worst inflation in our history occurred under the Menzies Government. In 195 1-52 there was a 22.5 per cent rate of inflation. Also, in that speech Mr Fraser made his philosophy quite clear. He was going to rid himself, the Government and, one suspects, many of his wealthy supporters of the presence of the Prices Justification Tribunal.

The fact that the Prices Justification Tribunal still operates despite that 1975 promise is not surprising. After all, did not Mr Fraser at the same time say that he would retain Medibank? He retained it in name only, for Medibank is virtually gone. He promised to take politics out of pensions and promptly reintroduced politics into that area. He pledged that he would provide jobs for all, but unemployment keeps growing. Therefore it is not surprising that an election promise to abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal was not fulfilled. This Government’s track record on promises is very poor indeed. I was attracted this morning to a cartoon which appeared in one of the daily newspapers. I think it is worth describing the cartoon for the benefit of those who are listening to the broadcast and who have not seen it. It depicts Malcolm Fraser in four separate poses. In the first pose he is saying:

I Ve made a promise.

Secondly, he says:

And I ‘m going to break it!

The third thing he says is:

And that’s a promise!!

Finally, he says:

So I wouldn’t worry too much if I were you.

This cartoon typifies the way promises have been broken by this Government. As I said, it is not surprising that the Prices Justification Tribunal has not been abolished. On the other hand, perhaps the Prices Justification Tribunal is close to being abolished. Maybe it can be compared to Medibank in that it is being retained in name only. As honourable senators will recall, the Government’s announcement of the proposed abolition of the Tribunal, as outlined in the 1975 policy speech, produced strong reaction in the community. Representation was received from many quarters- trade unions in particular- that the Prices Justification Tribunal be retained. In late 1976 the Government announced its intention to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal, but in a modified form. Subsequent legislation introduced in late 1976 contained a number of significant amendments. My colleague, Senator Walsh, has outlined many of these already, but probably the most significant of them were the following two: Firstly, an obligation to notify price increases was made applicable to companies with a $30m turnover. Previously, the figure was $20 m. It was estimated that the reduced obligation would reduce by half the number of companies having to notify price increases. Also in 1976, the exemptions from the Act were broadened. Much of the bite was removed from the Prices Justification Tribunal in the 1 976 legislation.

Certainly, the Government’s lack of enthusiasm for the Prices Justification Tribunal is evident in the staff cuts suffered by the Tribunal. Recently I put on the Notice Paper a question in relation to the average number of persons employed by the Prices Justification Tribunal. It was only in today’s Hansard that the answer appeared. I think it is worth while outlining the information contained in the answer because it shows the continual diminution in the number of staff employed by the Prices Justification Tribunal. If there are fewer staff, obviously the Tribunal is going to do less work, it is going to look at cases in much less detail than before and it is going to take longer to do the jobs that it has to do. Let me cite some of the figures that were released in the answer to the question I put on notice. The average number of persons employed by the Tribunal in 1975-76 was 138. We remember that we had a Labor Government until 1 1 November 1975. In the following financial year, 1976-77, that figure was reduced to 119. A further reduction, from 119 to 108, occurred in the following financial year, 1977-78. By 3 April this year the figure of 108 had been reduced to 85. The Government’s lack of enthusiasm for the whole concept of the Tribunal is evident in the staff cuts that have been made.

What other conclusions may be drawn from the deliberate wasting away of the Prices Justification Tribunal? One of the main provisions of the Bill is the one to repeal sections 4 and 5 of the Act. These sections specify the size of companies and their subsidiaries which are required to notify prices. This means that, given passage of this Bill, there will be no requirement for prior notification. Senator Walsh and Senator Tate, who spoke before me in this debate, outlined some of the important consequences of these two changes, but let me outline two important consequences of the Bill: Effective price justification will not now be possible. There is no mechanism for effective monitoring of price increases, before and as they happen. The Tribunal is flying blind, all because of a Government imposed blindfold. Secondly, the necessity for firms to give notification for price increases was an important form of discipline. It forced them to consider whether the reason for a rise could be justified. Now there will be no such restraint. The passage of this Bill will mean that there will be nothing but imperfect market forces to prod the corporate conscience to give any consideration to the consumer.

I must emphasise the extreme lack of consistency on the part of the Government. It continually states that wage and salary earners must justify any increase that they seek before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Most responsible wage and salary earners agree with that approach. Most responsible union officials agree with the approach that they should go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission if they are seeking an increase for the members of their union. They cannot agree with the proposition that, while they have to justify their increases, companies can increase prices without justification. This is what will happen with the passage of this amending Bill. Is this consistency on the part of the Government? I do not believe that it is consistency, and wage and salary earners and unionists throughout the country do not believe that it is consistency either. I quoted earlier from the 1975 election speech of the caretaker Prime Minister. I again quote what he said:

There are many ways of achieving fair prices other than by government arbitration.

Let him tell that to the Australian housewife who has to use all her budgeting skills to make ends meet. She, unlike the Government, cannot practise deficit budgeting forever. Tell that to the Australian pensioners who have received such poor treatment from this Australian Government. They will not believe that there are good ways in which to achieve price stability other than by having a regulatory system such as that of prices justification set out to be.

The Liberal Party has been promising for some time what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) promised in 1975, but its track record is not all that good. Even though I was only 1 1 years old in 1949, I can remember reading in some of the magazines that my mother bought the election promises of the Liberal Government of the day. These promises remained in my memory because in 1949 there was a change of government. That change in government was due in part to the type of advertisement that was delivered through the magazines and the newspapers which were read by the people at that time, I can remember this very well.

When we started to look at the possibility of debating this amendment to the Prices Justification Act I sought out some of the actual advertisements that I would have read as a lad of 1 1 years of age. I went to the Women’s Weekly. I recall very well that this was one of the magazines that I read at that time. Let me just read from the Women’s Weekly of 24 September 1949. One of the advertisements in that issue read as follows:

The cost of living must be reduced.

It continued with a few other buzz words and then down at the bottom of the page it said:

The Liberal Party will reduce living costs and increase real wages.

In a moment I will show that that was another promise-admittedly it was made back in 1 949- which was not fulfilled. I am pointing out that the track record of this Government has not been good, even as far back as I can remember.

Before turning to another of these advertisements which is equally revealing, let us just continue with the one from which I was quoting because I think that it is rather quaint to look back to 1949 and see what the Liberal Party said at that time. It said:

The Liberal Party will reduce living costs and increase real wages by . . .

How did it intend to do that? First of all, it was going to encourage and reward increased production. Fair enough. That seems to be a reasonable way of reducing living costs and increasing real wages. But the second way in which it intended to do that was by outlawing the communists. The third way in which it intended to do that was by introducing the system of secret ballots for union elections and decisions. In other words, it ended up as a very emotional type of advertisement. Let us have a look at another advertisement which appeared in the Women’s Weekly of that time. An advertisement in the 12 November 1949 issue was headed: ‘Ten Sound Reasons why Every Woman should Vote Liberal on December 10’. The first sound reason was:

Under Liberal Government: the cost of living will be reduced.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Quite right too.

Senator COLSTON:

– The honourable senator says: ‘Quite right’. What rot! Let us have a look at what happened after that. If we look at the figures we will see what happened after the 1 949 election. In 1950-51 there was an increase of 13 per cent in the cost of living; in 1951-52 there was an increase of 22.5 per cent in the cost of living. Admittedly, the situation was much better in the following year, but in the year following that there was an increase of 9.4 per cent in the cost of living. I suppose that that was better in comparison with what had happened before, but it is still a shocking record. I point this out to show that this Government has not changed one bit since that time. The Liberal Party- the majority party on the other side of the chamber- has not changed one bit in that time.

I turn now to some of the price movements that have occurred over the last three years. I am now referring to the comment made in 1975 by the Mr Malcolm Fraser that he was going to make things better, that he was going to reduce inflation, that he was going to get things on to a better keel throughout Australia. Let us look at some of the price increases that occurred between 1975 and 1978. Figures of this sort are usually produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. I have here a comparison between December 1975 and December 1978 prices in relation to items that people buy for their homes. In December 1975, milk bottled and delivered in two 600 millilitre bottles cost 43c. In December 1978- that is a span of three years- it cost 53c; an extra 10c. This represents an increase of 23.3 per cent. In the same period butter increased from 80.2c to 94c for a 500-gram pack. This represents an increase of 1 7 per cent. I could go on.

Over that three-year period the price of bread increased by 15 per cent; sugar by 35 per cent; eggs by 13 per cent; rump steak by 32 per cent; potatoes by 48 per cent; the price of a 500-gram pack of a particular type of breakfast cereal increased by 25 per cent. These are the types of increases that have occurred since the time whenMalcolm Fraser said that he was going to stabilise the economy and to keep prices down. He said he was going to do these things by abolishing the Prices Justification Tribunal. The housewife of Australia knows full well that she has had to contend with those price increases.

Let us not forget what happened yesterday. Yesterday the Australian Bureau of Statistics put forward statistics which showed what had happened to food prices throughout Australia in only one month. In that one month, which was between March and April of this year, we had an average 3.1 per cent increase in food prices throughout the community. The increase in food prices in some States was even worse than that. We had a 3.9 per cent increase in Sydney and a 4.2 per cent increase in Canberra. In my capital city, the increase in food prices between March and April of this year was 2.4 per cent. What is more revealing in the statistics that were released yesterday is, over one year, the increases in food prices. These range from 1 1.4 per cent in Brisbane and Adelaide up to 16.7 per cent in Canberra.

Let us just remember that when we are talking about food prices, we are talking about the food prices that the ordinary housewife has to pay and the prices that the person who brings home an ordinary wage packet, has to contend with. The situation is illustrated not only by the sorts of increases that there were in the capital cities. Many people who live in Canberra and in the Australian capital cities quite conveniently forget sometimes that, if one moves outside the capital cities, one pays even more for basic foods. Let me just illustrate this example by referring to three places in Queensland again using Australian Bureau of Statistics figures which show how difficult it is to live in certain places in Australia. I refer to Cooktown, Thursday Island and Weipa which are still major centres in the north of Queensland. If we use Brisbane as a base of 100 we find that in Cooktown one will pay an extra 24 per cent for any foods that one purchases. In Weipa one will pay an extra 19 per cent. In other words, if the base is 100 in Brisbane it is 1 19 in Weipa. If one goes to Thursday Island one is really struggling because one is paying an extra 39 per cent. On a base of 100 in Brisbane, Thursday Island has 139 as its food price.

Let us not forget that this is occurring when the Government is doing everything it possibly can to reduce the Prices Justification Tribunal to something which will have no teeth at all. We certainly need a price regulatory system of some type in Australia, but unfortunately the Prices Justification Tribunal no longer fills that role. I believe that what the Prime Minister said in 1 975 about the abolition of the Prices Justification Tribunal is coming to pass, not because it is being abolished by a piece of legislation saying that the Tribunal no longer exists, but because it is being done by stealth. The people who outlined this situation and lobbied against it so dramatically in 1975 and 1976 should realise that this stealth is occurring and that the Tribunal is being abolished. The amending of the Act will be a significant step to Mr Fraser’s 1975 pledge to abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal. In conclusion, let me reiterate that I support the comments that have been made by my colleagues Senator Peter Walsh and Senator Michael Tate. I support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Tate, the previous speaker on this side of the Senate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment which was moved in this second reading debate. I feel that I should draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this Bill does give effect to the changes that were announced on 18 October. The Government’s decision was to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal, to reduce the emphasis on price notification and to broaden the Tribunal’s inquiry function. The selective price notification by companies will substantially reduce the regulatory effects of the Tribunal’s operations, and reduce costs to business. It will retain the Tribunal ‘s capacity to inquire into prices that need to be examined and keep under surveillance prices of significance to the community. The Tribunal will in future concentrate its resources in areas of price surveillance and public inquiry.

I recapitulate that the changes provided in the Bill will provide for a pre-inquiry consultative mechanism where the Tribunal decides on its own initiative to hold a prices inquiry. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) will approve all inquiries to be undertaken by the Prices Justification Tribunal and the relaxation of the price freezing provisions to allow the Tribunal to approve interim price increases to companies under inquiry. There will be provision for greater flexibility with regard to extension of time limits for inquiries and for the Minister to direct the Tribunal as to matters which should be given special consideration by it. Also there will be provision for the Tribunal to observe the confidentiality of material claimed as such by companies. In general these changes will serve to streamline the procedures of the Tribunal and make it a more useful instrument of government policy.

It is believed that the business community will find the changes acceptable. Consultations were held with business organisations prior to the decisions of Government with regard to the changes which were announced. Consultations were held with trade unions and the consumer groups before the decisions were taken. It is therefore believed that the amendment moved by the Opposition is not in the spirit of the Government’s intention for the continued operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal and it is rejected by the Government. In the debate which has occurred in the Senate, I understand Senator Tate referred to the fact that, in his words, the Minister illegally intervened in the Prices Justification Tribunal inquiry into ColgatePalmolive Pty Ltd to prevent the Tribunal from examining advertising costs. I record that this is not an accurate statement of what occurred. The Minister wrote to the Tribunal as he is entitled to do and made it aware of the Government’s policy with regard to advertising.

It is proper for me to record that the Minister publicly stated on 26 July 1977 that he was releasing the text of a letter sent to the Chairman of the Tribunal concerning the inquiry into the request by Colgate-Palmolive for a price increase to cover increased advertising costs. In 26 July the Minister also made it perfectly clear that he was writing concerning the inquiry into the request by Colgate-Palmolive for a price increase to cover increased advertising costs. He stated:

Questions have been raised in the course of this inquiry concerning the proper role of the Tribunal in relation to advertising.

He drew attention to the relevance of the statement on18 February1977 on advertising by Mr John Howard, the then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. In his statement the then Minister said: . . the Government believes that the level of advertising is a matter for individual companies to determine, unfettered by Government action.

In his letter of 26 July Mr Fife stated:

I wish to take this opportunity to indicate to you -

That is the judge of the Tribunal- that the statement by Mr Howard fully reflects Government policy on advertising. Consistent with the policy statement the Government considers that the role of the Tribunal, in relation to advertising is appropriately concerned with establishing the actual costs of such advertising to the ‘ companies concerned.

The Minister was entitled to contact the Tribunal to make known matters that were properly dealt with in this instance. For it to be suggested that this was an illegal action overlooks the entitlement of the Minister to communicate with the Tribunal and to make it aware of Government policy. In his letter the Minister went on to state:

The Government does not consider that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to examine the content of the advertising of particular companies. The content of advertising is subject to examination by bodies other than the Tribunal. For example, misleading advertising is subject to the terms of the Trade Practices Act and questions relating to such advertising are matters for the Trade Practices Commission.

He concluded that letter by saying that, because of the public interest in it, he publicly released it. I simply recall that to the minds of those who may be interested in the comment made by Senator Tate. I understand that a reference was also made to oil company prices. I draw attention to the Minister’s statement made in Parliament on 3 April of this year that the Prices Justification Tribunal would continue to monitor oil industry pricing. The Minister is currently giving consideration to the precise details of the arrangements by which oil company prices will be monitored. In answer to a question on 3 April he stated:

I do give a clear and unequivocal undertaking that the Prices Justification Tribunal will be heavily involved in this field.

That is the way in which oil industry pricing will be monitored. As I have said, he is giving attention to the detail of the arrangements by which this will be monitored. I thank the Senate for the discussion on the Prices Justification Amendment Bill 1979 and again indicate that the amendment is not acceptable to the Government.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Tate’s amendment) be added.

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

AYES: 0

NOES: 0

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 6.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-Clause 6 of the Bill deals with sections 16 and 17 of the Principal Act. I want to comment on the lack of a comprehensive definition in the Bill of a justified price. In answer to Senator Puplick’s interjection, I rise to indicate on behalf of the Australian Labor Party that it has a very fair-minded and defensible view of what constitutes a just price. It is a price that could be justified in hearings before the Tribunal. We say that a price payable by a consumer to an enterprise needs to be such that it enables that com pany to achieve a level of profitability that is sufficient to enable it to maintain an adequate level of investment and employment. We also recognise that a wider social context may need to be taken into account to enable the price to be such as to enable the community as a whole to pursue a relevant and effective antiinflation policy.

I rise simply to make that comment in answer to a comment by Senator Puplick. The Labor Party does not believe and has never believed that the Prices Justification Tribunal should be used as a weapon against private enterprise companies acting within a mixed economy. We do, of course, make a special plea for public enterprise in respect of the continuing vendetta against statutory corporations owned by the Australian public, such as Trans-Australia Airlines. If the Australian Labor Party were in office there is no doubt that it would consider sympathetically a proposal that the Prices Justification Tribunal look at the prices charged by such public corporations.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to draw the attention of the Minister for Social Security to something she said when closing the second reading debate. 1 listened very carefully to her speech. I understood her to say that when the Prices Justification Act is amended the Prices Justification Tribunal will become an instrument of government policy. 1 would like to have that statement clarified because, if I heard the Minister correctly, she was saying that the Government will now stand over the Prices Justification Tribunal in respect of any reference that is before it. Before I say any more, perhaps the Minister could clear up the question of whether in fact I heard her correctly.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator McLaren may be confused about my reference to the changes that were announced. I said that the changes reflected the Government’s decision to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal but to reduce the emphasis on price notification and to broaden the Tribunal ‘s inquiry function. At the conclusion of my remarks about specific changes in the Bill I said that these changes would generally serve to streamline the Prices Justification Tribunal and make the body a more useful instrument of government policy. I was not suggesting that it was something that was directed in a detailed manner in accordance with government policy. I was suggesting that by placing the emphasis on the inquiry function and by reducing the emphasis on prices notification the Tribunal would serve more generally to be a useful instrument for government policy and that the change resulted from consultation with the business community, consumer groups and the trade unions. It is believed that the changes that have been announced and the selective price notification by companies will substantially reduce the regulatory effects of the Tribunal ‘s operation and reduce cost to business. But the Tribunal’s capacity to inquire into prices that need to be examined and to keep under surveillance prices of particular significance to the community will be retained.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Notification to Tribunal of proposed increases in prices of goods or services).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I move:

The purpose of the amendment is to reinsert, albeit in a different section of the Prices Justification Act, the mandatory requirement for firms with turnovers above $30m to notify the Prices Justification Tribunal of intended price increases. I do not intend to speak at great length on this amendment. I think it would be fair to say that in the view of the Opposition this is the most important change which the Government proposes to make to the Prices Justification Act. It relates to the part of the Act which the Opposition believes it is most important to keep. The Bill seeks to repeal sections 4 and 5 of the principal Act. The Opposition seeks to reinsert the matters covered by the sections being deleted by amending section 18 of the Principal Act. I think that the reasons for the amendment were adequately outlined by Senator Tate, Senator Colston and me during the second reading debate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government is not able to accept the amendment moved by Senator Walsh. As he said, acceptance of the amendment would have the effect of inserting a turnover test as a basis for determining proscribed companies.

The thrust of the Bill is exactly the opposite to that, namely, the removal of the turnover test and its replacement with a provision that those companies which have been the subject of a public inquiry by the Tribunal may be required to notify their prices for up to 1 2 months or longer if the Minister so determines. Therefore the amendment is completely contrary to the purpose of the Government’s approach to the amended requirements for the Tribunal. The amendment is not acceptable. It would establish a notification procedure which experience has shown to be of little benefit having regard to the resources which are involved in policing it. It would also detract from the intended surveillance inquiry function which I mentioned when I responded at the end of the second reading debate. For those reasons the Government is not able to accept Senator Walsh’s amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 7A.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I move:

The purpose of this amendment is to permit an interim price increase to be granted where there is a clear case that the applicant for a price increase requires the increase to remain in business and the facts of the matter are sufficiently complex that the Prices Justification Tribunal would require considerable time in order to determine what was a reasonable price increase. So the Opposition seeks to make provision for an interim increase to be granted pending the final decision of the Tribunal.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. The proposal ignores the interim price increase provision in clause 8, which would enable the Prices Justification Tribunal to allow such price increases at its discretion. The test for an interim increase is such that the Tribunal would need to complete its inquiry in order to apply the test, thus negating the value of the provision as a means of meeting a short term or urgency situation. I have noted the comments of Senator Walsh. However, the amendment is not one that is able to be accepted by the Government.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9. (Inquiry and report by Tribunal on requirement by Minister).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

Page 6, clause 9, leave out the clause, insert the following new clause:

  1. Section 19 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted:
    1. ( 1 ) Subject to this section, the Tribunal shall, before proceeding with an inquiry into a matter specified by the Minister in a notice under sub-section 17(1)-
    1. publish by advertisement in the Gazette, and also publish in each State and in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in that State or Territory, a notice stating that the Tribunal has been asked to hold the inquiry and inviting interested persons to make submissions in writing to the Tribunal, within 7 days of the day on which the notice is published in the Gazette, on the question whether such an inquiry should be held;
    2. not later than 7 days after the publication of the notice under paragraph (a), serve notice in writing on the company or each of the companies concerned-
    1. stating that the Tribunal has been asked to hold the inquiry;
    2. inviting the company to make submissions in writing to the Tribunal, not later than 7 days from the day on which the notice is served on the company, on the question whether such an inquiry should be held; and

    3. notifying the company that it may within that period of 7 days request a conference with the Tribunal on the question whether such an inquiry should be held; and

    4. when requested, within the period referred to in sub-paragraph (b) (iii), by a company concerned to hold a conference on the question whether such an inquiry should be held, afford to the company an opportunity of conferring with the Tribunal on that question at a place determined by the Tribunal and on a day determined by the Tribunal, being a day not earlier than the eighth day, and not later than the twenty-first day, after the service of the notice on the company.
    1. After paragraphs ( 1 ) (a), (b) and (c) have been complied with, the Minister shall, as soon as practicable, inform the Tribunal whether he approved the holding of the inquiry.
    2. If the Minister informs the Tribunal that he does not approve the holding of the inquiry, the Tribunal shall forthwith serve notice on the company or companies concerned that it will not proceed with the inquiry.’.”.

I shall explain the purpose of the amendment. The Government has already decided that in relation to any inquiry initiated by the action of the

Prices Justification Tribunal there will be a preliminary inquiry by the Tribunal. This will not be an in depth inquiry but a preliminary examination of the matters to decide whether a full public inquiry will be held. But the Government has not provided that the same preliminary inquiry procedure will apply to matters initiated by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs as distinct from the Tribunal. It is the view of the Opposition that in the interests of consistency and for the reasons stated by the Government with respect to Tribunal initiated inquiries- that is, that perhaps the matter can be a satisfactorily resolved without going through the expensive and time consuming process of a full public inquiry- similar provisions to those that the Government has provided in relation to Tribunal initiated inquiries should apply to ministerial initiated inquiries.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. As was said, the amendment proposes to establish a pre-inquiry procedure in relation to all inquiries initiated by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The proposed pre-inquiry procedure is the same as that proposed in new section 19AA for the Prices Justification Tribunal before it holds a prices justification inquiry. However, as was said, the Opposition amendment would apply the procedure to ministerial initiated inquiries, including prices justification and industry type- that is, non-price justification- inquiries. The amendment also provides for the Minister to approve or not to approve an inquiry which under the proposal he would already have required the Tribunal to undertake. The rationale for ministerial initiated inquiries should not be subject to review by the Tribunal. Non-price justification inquiries are intended to determine the structure of prices within industries and how prices are determined. They are meant to be undertaken as public inquiries and they are not appropriate to be dealt with under the pre-inquiry procedure which is proposed by the Opposition. For these reasons the Government does not accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

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

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I have a question in relation to clause 14 which provides for the repeal of section 35A of the principal Act. I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) whether the repeal of this provision of the principal Act which calls upon the Prices Justification Tribunal to make a biannual report on price increases will mean that the Tribunal will not be called upon to make any report at all on price increases?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Prices Justification Tribunal will furnish an annual report. Section 35a refers to a 6 monthly report. That is the section which is redundant. The Tribunal will report annually.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Will that report be tabled in the Parliament? If so, how soon after it is prepared will it be tabled?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– That report will be tabled in the Parliament and, as is provided for now, it will be tabled as soon as practicable.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2018

NORFOLK ISLAND BILL 1979 REMUNERATION TRIBUNALS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Readings

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

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I wish to speak briefly on the Norfolk Island Bill and the Remuneration Tribunals Amendment Bill on behalf of the Opposition. Later I will formally move an amendment to the motion that the Bills be read a second time. Although the amendment has not yet been circulated I shall speak on some of the points about which the Opposition is concerned in connection with this legislation. This Parliament should be interested in and concerned about the history and future of Norfolk Island. That island has a unique place in Australia’s history. I think that within a few weeks of the first settlement at Sydney by Governor Phillip a ship was sent to Norfolk Island in order to establish a settlement there to prevent the French, I believe, from settling that area. Senator Hamer kindly nods his head in agreement.

From that time the island has had a colourful and, at times, brutal history. There has been an extraordinary and unique relationship between

Norfolk Island and the Australian Government and people. In recent years Qantas Airways Limited has provided a regular air service to the island. Many of our friends, colleagues and loved ones have visited the island on holidays. I have not been there but I believe that Norfolk Island provides an idyllic situation. If I have any expertise in the matter it has been obtained from experts who were associated with Qantas and who visited the island on a number of occasions.

What the Opposition is concerned about can be summarised in a number of general propositions which are reflected in the amendment which will be moved to the motion that the Bills be read a second time. What the Opposition is recommending to the Government results from the view that there needs to be a balance of major and competing interests that must necessarily be considered in this debate in relation to the future of Norfolk Island. I summarise in a brief form those two competing interests by saying that, firstly, there is the desirability of the people of Norfolk Island- particularly having regard to the history which I have mentionedhaving the maximum degree of self-government of their island as is possible for a Territory of Australia.

On the other hand, we have to consider the interests of the Australian people. I use the expression ‘the Australian people’ as being inclusive of the people of Norfolk Island in that, for example, each Australian individual or company has to bear a proper share of the taxation burden. Insofar as certain minimum standards of justice, social welfare and income guarantees are applicable to Australian citizens, in our view they should also be applicable to the people of Norfolk Island. There is, in a sense, a dichotomy between those two views. The first view expresses the wish that there should be the utmost level of independence for the people of Norfolk Island. The second view expresses the wish that the standards which pertain there in relation to the matters which I have spoken about should be as high as possible in the circumstances.

The Australian Labor Party, as the Opposition in this Parliament, has two basic objections to this Bill as it is drafted and now before the Senate. Firstly, there are a number of ways in which we propose that the Bill should be redrafted to give greater autonomy to the people of Norfolk Island in the management of their affairs. Of course, the Government states- one would suspect rather glibly and, if I can use the word advisedly, conservatively- that this legislation represents the first step down the road to more full self-government for the people of Norfolk Island. We say that it is not a very significant step. It is more of the order of a foxtrot step than a stride. We feel that a bigger stride should be made down the road to selfgovernment for the people of the island.

Secondly, we argue that at the present time we could go much further in relation to a number of specific matters in terms of the heads of power which are given to the island people to administer for themselves and to remove some of the avenues for interference by the mainland government and its representatives on the island who, of course, include the Administrator. Thus, we propose that in Schedule II there be added exclusive powers for the local assembly over referenda, electoral law, the recruitment and management of a Norfolk Island public service and education. Our position is that these are further matters that could properly be controlled by the local people of Norfolk Island in addition to the more municipal concerns granted to them by the Government.

One Schedule to the Bill sets out certain powers which are appropriate in the view of the Government to be administered by the island assembly and the Administrator and another sets out certain other powers which are enumerated in the two Schedules to which I have referred. The second of those Schedules sets out a range of matters on which the assembly can deliberate and act subject to Australian Government veto. In our submission, these should be expanded by including powers over land use and zoning, mining, public hospitals and health, conservation and national parks, law enforcement and management of historic sites. Many of those powers which I have enumerated and which appear in Schedule III are the sorts of powers which are appropriately exercised, for example, by a county government in England. They would be appropriately exercised by a regional government in Australia if we were ever sufficiently sophisticated to arrive at that level of government under the system of government which we have in this country.

As I say, they are powers in relation to conservation and national parks, law enforcement and management of historic sites. They are certainly matters exclusively within the province of the people of Norfolk Island. Many of these people are associated with the history of those places. Of course, they are associated with them in a very real and sensitive way in terms of a very high tourist traffic to Norfolk Island. Thus we believe that they are the appropriate people to manage those facilities. Those two objectives are important. Further objectives are also spelt out in the second reading amendment which I hope will be available to us shortly. They are concerned to limit the interference by the mainland government to an absolute minimum. We propose a number of reforms all of which seek to place as much control in the island government as is possible at the present time.

I will refer to a number of ways in which the placing of as much control as possible in the Island government could be achieved and what we are suggesting specifically by placing increased control in the island government. Firstly, we seek to remove the power of the Administrator or the Governor-General to obstruct the government of the island by placing limits of 60 days and 90 days respectively on the time in which they may consider proposed ordinances. That is a restriction which we regard as absolutely reasonable in the interests of efficient government and one which we regard as reasonable in relation to the powers and functions of the assembly itself. Secondly, we suggest that we should place powers on appointing members of the executive council and terminating appointments- I am referring to both powers of appointing and terminating appointmentsalthough we are opposed to the concept of an executive council as such. We think that insofar as the powers exist in the Bill, and to which I have referred, the matter of accepting resignations of assembly presidents and deputy presidents should be placed in the hands of the assembly rather than of the Administrator.

Thirdly, we suggest that the placing of the power to convene assembly meetings and the power to fix dates of elections in the hands of the assembly president would be a most desirable amendment and innovation in this legislation. Fourthly, we think that there should be removed from the Governor-General the power to disallow ordinances on Schedule II matters passed by the assembly, as we would propose, or passed by the assembly and assented to by the Administrator as would be the case under the Bill as presently drafted. In addition to those matters of principle which reflect the concern which I expressed in the dichotomy I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, there are a number of procedural changes which we propose with the aim of enhancing the role of the representatives of the local people on Norfolk Island.

Firstly, an assembly of nine people is a very small assembly. Of course, the population of Norfolk Island is small but it is still a very small assembly. In an assembly or legislative body of nine people, we see no need for a three tiered system of government with an executive council being one of the elements of those three tiers of government. That seems to us to be a sort of bizarre and somewhat mediaeval notion which we have imposed on the people of Norfolk Island as over many generations we have from this country imposed things on the people of Norfolk Island, whether it be convicts, tax havens or tourists. Now by this legislation we seek to impose on them a rather complex three tiered system of government, having regard to the number of representatives in the assembly. That is rather an unnecessarily complex system.

Secondly, we think that there should be a procedural change which would again affect the powers of the people in the assembly in that there should be a right of appeal to the assembly when an Administrator rules that an ordinance is beyond power. The powers of the Administrator as contained in the Bill introduced by the Government are in a sense quite arbitrary and autocratic. In our view, they are not appropriate for a country like Australia which has pretensions to a degree of sophistication and democracy in government to impose on the people of Norfolk Island. A third and very similar point is that we believe that the somewhat colonial title of Administrator which we have imposed on the executive officer is inappropriate in the second half of the 20th century for reasons which are implicit in the description of his title.

The other matter to which I wish to refer at this stage is that because of our commitment to the rights of individuals being guaranteed, as against those of the State- which commitment has been expressed in a great many pieces of legislation which have come before the Senate- we feel that if we are to reflect our rhetoric in this place this legislation relating to Norfolk Island should be a model piece of legislation in terms of the imposition of a system of government on the people. We say that there should be a bill of rights for the people of Norfolk Island and that, having regard to the historical context of Norfolk Island to which I referred earlier, the bill of rights should reflect and recognise the unique relationship to the island of Pitcairn Islanders, or Pitcairners, as a section of the Norfolk Island people. In fact if one has any feeling for history or any sentiment about Norfolk Island one cannot but reflect a very strong sentiment for the interests and wishes of the Pitcairn Island people on Norfolk Island, the population of that island having been diluted, as it were, by various refugees from Australia, whether they be tax dodgers or retired people, who in a sense have had a very significant effect on the economy of Norfolk Island and who perhaps have too much say in the running of Norfolk Island to the detriment of the Pitcairn Island people. I think that we have to be very conscious of that in discussing the details of this legislation.

At the beginning of my speech I said that there was a dichotomy between protecting the interests of the people of Norfolk Island and giving them as much self-government as possible- perhaps more than the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) would desireand recognising at the same time that the standards which are applicable to the Norfolk Island people should be as far as practicable the same as the standards which are applicable to the Australian people in matters such as income tax and social welfare legislation. For example, the vast majority of Australians have an additional share of tax burdens placed upon them because of the fact that a tax haven exists on Norfolk Island. Whereas a fortunate and dishonest few can obtain the benefit of the tax haven on Norfolk Island, the bulk of the Australian people are prejudiced by their activities in so doing. Stamp duty, estate duty and gift duty have all been avoidable by some people because of the existence of the tax haven on the island. Family trusts, which at the moment are on the decline in Australia because of the pending abolition of gift and estate duty on 1 July this year, have been most attractive as avoidance mechanisms on Norfolk Island- much more attractive than they are on the mainland. As these avoidance techniques have involved mere notional transfers in most cases, they benefit the Norfolk Island people only to the extent that Australian lawyers and banks on the island have been able to derive benefit from them. The cost of the Australian taxpayer has been quite enormous. So in discussing the future of Norfolk Island we have to remember also the question of equity in regard to the vast majority of Australian taxpayers and take that into account at the same time.

We as an Opposition would urge the Government to take every step to prevent the island ‘s being used as a tax haven by extending Australian tax laws to the island, but we would relieve any extra burden on the islanders living there by creating a zone allowance for them. The corollary of that, which will be mentioned during the Committee stage, is that we would give representation to the island people in the national Parliament of Australia. Of course, that is provided for by a particular reference in the amendment which I shall move to the motion for the second reading of the Bill. The Opposition also finds objectionable the fact that there is no proper system of income maintenance on the island for infirm, aged and unemployed people. Norfolk Island has its own economic problems and circumstances and it would be wrong for us to impose upon it standards which were not applicable to the particular situation of its economy. But we feel very strongly that the social security legislation of Australia should be extended to Norfolk Island.

Senator Hamer:

– And the taxation?

Senator BUTTON:

-I have already dealt with that, Senator. You were probably dozing off at the time and I understand and forgive you for that. In extending Australian social security legislation to the island we would have to take account again of the particular problems which exist there, but we should take account also of the levels of payment and the indexing of pensions in a way which is appropriate to the economy of the island and to the conditions which pertain there.

I want to mention the question of wages which are paid on Norfolk Island and the manner in which they are set. They are set by methods which one can describe only as unprogressive and antiquated, even by 19th century standards. As I said earlier, when one talks about the history of the island it is interesting to see how it has progressed. It has progressed in the manner in which air services to the island are provided, the manner in which facilities for tourists are provided there and the number of tourists who go there. I referred earlier to Qantas and the people we know who have flown there with Qantas. In all those sorts of ways the island can be said to have progressed, but in the method of setting wages there has been really no progression since the 19th century. Wages are set by a very laissez faire system. The economy is over-supplied by labour from outside, the unemployed on Norfolk Island get no government benefit and must leave the island if they wish to continue to live, and those holding permits to stay and work are obliged to leave immediately if they lose their jobs.

Once again we cannot impose Australian solutions on the economy of Norfolk Island, but this legislation which the Government has introduced really shows no recognition at all of this problem. It is a problem in respect of which this Parliament ought to be concerned. We cannot set Australian wage levels and conditions on Norfolk Island, but we can provide the mechanism whereby the merit of each side ‘s argument or case in the bargaining process over the setting of salaries and wages can be properly presented and considered by an independent arbitrator in relation to the conditions which apply on the island. To that extent we would propose the setting up of a conciliation and arbitration system for Norfolk Island which would be constituted by visiting commissioners and judges of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. For a long time- in fact since the latter years of the last century- Federal court judges have visited the island to hang and sentence people. It was, I suppose, a desirable circuit for federal court judges to be assigned to. However, no similar system has pertained to the question of wage fixation or salary determination on Norfolk Island and under this legislation, none will. That is another important matter which ought to be considered by the Government.

I referred at the beginning to two propositions which we would advance and I have tried to treat them with some specificity. Firstly, we should seek, as far as practicable, and as far as circumstances permit, to provide for the people of Norfolk Island the maximum degree of selfgovernment. We find that here the Government has been cautious, conservative, lilyliveredindeed, any collection of adjectives that one might like to assemble to describe its nature in general terms. Of course its approach to Norfolk Island has been no different from its approach to everything else. The Government describes this Bill as a first step. Rather, it is a putting of the toe in the water because it really goes nowhere towards providing a genuine, realistic 20th century concept of self-government for the people of Norfolk Island. It is really a 1 9th century piece of legislation.

Secondly, we say that the desirability of encouraging the maximum degree of selfgovernment should be qualified by the very real interests of the Australian people as a whole, including those of Norfolk Island, in relation to tax matters and the provision of certain minimum standards of justice and levels of income such as we seek in this Parliament, in numerous other debates, to guarantee by one means or another to all Australians. Those standards should apply to the people of Norfolk Island as well. Of course, as this is a Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia, we should be mindful in this Parliament not only of what we do in relation to this matter but also of what other people think we do in relation to the standards that we lay down in this legislation for the people of Norfolk Island.

The Opposition opposes the Bill on the basis of the two general propositions that I have advanced and have attempted to illustrate by a number of proposals that we feel would improve the legislation. They are set out in some detail in the amendment which stands in my name and which 1 shall now move on behalf of the Opposition. I move:

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-This Bill has had a somewhat extraordinary background. Never in the history of Australian legislation can there have been a Bill that has been preceded by so much investigation, so little of which has in fact appeared in the final product. In May, 1975 a royal commission in the person of Sir John Nimmo was set up to review fully the constitutional future of Norfolk Island. In October 1976 that royal commission reported. The four major recommendations of the Nimmo royal commission were: Firstly, that Norfolk Island residents be given representation in the national parliament by, in fact, including them in the electorate of Canberra; secondly, that all Commonwealth legislation, past or future, be made applicable to Norfolk Island unless the contrary be stated in such legislation; thirdly, and associated with that, that the same levels of taxation and social security as applied generally in the mainland Territories be made applicable to Norfolk Island; and fourthly, that within this framework Norfolk Island should receive limited but real self-government.

Nothwithstanding the force and rationality with which those conclusions were argued by Sir John Nimmo, we now have a situation- which has been stated as government policy and which is now embodied in this Bill- whereby firstly, Norfolk Islanders will not receive elective representation in the national Parliament; secondly, Australian laws will continue not to apply to Norfolk Island unless that be expressly stated therein; thirdly, that Australian taxation and social security will not be extended to the island; and fourthly, that Norfolk Island will receive a measure of self-government which is anything but real.

This Bill is said to reflect the real wishes of the islanders, in particular their desire not to be absorbed or integrated, any more than they are at the moment, into Australia. It is very difficult to be sure that that is so and that it does reflect the wishes of all of the islanders. Although Norfolk Island is a tiny place with a permanent population of only some 1,600, it is true that it is a microcosm of many larger societies. In particular, it must be acknowledged that Norfolk Island is very much a class-ridden society and one in which the Pitcairners, the founders of Norfolk Island and the ones of whom one thinks as being the Norfolk Islanders, are now very much a minority, representing barely 40 per cent of the population. Moreover, they are the Norfolk Islanders who are at the bottom of the social and economic heap in that Territory. It appears that it is the Pitcairners who have some very grave reservations indeed about this Bill. This Parliament also should have grave reservations about it- about the constitutional system that it embodies and about the immunities from the operation of Australian legislation that are part and parcel of it.

A number of aspects of life on Norfolk Island ought to be of particular concern to this Parliament and to all Australians. The first is that, as Senator Button has indicated, it has been operating as a tax haven, especially in respect of transactions involving the payment of stamp duty. In the last year evidence has been placed before this Parliament that as much as $30m has passed in and out of the island in one day as part of tax avoidance transactions of this kind. If Norfolk Island is to continue to avoid the application of Australian taxes- there is no doubt that this proposition at least is certainly supported by a majority of the population who, I suppose, are no less selfish in this respect than are people anywhere- we must at least ensure that persons who have no formal residential or other genuine connection with the island are unable to use this taxation loophole system for financial advantage.

The second aspect of life on Norfolk Island which must be of concern to this Parliament and the Australian people is the system of social services which prevails- or does not prevail, to state it more accurately. The elderly and the infirm do, it is true, benefit from what are described as grace and favour’ payments- amounts of up to $35 a week, which are now payable at the discretion of the Administration. Indeed, before the current round of window-dressing that has been associated with this legislation, the sum paid under the system was as low as $10 a week. On Norfolk Island there is no such thing as unemployment benefit. The method of dealing with those who are unemployed is one which, no doubt, the Fraser Government would find an attractive solution to its problems; that is, simply to force the unemployed off the island, physically out of the way. Another matter which should cause grave concern is the question of labour conditions on the island. As my colleague, Mr Innes, said in the other place, the trouble about labour conditions on Norfolk Island is that it is all labour and no conditions. There is no system of arbitration or of industrial control. Employers can, and do, pay as little as they can get away with. It is not uncommon for a wage of $70 to be paid for a six-day, 48-hour week.

Nothing in this Bill or in the Government’s proposed policy, announced in association with its presentation, does anything to rectify any of these situations. Norfolk Islanders will continue to enjoy- if that is the right word; I suppose that it is for at least a minority- more or less complete immunity from the operation of Australian legislation and Australian social policy. But it is not as if this policy is being carried through. It is not as if this policy of immunity from Australian legislation is being carried through to its logical, conclusion; namely, either complete independence from Australia, which is one solution and one logical way of dealing with the kind of approach that the Government seems to have in mind; or something less than that but nonetheless quite substantial- a system of complete selfgovernment where the Norfolk Islanders would have complete responsibility for their domestic affairs and complete freedom from Australian Government interference.

The Bill purports to confer a system of selfgovernment or at least to be a major step down that road; but in reality, as Senator Button has said, it confers nothing. of the kind. My colleague referred to the Bill as perhaps putting a toe in the water in that respect, but I suggest to the Senate that the toe does not even get wet. The constitutional system which is created by this Bill is a nineteenth century one- great stuff for the heyday of the British Empire, but not the kind of thing that is in any way appropriate to the latter part of the twentieth century, which is a time when colonies are just a little bit out of fashion, and rightly so. The key things to appreciate about the constitutional system which is created by this Bill are as follows: First of all, it confers minimal powers on the elected Legislative Assembly; secondly, it confers negligible powers on the appointed Executive Council; thirdly, it gives quite excessive powers to the Australian Government appointed administrator; and, fourthly, it enables the retention by the Australian Government, acting through the Governor-General, as the Bill puts it, of quite excessive residual powers.

The matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly can legislate at all under the terms of the Bill are quite limited. Moreover, anything the legislature does by way of producing proposed laws is subject to assent, or refusal of assent, by the Administrator. Furthermore, any law that is so produced has to overcome a third hurdle, that is, that it is subject to disallowance by the Governor-General. One assumes that the Australian Governor-General would be acting on the advice of the Executive Council, but the literal language of the Bill does not say as much and one is left to the uncertain operation of the Acts Interpretation Act to make it clear that the Governor-General would be acting not in person but on the advice of the Australian Cabinet.

The whole notion of a power of disallowance remaining in the hands of the Governor-General is an archaic one and one which was justified by the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) in his reply to the debate in the other place, in terms of its mirroring section 59 of the Australian Constitution which provides that any law passed by the Australian Parliament is subject to disallowance by the Queen. Goodness gracious, if the example of section 59 is to be trotted out, made applicable and built into the very fabric of this legislation, it gives one considerable cause for alarm about the Government’s feelings with respect to section 59 itself. A clause which all of us had thought had long fallen into desuetude and irrelevance is now being resurrected and incorporated in a different way into the fabric of this Norfolk Island legislation.

So far as the Executive Council is concerned, this domestic Norfolk Island body is given a role in advising the Administrator, but it is clear that the Executive Council itself is very much a toothless tiger. It is appointed by the Administrator from the local Legislative Assembly and if the Administrator of the day does not like the advice he gets from the Executive Council he will have the power under this legislation to terminate the appointment of any individual member of the Executive Council. There is no evidence whatsoever, either on the face of the legislation or in the way in which it is likely to operate in practice, that the Executive Council will be any kind of bulwark of democracy in Norfolk Island.

The real problems with this legislation lie not just with the position of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council, but most of all with the position of the Administrator. It is absolutely clear that the real power remains in the hands of the Administrator. That is where the real action in Norfolk Island is and will remain. The position of Administrator is not an elected office but rather is filled on appointment by the Australian Government. The powers that the Administrator can exercise under this legislation would not be such as to embarrass an oriental potentate. The literal powers vested in the Adminsitrator are very extensive- powers to convene the Legislative Assembly, to initiate money legislation, to appoint and dismiss the Executive Council and to assent or refuse assent, as the case may be, to legislation.

It may well be said, of course, that these are merely literal statutory powers and that they will not be misused; and that the conventions appropriate to a Westminster system will apply, just as was said in the run-up to the events of 1975 about the literal powers vested in the Governor-General under the literal terms of the Australian Constitution. I suggest that that kind of assertion, that kind of claim, if we hear it tonight from the Minister or from the Government, can be treated with just as much a grain of salt as we can now treat any protestations which may continue to be made about the relevance, the existence, the viability, of those Westminster conventions which up to 1 975 we all had thought existed. The difficulty is that we just cannot make any assumptions nowadays, either generally in Australia or more particularly with respect to this Norfolk Island legislation, that such conventions exist or that they will be observed.

In particular, we cannot make any assumptions to this effect, given the absolute and dictatorial way in which the powers of the Norfolk Island Administrator have been used and abused in practice in the past. There is quite recent evidence of the abuse of power by the Norfolk Island Administrator. Let me put some of that evidence before the Senate. What I am referring to came in the form of a letter addressed to the Minister, Mr Ellicott, and signed by Mr Ed Howard. It was published in the FebruaryMarch 1979 issue of an island newspaper called the Norfolk Island News. The letter read as follows:

On February 3rd the weekly ‘Norfolk Islander’ carried an anonymous letter which urged readers to value their heritage, stand up for their rights, and resist the passage of the Norfolk Island Bill.

Several days later the Administrator of the Island called in the editor, Tom Lloyd, and notified him that certain parts of the letter were- in the opinion of the Legal Adviserseditious. The Government’s next step was not clear to Mr Lloyd, but he understood he was under scrutiny and that he might be charged and brought to trial.

Sedition is one of the few high crimes against government. My understanding is that it means exciting disloyalty against the Queen and the Constitutional Government, and inciting people to illegal actions, as a means to overthrowing the Government. When an allegation of sedition is made by an appointee of the Governor-General, in the formal setting of a territory’s highest executive office, an editor is in grave trouble.

The letter in question argues that Norfolk should be governed by itself in association with Australia- a condition which entails a stable monarchy and Commonwealth. Neither the letter nor Mr Lloyd is seditious by any stretch of the imagination.

There is a comic side to all this- the mental picture of His Honour sensing in the pages of a weekly paper a threat to the very foundations of the Commonwealth, and leaping fearlessly to their defence.

But something quite uncomic, and quite serious, is involved.

I think it is unlikely that the Administrator was motivated by a desire to defend constitutional government. I think his purpose was intimidation of the press- an effort to frighten an editor, and make him then play down anything critical of the Norfolk Island Bill or the Government’s intentions to annex Norfolk. This tactic is commonplace in despotic countries. As a matter of fact it works. And this is a politically crucial time on Norfolk.

If official intimidation of the press appears within the Australian Government, I think it ought to be noted and checked.

I remind the Senate that the last person to talk of legitimate political dissent in terms of sedition or seditious libel was in fact the then AttorneyGeneral, Mr Ellicott, who said, it will be remembered, in the aftermath of the events of11 November 1975 that he was contemplating action against Mr Whitlam because of various statements Mr Whitlam had made about the Governor-General in the context of those events of11 November. I suggest that perhaps it is no coincidence that the Minister responsible for the introduction of the Norfolk Island Bill in this Parliament, with all the authoritarian apparatus it contains, with all the insensitivity it demonstrates towards democratic rights and freedoms, is none other than that same Minister, who is now in a different portfolio, Mr R. J. Ellicott. I support the amendment which has been moved by Senator Button on behalf of the Opposition.

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

– As was promised in the second reading speech on the Norfolk Island Bill, with the approval of the Opposition, I present a document relating to the applicability of Commonwealth Acts to Norfolk Island, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

COMMONWEALTH ACTS PROVIDING EXPRESSLY FOR THEIR EXTENSION TO NORFOLK ISLAND

Explanatory Note: The list hereunder is a list of Commonwealth Acts, in force as at 30 March1979 that provide expressly for their extension to or application in Norfolk Island. The relevant sections of the Act are also noted.

The list does not purport to be either authoritative or exhaustive and is intended as a guide only.

There are also Acts that, although not expressly providing for their extension to or application in the Territories, may so extend or apply, in whole or in part, according to their tenor. The list hereunder does not refer to any of these Acts.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975- s. 4.

Air Accidents (Australian Government Liability) Act 1963-s. 5.

Air Force Act 1923- s. 4.

Air Navigation Act 1920- s. 2.

Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952- s. 2,s. 3.

Airports ( Business Concessions) Act 1959- s. 5(1).

Airports (Surface Traffic) Act 1 960-s. 4.

Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Act 1974-s. 5.

Atomic Energy Act 1 953- s. 7 ( 1 ).

Audit Act 1901-s. 2A(1).

Australian Citizenship Act 1948- s. 6.

Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975- s. 5.

Australian Housing Corporation Act 1975- s. 4.

Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972- s. 6.

Australian National Airlines Act 1945- s. 5.

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1956- s. 3.

Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956- s. 6.

Banking Act 1959- s. 6 (2).

Banking (Transitional Provisions) Act 1959- s. 4.

Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942- s. 6.

Christmas Island Agreement Act 1958- s. 5.

Civil Aviation (Carrier’s Liability) Act 1 959- s. 6.

Civil Aviation (Damage by Aircraft) Act 1958- s. 5.

Civil Aviation (Offenders on International Aircraft) Act 1970- s. 4.

Commonwealth Banks Act 1959- s. 5, 5a.

Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Act 1959- s. 4.

Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972- s. 5.

Companies (Foreign Take-Overs) Act 1972- s. 7.

Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971- s. 6.

Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1 972- s. 4, s. 5.

Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act 1968-s. 9, s. 5.

Control of Naval Waters Act 1918- s. 3.

Copyright Act 1968-s. 4.

Courts-Martial Appeals Act 1955- s. 5.

Crimes Act 1914- s. 3 a.

Crimes (Aircraft) Act 1963- s. 4.

Crimes (Biological Weapons) Act 1977- s. 4.

Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1978- s. 4.

Crimes (Hijacking of Aircraft) Act 1972- s. 4.

Crimes (Internationally Protected Persons) Act 1976-s. 4.

Crimes (Protection of Aircraft) Act 1973- s. 4.

Currency Act 1965- s. 5.

Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973- s. 3.

Decimal Currency (Transitional ) Act 1963- s. 5.

Defence Act 1903-s. 5a.

Defence (Re-establishment) Act 1965- s. 5.

Defence Service Homes Act 1 9 1 8- s. 4aa.

Defence (Special Undertakings) Act 1952- s. 3.

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act 1946- s. 5.

Defence Transition ( Residual Provisions ) Act 1 952- s. 4.

Defence (Visiting Forces) Act 1963- s. 7.

Designs Act 1 906- s. 4(1).

Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1 967- s. 5, s. 7.

Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974-s. 4.

Environment Protection (Nuclear Codes) Act 1978- s. 5.

Explosives Act 1 96 1 -s. 7 ( 1 ).

Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1 974- s. 5.

Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966- s. 5.

Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966- s. 5.

Family Law Act 1975- s. 7.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1 976- s. 3.

Financial Corporations Act 1974- s. 5.

Fisheries Act 1952- s. 5(1).

Flags Act 1953- s. 2.

Foreign Takeovers Act 1975- s. 16.

Geneva Conventions Act 1 95 7- s. 6 (1 ).

Great Barrier Reef Marine Act 1975- s. 4.

Historic Shipwrecks Act 1 976- s. 3.

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936- s. 7a.

Insurance Act 1973- s. 6.

Insurance (Deposits) Act 1932- s. 4.

International Organizations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963- s. 4.

Judiciary Act 1903-s. 3a (1).

Lands Acquisition Act- s. 5a.

Law Reform Commission Act 1973- s. 4.

Life Insurance Act 1945- s. 6.

Lighthouses Act 191 1- s. 4.

Maintenance Orders (Commonwealth Officers) Act 1966-s. 4.

Marriage Act 1 960-s. 8(1).

Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act1973-s. 4.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1959- s. 7(1).

Meteorology Act 1 955- s. 4.

Metric Conversion Act 1 970- s. 4.

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975- s. 4.

National Service Act 1 954- s. 5(1).

Naval Defence Act 1910- s. 5a.

Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946- s. 6.

Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1973- s. 3a.

Passports Act 1938- s. 4.

Patents Act 1952- s. 8.

Patents, Trade Marks, Design and Copyright Act 1939-s. 4.

Petroleum Search Subsidy Act 1 959- s. 4.

Psychotropic Substances Act 1976- s. 4.

Public Service Act 1922-s. 7b.

Public Works Committee Act 1969- s. 6.

Racial Discrimination Act 1975- s. 4.

Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945- s. 6.

Repatriation Act 1920- s. 5.

Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956- s. 4.

Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962- s. 5.

Reserve Bank Act 1 959-s. 6.

Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973- s. 4.

Service and Execution of Process Act1901 - s. 2 ( 1 ).

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation 1970- s. 5.

Statutory Declarations Act 1959- s. 3.

Stevedoring Industry Levy Collection Act 1977- s. 3.

Submarine Cables and Pipelines Protection Act 1963- s. 4.

Territory Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act 1978- s. 5.

Trade Marks Act 1955- s. 8.

Trading with the Enemy Act 1 939- s. 4.

Treaty of Peace (Bulgaria) Act 1947-s. 2.

Treaty of Peace (Finland ) Act 1 947-s. 2.

Treaty ofPeace (Germany) Act 1969-s. 2.

Treaty ofPeace(Hungary) Act 1947- s. 2.

Treaty of Peace (Italy) Act 1947-s. 2.

Treaty of Peace (Japan) Act 1952- s. 2.

Treaty of Peace (Romania) Act 1947- s. 2.

War Crimes Act 1945- s. 4.

Weights and Measures (National Standards) Act 1 960-s. 6.

Whaling Act 1 960-s. 7.

World Health Organisation Act 1 947- s. 4.

Senator WEBSTER:

-This Bill is an historic one. It sets up a new Parliament on Australian soil. It provides a framework within which the 1,600 or so people of the beautiful Norfolk Island, a speck in the Pacific Ocean some 1 , 600 kilometres from the mainland, can stand on their own feet. I emphasise that, contrary to comments that have been made in certain quarters about the Bill, there has been the utmost consultation throughout its consideration and preparation over a period of a year with the elected representatives of the Island’s residents, the Norfolk Island Council. The Government’s proposals were discussed with the Council before the first draft of the Bill was prepared and further discussions took place on the draft before the Bill was introduced into the Parliament.

When the Bill was introduced into the Parliament on 23 November last, debate on it was deliberately deferred until the current session in order to give the Norfolk Island Council and other interested parties an opportunity to suggest possible amendments. Certain amendments, some of them of considerable significance, were in fact made to the Bill in the light of representations from the Norfolk Island Council. This preamble now makes it entirely clear that the Government intends the people of Norfolk Island to achieve internal self-government as a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth within the shortest practicable period.

Although the Government did not consider it in the best interests of the Norfolk Island people to meet all of the requests made by the Norfolk Island Council, the Bill by no means represents a unilateral decision by this Government, but constitutes a great step forward for Norfolk Island in the management of its own affairs. I remind honourable senators that it is only the first step. The opportunity exists for the range of local responsibility to be increased, and the Bill provides a means of achieving this by regulation.

The responsibilities to be undertaken by the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and Executive Council under the Bill will impose a heavy task upon them, and they will need every encouragement and assistance. The Government on its part will do everything it can to provide this encouragement and assistance and will be prepared at any time to consider any further advances which might be suggested. The Government is confident that the elected representatives of the Norfolk Island people will respond to the challenge and that they and the Norfolk Island people will avail themselves to the utmost of the opportunity now given to them to manage the affairs of the Island.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

Norfolk Island Bill 1979

Clauses 1 to 22- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 23 (Disallowance of laws by Governor-General).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

We oppose the whole of clause 23. We argue for the deletion of that clause. This might indicate to the Senate the provisions of clause 23 and how the provisions of that clause relate to our general objections to the Norfolk Island Bill. The clause provides in effect that the Governor-General of Australia may disallow any proposed law within six months after the Administrator has assented to that law. He may also, for example, recommend amendments to the Administrator in subsequent sub-clauses of clause 23 there are similar provisions relating to the powers of the Governor-General in relation to laws made by the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly.

In the course of the second reading debate the Opposition indicated that, in spite of the Minister’s enthusiasm for this legislation expressed in his brief contribution at the end of the debate, it found some of the provisions of this legislation nigh on medieval. We imagine that anybody outside Australia who is examining this legislation as a proposal for the structure of government of a territory such as Norfolk Island, would have the same sort of view of the legislation. I am not in the least surprised to find that Senator Webster believes this to be model legislation in the 20th century because he has a different view from us about what is appropriate to the 20th century and what is properly appropriate to the 1 9th century or even earlier than that.

Senator Webster:

– You are quite right.

Senator BUTTON:

-I am indebted to the Minister for his warm enthusiasm for the proposition which I just put forward. I am glad that his enthusiasm is recorded in Hansard. In clause 23 there is, of course, enshrined the proposition which is in conflict with the first proposition that I put on behalf of the Opposition, namely, that this legislation should go as far as possible to provide real self-government for the people of Norfolk Island. Enshrined in clause 23 is the proposition that there is a necessity for real selfgovernment for the people of Norfolk Island to be limited by this very extraordinary power of the Governor-General to disallow laws made by the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly and approved by the Administrator. In a symbolic sense the Opposition finds that to be a most reprehensible provision. It is symbolic, in that it suggests a view of the type of government which should be applicable to Norfolk Island, totally different to that which the Opposition puts forward. Accordingly, in Amendment No. 1 which stands in the name of the Opposition, we urge the Senate to delete this clause. By putting it in, the Senate is really reflecting the views which Senator Webster admittedly espouses and which the Opposition believes do not belong in legislation of this kind, any more than perhaps the Minister belongs in this Parliament.

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

– Responding to the Opposition, I noted the comments of Senator Button who leads for the Opposition in this matter. He mentioned something to do with medieval attitudes. Perhaps one is anxious to help the Opposition in this matter. The papers which the Opposition circulated have nothing to do with what Senator Button was speaking about. I just draw the Opposition’s attention to the fact that it has not circulated amendments to clause 23. Would it help Senator Button if I perhaps took him from his medieval thoughts, and brought him up to date as to what is the proper action of an Opposition. I suggest that clause 23 stands as printed.

Senator Evans:

– Look at amendment No.1 .

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Opposition has not circulated its amendments. (Quorum formed).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Before the quorum was called, Senator Webster took it upon himself to describe me as medieval. I tell a story against myself, which I am very reluctant to do. I once had a very good friend who used to ask the question: ‘Why is John Button medieval?’ The answer was: ‘Because he isnasty, brutal and short.’ I am short and I propose now to be nasty and brutal to justify the other legs of the description. It is quite extraordinary to have a Minister get up in this place and tell the Opposition, as he put it, what it ought to do here. That is a piece of advice which I find gratuitous in the extreme, coming from a Minister who, in the last few days, has revealed that he had no idea of what he ought to do here. He has got up in this place and told the Opposition what it ought to do. He has told the Opposition that it has not circulated any amendment relating to clause 23. If

Senator Webster is unable to read, I must add that to the other appellations.

Senator Webster:

– Be honest; you just circulated it.

Senator BUTTON:

– If that is the case, what Senator Webster has accused me of is a form of dishonesty. I said that we had put down an amendment to clause 23. The Minister got up and said that we did not know what we were talking about as we had not done anything of the sort. That is a very serious charge to make. I thought Senator Webster might have found out something about the matter before he made such a charge. Of course, his record in this place is one of making statements without being quite clear what he is talking about. He has done that again tonight. The Opposition has an amendment to clause 23. The amendment to clause 23 is that the Opposition opposes this clause and suggests it should be deleted. If the Minister wants to go through the reasons for that again, I will give him the reasons for the Opposition suggesting that these provisions ought to be deleted. But I do not think it is necessary. Other honourable senators, particularly on the Opposition side, are aware of what I said. Even some on the Government side who were awake, would be aware of what I said. That charitable description does not extend to the Minister. For the reasons that are recorded in Hansard, the Opposition strongly opposes the provisions of clause 23 and it urges that they be deleted. That is the matter upon which we wish to vote.

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

– In answering the comments that Senator Button has made I point out that I do not know why he took the attitude that he did. He will be honest if he discloses to the senate that he did not circulate the amendments to which he was speaking. He circulated an amendment which is headed Amendments to be moved by the Opposition to the motion- That this Bill now be read a second time’. Regrettably that was the only piece of paper that was handed to me by the Opposition. I attempted to help the Opposition by saying that perhaps there was some other amendment to be circulated. I am not brutal, I am not unkind, and I am not any of those other things. But I am short and I oppose the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 24 (Reason for withholding assent, &c, to be tabled in Legislative Assembly).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The amendments to clause 24 which have been circulated appear as amendments Nos 3 and 4. For the benefit of Senator Webster I point out that they follow on from amendments Nos 1 and 2. 1 seek leave to move the amendments together.

Leave granted.

Senator BUTTON:

-I move:

In a sense, these reflect the amendments which the Opposition moved to clause 23. They are consistent with the amendment moved in respect of clause 23 and are put for that reason. In view of the fate of clause 23 at the hands of the Minister, I do not wish to delay the Senate any further in dealing with those matters.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 25 and 26- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 27 (Legislative powers of the Governor-General ).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I seek leave to move together the Opposition’s two amendments to clause 27.

Leave granted.

Senator EVANS:

– I move:

The provisions as they stand confer quite extraordinary powers on the Governor-General to act quite unilaterally and, without any reference to the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, to make an ordinance imposing taxes and authorising expenditure for the island community. When one reads clause 27 as a whole, that is the effect of it. Sub-clauses 3 and 4 are directed particularly to the matter of authorising expenditure.

The Opposition takes the view that for power of this kind to be vested in the Governor-General and not be subject to any sanction, any power, any intervention or any redress, if the islanders are unhappy about it, by the elected Legislative Assembly, is to make absolute nonsense of the supposed scheme of the Bill which vests primary money powers in respect to activities on the island in that Legislative Assembly. Either the Government is in the business of enabling the general application of Australian taxation and expenditure laws to Norfolk Island or it is in the business, as it claims to be, of disavowing any such operation for tax and expenditure laws initiated by the Australian Government on the island. It cannot have it both ways, but this clause, as drafted, appears to try to do just that, to have it both ways. It is for that reason that the Opposition seeks the deletion of the empowering sub-clauses 3 and 4 of clause 27 and the addition of a new sub-clause 7 which says:

Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, the Governor-General shall not make an Ordinance providing for the raising of revenues or for the expenditure of moneys out of the Public Account of Norfolk Island.

If such ordinances or enactments are going to be made they should be the sole prerogative of the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. The Opposition moves accordingly.

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

– As indicated in the wording of the Bill, this is an emergency provision to enable the GovernorGeneral to make ordinances in the case of a deadlock situation- for example, if for any reason the Legislative Assembly has not provided for the normal annual services. I think that members of the Opposition realise that they did not address their remarks to that particular point. I oppose the amendments.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I seek some elucidation from the Minister about the point he just made. Clause. 27 (3) says that power to make an ordinance in respect to the authorisation of expenditure may be made by the Governor-General on account of urgencythat is true- or ‘ for any other special reason ‘. The reason for the Opposition’s concern is the very width of the second phrase. It does not limit the application of these powers to urgency situations, as the Minister just intimated, but rather leaves it entirely open for such powers to be exercised for other reasons which remain obscure. The Opposition would be very grateful for some indication from the Minister of what on earth the Government had in mind in using that expression ‘for any other special reason ‘.

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

– The basis for inserting the words ‘for any other special reason ‘ will be found in other Acts of Parliament. If, for instance, there was a natural disaster or some other occurrence the GovernorGeneral would have the capacity to be able to provide those functions.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 61- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 6 1 A.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

That is an attempt, in a somewhat skeletal form, to introduce into the laws of Norfolk Island provisions relating to the terms and conditions of industrial employment in that Island insofar as the population of that Island is concerned. In the course of the second reading debate I said that we are not concerned that Australian standards in relation to a number of matters should apply if it is not appropriate that such standards should apply, having regard to the economic climate of Norfolk Island. But we are concerned that in the carrying out of the process of wage fixation and the fixation of conditions of employment the people of Norfolk Island should be subject, to some extent, to the same system and conditions as their fellow citizens in Australia. To us the reason for that is quite obvious.

Some very depressed conditions of employment apply in Norfolk Island. A difficult situation exists for people who are unemployed, and those who are in employment find it difficult to obtain the service and assistance of any independent authority regarding any dispute which they may have in relation to wages and working conditions. I said that we do not suggest in any way that Commonwealth standards in relation to those matters should of necessity apply. What we do suggest is that the same facilities should be available to citizens, employees and, to a lesser extent, employers of Norfolk Island, having regard to the balance of power between those two groups. Insofar as those matters are concerned there should be some independent authority to deal with them. The Committee will note that in sub-clause (3) we have been fortunate in being able to extend to Norfolk Island a better provision in relation to the capacity of a commissioner of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to go there and deal with a broader range of industrial matters than would be applicable in most areas of Australia because of the nature of the Federal Constitution and the Federal compact. The same conditions would apply to Norfolk Island in relation to these matters as would apply to people in the other Australian Territories. We see as an oversight the legislation’s failure to provide that facility for the people of Norfolk Island. Accordingly we commend to the Committee the insertion of this provision.

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

– The Government opposes the amendment. The people of Norfolk Island have been running the island in accordance with their own customs and in association with successive governments since before 1914. At present the island people know very little about an arbitration system let alone the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. I note that the Opposition does not necessarily wish to press Commonwealth standards upon the people of the island. The concern of the Opposition is to thrust upon the Island some wage fixing system. That does not accord with the view of the Government. The fact is that industrial relations on the island have yet to be worked out. It is our belief that the Legislative Assembly on the island should be able to work out a system for itself. We may see that emerging in future years. I repeat that the Government opposes the amendment.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I rise because of what the Minister for Science and the Environment has just said. I think the Minister is confused when he talks about wage fixation on Norfolk Island in the future. Senator Button’s amendment seeks to insert after clause 6 1 a proposed new clause in respect of industrial relations on the island. It therefore seems that Senator Button sees some significance in clause 61. Clause 6 1 states:

Provision may be made by enactment for and in relation to the appointment and employment of such persons as are necessary for the purposes of this Act and for the proper government of the Territory.

I would like the Minister to tell me what is meant by that. Will further legislation be needed for the actual enactment and will the people of the island be left in a vacuum if this requirement is not met?

I rose mainly because the Minister said that for many years the islanders have arranged between themselves the basis of the employment there. I have visited the island on two occasions, once as a member of a Senate committee. I found much discontent on the island. Wages on the island fluctuate from time to time in accordance with the availability of labour. There was much discontent about that between employers and employees. Of course, Senator Button’s amendment does not seek to deny the islanders the right to determine for themselves whether to utilise the machinery which it proposes. The proposed Conciliation and Arbitration Commission would not sit unless an application was made for it to do so. At present the islanders who feel that there is a need for arbitration have no redress. They are simply at the mercy of their employers, as were many Australians when this continent was first settled.”

Senator Button:

– That is what Senator Webster is advocating, really.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It may be what he is advocating but it is not what he says. He seemed to be saying that the people of the island have had an arrangement over a long period and it has worked satisfactorily. It has not worked satisfactorily. Senator Button is saying that it would be left to the islanders to make the application and that when an injustice occurs the people of the island would then have access to some arbitration procedure or some umpire to whom they could appeal for a determination as to whether an award should be made. If we uphold the arbitration system in Australia as a means of preventing and settling disputes we should extend that system to the Territories over which we have control. In particular, I ask the Minister to explain what is meant by clause 61? Does it mean that provisions may later be enacted for the purpose of preventing industrial disputes or giving wage justice to workers on the island?

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

– The honourable senator will know that these amendments are identical to amendments moved in another place. The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott), in his responses to those amendments, dealt with them at length and obviously answered the question which Senator Cavanagh has raised. The indication from the Minister was that the Government did not agree to the proposal. That situation applies at present.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I accept the reply of the Minister for Science and the Environment that if I search through the House of Representatives Hansard I will find the answers that I seek. I was not aware of this matter until this amendment was moved and the Minister responded to it. Before we vote on this clause I think we should know the reason for it. The answer to my question has possibly been given somewhere else, but this chamber is not an appendage of another House. We are entitled to have the reasons explained to us. I would like to know why the amendment is being rejected and what is the meaning of clause 61. Does clause 61 mean that future legislation will be needed to provide the machinery to settle industrial disputes?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Before my colleague, Senator Cavanagh, last rose the Minister for Science and the Environment said, in brief, that the Government does not agree to the proposal put by the Opposition in its amendment. He spoke of the situation that applies at present and said that the Minister in another place had dealt at length with a similar proposition that had been raised by the Opposition in another place and had answered the questions that had been raised in that place. I wish merely to indicate that the attitude of the Government in relation to the proposal that has been put forward by the Opposition in respect of Norfolk Island is completely at variance with the Government’s attitude in respect of the arbitral proceedings in another Australian Territory, namely, Christmas Island.

I remind the Committee of the Whole that when the Labor Government left office in 1975 it was in the process of providing arbitral proceedings for the residents of the Territory of Christmas Island. Unfortunately, before we left office we were not able to put those arbitral proceedings and arrangements into effect. But during the first six months of office of the Fraser Government, as a result of the initiatives that had been taken by the Whitlam Labor Government, the then Minister for Administrative Services- the Minister responsible for the administration of Christmas Island- boasted at length that the

Fraser Government had been able to make arbitral arrangements for the residents of the Territory of Christmas Island. Now, some three or four years after this Government has been in office, it says in response to a request by the Australian Labor Party that arbitral proceedings be arranged for the people of the Territory of Norfolk Island that the matter has been dealt with at length and that the Government does not agree to the proposal. In a rather bureaucratic and oligarchic style it says that that is the situation that applies at present. What I am saying is that the present Government has agreed to arbitral proceedings in respect of the people who are residents in the Territory of Christmas Island, but in respect of the people of Norfolk Island it is saying that it washes its hands completely and that, if the Norfolk Island Council agrees to arbitral proceedings, that is a matter for the Norfolk Island Council and not for this Government to determine. I believe that there is a complete contradistinction in the attitude of the Government. I merely mention it in order to place it on the record.

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

– I think Senator Douglas McClelland would agree with me that there is a difference between the two islands concerned. He knows that on Christmas Island there is a major mining operation in relation to which it is appropriate for wage levels to be determined by a particular process. I am advised that the people of Norfolk Island did not want a number of the things that adhere to our legislative system in Australia. For instance, the Opposition proposed, as I understand it, not only to give to the islanders some aspects of the social welfare system that we have in Australia but also to introduce our taxation system to Norfolk Island. It is the attitude of the Government that some of those proposals are not applicable. I am advised that the people of Norfolk Island have indicated that they do not want some of the systems which operate in Australia, one of which is the conciliation and arbitration system. The passage of this Bill will enable some type of selfgovernment to be established. Earlier in my comments on this legislation I said that the Government will listen very closely to the requests of the people. If there is a desire to introduce systems such as we are discussing at present I can assure honourable senators that the Government will listen to such requests.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Remainder of the Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Bill 1979

Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2032

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill is to rationalise and co-ordinate provisions relating to the redeployment and retirement of staff in Commonwealth employment. It might be regarded as a codification of those provisions. It emphasises the efficient and economical use of staffing resources by way of redeployment of staff who can be used more effectively elsewhere; retirement of staff both voluntarily and by initiative of management; and greater mobility of staff. It specifies minimum and maximum ages for retirement. The Bill ‘s coverage will include departments and authorities staffed under the Public Service Act and such other authorities prescribed in regulations with their agreement. The arrangements envisaged by the Bill will enable better management of personnel across Commonwealth employment, provide greater scope for permanent heads and other chief executives to utilise and manage their staff more effectively and overall further improve the efficiency of Commonwealth bodies. In addition to these advantages the arrangements will create opportunities for promotion and transfer for existing staff and new employment opportunities in the Commonwealth sector.

The Government placed before the Parliament similar legislation in 1976 on the basis that it would not proceed past the introduction stage until there had been an adequate opportunity for debate and for consultation between the Public Service Board and staff organisations. In the event the Bill lapsed on the prorogation of Parliament in 1977. The Bill before the Senate today has been prepared in the light of the views expressed on the 1976 Bill and following a number of discussions between the Public Service Board and peak employee councils particularly over recent months. The Bill includes a number of changes to which I will return later.

The Government’s policy that maximum superannuation age retirement benefits should only be payable on retirement at age 65 remains unchanged. The Superannuation Act that was passed by the Parliament in 1976 provides for reduced rates of pension to be payable to staff who retire other than on invalidity grounds at an earlier age in accordance with their conditions of service. This Bill provides as a condition of service that staff who no longer wish to work in government service may voluntarily retire after reaching age 55 with the appropriately reduced pension. The Bill does not change in any way the benefit structure of the Superannuation Act 1976.

Staff who choose to retire voluntarily would receive a reduced annual superannuation benefit as compared with those retiring at age 65. For example, pursuant to the Superannuation Act 1976, an officer retiring at age 65 with 30 years’ contributory service receives a standard pension equivalent to 50 per cent of final salary while an officer with 30 years’ service retiring voluntarily at age 55 would receive a standard pension equivalent to 36 per cent of final salary. An officer with 20 years’ service retiring at age 65 would receive 40 per cent of final salary and 28.8 per cent on retirement at age 55.

The Public Service Act presently includes in sections 20, 67 and 85 provisions enabling management, that is, the Public Service Board in conjunction with the relevant permanent head, to redeploy or retire excess officers, inefficient or incapacitated officers, and officers who have attained age 60. The administration of these provisions has not been fully effective because they do not provide an adequate legal framework nor do they contain protection of the rights of staff against arbitrary action. The approach to management-initiated redeployment and retirement contained in this Bill is based on a revised legal framework directed towards ensuring the most efficient and economical use of staff in

Commonwealth employment. By emphasising redeployment as a primary step the Bill recognises that there is considerable scope within the Commonwealth sector for improved utilisation of staff by facilitating the movement of staff within and between departments and authorities to jobs that are more appropriate to the talents of the individuals.

Where there are staff in the Public Service or in prescribed authorities whose services cannot be used efficiently by the department or authority in which they are employed whether on grounds of excess numbers, ill health or ‘for any other prescribed reason’, for example, relating to efficiency, the department oi authority is required to declare such staff to the Public Service Board for redeployment. The Board will be required to ensure consistent and co-ordinated action across departments and prescribed authorities and to seek to redeploy staff across those areas of Commonwealth employment covered by the Act. If redeployment cannot be achieved the Board will issue a certificate to that effect and the employing department or authority will take retirement action.

We have decided that staff between the ages of 55 and 60 years who are retired at the initiative of management ‘for any other prescribed reason’ will, in addition to the existing superannuation benefit, receive a special benefit of two months’ salary for each year of service foregone to age 60- that is, 10 months’ salary on retirement at age 55 reducing on a graduated basis to 2 months’ salary on retirement at age 59. Where an officer is paid a superannuation pension this benefit may be converted into a pension. This special benefit does not apply to staff who are excess to requirements or who are retired on ill health grounds for whom separate provisions already exist. For superannuation contributors in these circumstances provision is made under the Superannuation Act. Furthermore, in the case of excess staff the Public Service Arbitrator’s Decision No. 509 of 1 977 applies.

To assist in implementing the provisions ofthe legislation the Bill requires the Board to issue administrative procedures concerning identification of staff to be redeployed and principles for redeploying staff. Such procedures and principles will be published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. These procedures and principles together with the appeal provisions to which I will refer shortly will offer the protection to the rights of individual officers which does not exist under the Public Service Act. This will ensure that arbitrary or capricious action cannot be taken against officers; they will receive fair treatment under the legislation.

I mentioned earlier that the current Bill contains changes in a number of aspects from the 1976 Bill. I also mentioned discussions undertaken with the peak employee councils since 1976. The first two of the changes which I will now outline have arisen from these discussions.

The former Bill provided for staff to be identified for redeployment and retirement ‘for any other reason ‘ in addition to the specified reasons of excess numbers and ill health. The Bill now requires ‘any other reasons’ to be prescribed in regulations. Before such regulations are made the Public Service Board is required to consult with staff organisations on the proposed regulation and to report to the Governor-General on these consultations. There will be continuing discussions with the staff organisations on the operation of the legislation. The Government has agreed to include in this legislation the establishment of an appeal tribunal to review declarations for redeployment and consequent actions redeployment or certification for retirement. In addition the Tribunal is empowered to report on the appropriateness of the procedures determined by the Board. The Tribunal is bound to have regard to the same factors in considering an appeal as was the original decision-maker. Under this Bill the Tribunal will have a power to review management decisions and either confirm them or have them reconsidered by management. Unlike the 1976 Bill the Tribunal will only have power to vary original decisions in cases where it has been requested to join together staff in a particular category who are excess to requirements. This could occur where for example 10 out of 20 staff in a particular category are no longer required. Where an appeal ora number of appeals is lodged the Tribunal may review on request the whole of the particular category against the procedures laid down in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. The process in these particular circumstances will ensure all involved have a fair hearing and will avoid unnecessary delay in finalising any appeals. I would emphasise that this provision can only operate where staff are identified for excess numbers reasons.

Consistent with the responsibilities given to the Board by this legislation for redeployment of staff arising from excess numbers situations, the current Bill empowers the Board where reasonable and practicable to place such excess staff in departments and, after consultation, in prescribed authorities. It has been necessary for the continuing efficient operation of departments to transfer officers of the Service to the unattached list pending retirement for health reasons. This allows consequential staffing action to proceed. To give this practice a sound legislative basis appropriate provision has been included in this Bill. I mentioned earlier that the Bill can be applied to areas of Government employment outside the Public Service by regulation with their agreement. In this context I should, however, mention that it is the Government’s policy that both voluntary retirement and management-initiated retirement are inextricably linked. This is reflected by the inclusion of both measures in this Bill. The Government would not accept the application of age 55 voluntary retirement to the staff of a particular authority without it taking up the other measure.

By way of summary, the legislation confers on staff an option to retire voluntarily from age 55. The legislation also provides a more effective basis for management-initiated redeployment and retirement in the interests of more efficient and economical staffing. An appeal Tribunal is established to ensure staff receive fair treatment. Finally, it enables the payment of a special benefit to those who are retired between the ages of 55 and 60 for reasons other than excess to requirements or ill health. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2034

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 22 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I move:

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator GIETZELT:

– This amendment which the Opposition moves to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 2) is a serious one. It is not to be taken as a token or facetious gesture but rather as an expression of strong philosophical disagreement with what is proposed in the legislation; that is, to establish the precedent of taxing Aboriginal organisations in respect of mining development that takes place on their land. It has to be accepted that over the last decade or so there has been a substantial change in public opinion in relation to Aboriginal rights in Australia. That has been reflected from time to time in legislation in the national parliament and legislation in one or two State parliaments. As we know, we have particular difficulty in getting changed attitudes in Queensland and Western Australian parliaments.

The Opposition has a particular objection in respect of this piece of legislation, namely, that the Government in fact has taken a step backwards in relation to its obligations to Aboriginal communities. Why has there been such a change in public opinion? The reason is that we have realised the grave injustice that has been done to Aborigines in this country, in particular to the indigenous inhabitants in those regions of our country where we have discovered a degree of wealth. For nearly 200 years the Aboriginal people have been driven by the white man from the best lands into the desert. As we know, from the point of view of European civilisation, the best lands are those in the coastal regions. We are aware of the grave injustice that has been rendered to the Aboriginal people by the way in which their lands were seized and there culture destroyed. Many of them perished in the process of white civilisation.

Now that they are finally about to receive rights that all other Australians have had throughout the history of this country- that is, land rights, ownership and control of their landthey are to be grudgingly compensated by this legislation for having those rights infringed. In this legislation the Government intends to do to the Aboriginal people in areas where mining royalties are collected what has been done to no other Australians. They will have their rightful and legal compensations, which have been provided for in other legislation, taxed for the first time. So, having been dispossessed of their ancient spiritual homes over the last two centuries, they now suffer the anguish of seeing their land desecrated by mining development which is subsidised and encouraged by this Government that claims to represent all Australians. In fact it takes steps to take discriminatory action against indigenous Australians.

Of course, the Aborigines have received a shocking deal. We submit to the Senate and to the public opinion generally that this tax makes their position even worse. We therefore say that this tax ought not to be imposed upon Aborigines in order that they may have in peace the paltry amount that they are to receive as only part com.penstion for the injustice their race, their culture and their rights have suffered over the last two centuries. The Australian Labor Party objects most strongly to this extortionate proposal. I wish to quote from a report on page 1 of the Northern Territory News of 2 1 July 1 978 which stated:

The Northern Land Council Chariman believes the new federal tax on Aboriginal mining royalties sets a precedent Ibr taxation of compensation payments. Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu said he wonders why Aborigines are the first people to have their compensation payments taxed.

Is not that a fact? This is the first time in the history of this country that compensation payments are to be taxed. Let us look at the exact terms of this rip-off There is no other way to describe the tax; it is a rip-off. It is a discriminatory tax. It is being applied on people at the lower end of the scale and it is being applied in a discriminatory way. The combined effect of the two Bills will be to tax the payments at the rate of 6.4 per cent.

Let us look at the other side of the coin. At the same time as this is happening, the Utah Development Co., which is one of the mighty multinationals, one ofthe richest companies in the world and one of the companies that is ripping the guts out of Queensland- the greatest exporter of capital that this nation has ever known- is taxed only 5 per cent for shifting our balance of payments from $ 1 16m in the black into the red. That is accepted by this Government as being right and proper. In fact, it is extolled by the Government as a proper and legitimate commercial enterprise. But when it comes to the lands of the Aboriginal people, they will pay a higher rate of taxation under the terms of compensation arrangements. Of course, this indicates how unequal this Government applies laws and its legislative powers in this country. It also shows the ideological thinking of this Government which is very close to the thinking expressed in the propaganda sheets put out by the so-called Australian Mining Industry Council which, of course, is not an Australian Mining Industry Council. In fact, it is a mining council representing the multinational organisations that have been given franchise to exploit and develop the very rich natural resources in this country. Is it any wonder that editorials are now. appearing in the newspapers about the credibility and honesty of this Government? I need refer to only one of serveral that have appeared in the last few days. ‘This Government’s honesty is on the line’, said the Australian newspaper yesterday. It goes on to state:

Federal Cabinet meets today with its reputation for honesty, credibility, reliability and capable management on the line.

Of course, we all know that the average person in Australia has come to see this Government in its proper light- as a government that came to power in a period of dishonesty. I suggest that it is a government whose very credibility is at stake in respect of this legislation. Some members of the Government have said that the money going to the Aboriginal people is not compensation. Let me make the point that if the government of the day decides to acquire compulsorily a house or property for its use, whatever payment is made to the owner of that house or land is made on the basis of compensation. As compensation, it is clearly not taxable.

I will give the Senate one clear example of this. I refer to the acquisition by the Commonwealth Government in 1974, in consultation and in con.sert with the State Government of New South Wales, of approximately 500 acres of land called Towra Point in the shire of Sutherland where I live. The purpose of the acquisition was to honour an election promise made by the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Whitlam, to acquire that land as a wetland and as an area to be dedicated for passive recreation. That 500 acres of land was bought some 10 or 15 years prior by the Lustre Hosiery Company. That is not a company which normally involves itself in land acquisitions or deals. Of course, when the company received its compensation- it received a payment considerably in excess of what it paid for the land when it bought it in the recession period in the early 1960s- it received a sum considerably in excess of what it paid for the land. It received compensation and that money was shown in the balance sheet of that company as compensation. As such, it was not taxed. Of course, that is the principle upon which governments in this country operate.

But what happens when the lands of Aborigines are taken from them or when the acquisition of their land is negotiated under threats and pressures as we have seen this Government act over about the last year in respect of its negotiations with the various Aboriginal land councils in Australia? What happens when they are subjected to the big brother treatment by the Commonwealth Government and they finally acquiesce to some arrangement with this Government which acts on behalf of the major international corporations for the development of the resources on the lands in question? This Government, having come to those arrangements in respect of the lands in question, some year or so later after negotiating the arrangements which are clearly preferential arrangements and which are of value to the companies concerned, then has the audacity and the termerity to suggest in the National Parliament and that the Aborigines, who in good faith and I submit as a result of some pressure, should be the subject of legislation to tax the payments to be made to them in the form of compensation. This is to be done not at the rate at which the mining companies pay their royalties but at a rate higher than any other taxing powers held by the Parliament.

What does this really mean? We say to the Aboriginal communities: ‘There is mineral wealth on your land. No matter what you say it will be developed because we are a developmentminded Government. Of course, we recognise that you have some claim in respect of the land. But we want the rights to develop it and we will pay you compensation’. They were substantially the arrangements that were entered into by those who had the authority to make the arrangements with the Aborigines in the areas under the control of the National Parliament. But having done that, the Government then brings before the Parliament legislation to tax the compensation payments. We submit that this is a repudiation of the arrangements that were made with the Aboriginal communities and with those who were acting on their behalf. We submit that that is a form of discrimination. The Senate ought to deliberate upon and consider whether such legislation should be approved. Of course, it is for that and other reasons, which obviously I will not be able to canvass this evening, that we suggest that the Bill and all references to taxation of mineral royalties for Aboriginal organisations should be withdrawn.

Debate interrupted.

page 2036

ADJOURNMENT

Exported Australian Fauna: Conditions in Overseas Zoos

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I do not intend to detain the Senate for long but history has a habit of repeating itself. It will be recalled that last year, following a story in the Sydney Sun about the overseas commercialisation of Australian marsupials, particularly kangaroos and wallabies, which was pinpointed in the case of a boxing kangaroo called Skippy, we were able to embark on a campaign which indicated that there would be greater safeguards on the export of Australian wildlife to foreign zoos. I propose, first of all, to seek leave for the incorporation into Hansard of a letter from Mr Fife, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, and a table showing the location of all the foreign zoos that were recipients of Australian wallabies and kangaroos. I have spoken to the staff of the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) about the document and I shall call it document A.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs Parliament House Canberra 2600

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

My colleague the Minister for Science and the Environment has referred to me your request for information concerning the location of zoos and sanctuaries which in the last three years have recieved Australian kangaroos and wallabies.

I have attached a list of all approvals to export macropods for the calender years 1976, 1977 and 1978.

Yours sincerely,

WAL. FIFE

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Australian Parliament Offices, Australian Government Centre, Chifley Square, Sydney NSW 2000

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I thank the Senate. I then took it upon myself to suggest to Australians travelling overseas that they report any foreign zoo where they felt that conditions, such as equivalent habitat or at least reasonable comfort, were not as they should be, bearing in mind the changes in the seasons. I then wrote to Senator Webster on 23 April enclosing an extract from a letter from a citizen of Belfast, a Miss Ann Hope, who suggested that the Belfast Zoo was due for upgrading. I will call my letter document B and seek leave for it to be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows- 23rd April 1979

The Hon. Senator J. J. Webster, Minister for Science and the Environment, Commonwealth Parliament Offices, 400 Flinders Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000

My dear Minister.

Following receipt of ministerial responses from yourself and the Hon. W. Fife, M.P., Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, claiming that Australian fauna was only sent to overseas zoos on the understanding that excellent facilities exist for the animals, I asked some of my overseas friends to vet such zoos.

It is in that context I enclose extract from a Belfast lass which expressed her opinion of the zoo in that city which reads as follows: “The zoo in Belfast is pathethic and I think it should be closed down. There is very little space and it is criminal to see huge lions pacing up and down cages smaller than a living room. 1 know there are several very reputable zoos in England, but even then, the space must be limited and I’m sure the animals, even those who were born in captivity, must feel closed in. I wish countries would ban the export of animals.”

Since the list provided by Wal Fife included Belfast Zoo as a wallaby recipient, I would like the conditions of these wallabies to be investigated.

Yours in anticipation, JAMES ANTHONY MULVIHILL Senator for New South Wales

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I might suggest to the Government Whip that I took ministerial staff into my confidence. Some of these documents came from them. I am involved in no underhand tricks. I would have left the situation as it was and awaited an inquiry by Senator Webster, but I received a letter form Mr Martin Punch of 7 Goorawin Street, Anglers Paradise, in Queensland. It concerns his visit to a zoo or animal park called Stanley Park in Vancouver. He expressed concern that Australian kangaroos and emus were being kept there in very congested and cramped conditions. Showing initiative, he wrote to the Australian ConsulateGeneral in Vancouver and suggested that something ought to be done about the situation. On 1 9 October he received an acknowledgement from our Consulate-General in Vancouver. Mr

Punch points out that although his letter was sent in September 1978 to the Consulate-General, who later assured Mr Punch that he would take up the matter with our Department of Foreign Affairs, nobody has had the courtesy to inform Mr Punch of what has happened. So I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter to me from Mr Punch, the one that he wrote to the Consulate-General and the response from the Office of the Consulate-General. I will call them document C.

Leave granted. 77ie documents read as follows- 7 Goorawin Street, Anglers Paradise 42 1 6 18th May, 1979

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Commonwealth Parliament Offices, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir, 1 write to you since recent press statements have shown that you are interested in the protection of Australian native animals.

I enclose herewith copy of correspondence which I forwarded to the Australian Consulate-General in Vancouver on 18th September, 1978, together with a copy of his reply. To date 1 have received no further notification from the Foreign Affairs Department. Perhaps you would be good enough to take the matter up on my behalf.

Yours sincerely, MARTIN N. PUNCH 7 Goorawin Street, Anglers Paradise 42 1 6 18th September, 1978

Australian Consul General, Suite 500, Guiness Towers, 1055 West Hastings, Vancourver 6E2E9, Canada

Dear Sir,

Whilst my wife and I were visiting Vancouver recently we had the pleasure of visiting Stanley Park. Whereas we found the park to be a beautiful place, we were disturbed at the treatment of some Austrlaian native fauna on display in the zoo. Several kangaroos and emus were placed together in what we thought was a ridiculously small enclosure for animals of that type. Perhaps it is a situation which has arisen out of ignorance on the part of zoo officials as to these animals’ natural habitat.

Whatever the reason for the situation, we felt distressed that our native animals should be treated in this manner. We feel that perhaps you could explain to the relevant authorities that ibr Canadians to appreciate the full beauty of the animals they should bc able to see them in a much less restricted situation.

We might add that we also feel that Austrlaian native animals should not be supplied to foreign zoos unless such zoos create a realistic environment for them. Perhaps you could pass on our comments to the relevant Australian authorities.

Yours sincerely, MARTIN N. PUNCH

October 19, 1978

Mr M.N. Punch, 7 Goorawin Street, Anglers Paradise, Queensland, Australia, 4216

Dear Mr Punch

Thank you for your letter of September 1 8 concerning the kangaroos in Vancourver ‘s Stanley Park Zoo.

I have referred your letter to the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra for attention, and you may expect a reply from the Department in due course.

Yours sincerely, P. B. CLARE. Consul-General

Senator MULVIHILL:

– When I wrote to Mr Fife and to Senator Webster I asked them both to try to co-ordinate standards and to see that this so-called export policy for getting assurances from overseas is adhered to fully. It is obvious that in Canada and in Northern Ireland for a start this is not happening. I intend continuing my agitation outside this chamber by asking people who are going overseas virtually to be vigilantes and to report back if any foreign zoos are not apparently keeping the word they give to the Australian Government.

I appeal to Senator Webster to seek- coordination of his actions with those of Mr Fife on this matter. The Government should request consulate or embassy staffs in the relevant countries to inspect the zoos listed in document A which was incorporated and to report to the Government on the condition of the animals in these zoos. People may think that I am pushing this matter a bit hard, but the fact is that an Australian citizen- this Queenslander, Mr Punch- is still waiting for an answer from the Department of Foreign Affairs. This does indicate that there is inadequate co-ordination. I ask Senator Guilfoyle to convey my remarks to Senator Webster. I want the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs and the Department of Science and the Environment to co-ordinate their activities on this matter and to give me a detailed reply.

Let me take this matter a bit further, Mr President. You sit in your chair with the coat of arms behind you. I wish to quote former Senator Wood from Queensland- that ought to make Senator MacGibbon happy- who said on one occasion that when he went to Mexico he had a difficult job explaining why Australia exported kangaroo meat when a kangaroo was on the Australian coat of arms. I hope that following my advocacy I will get a suitable response to this matter in the not too distant future.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I thank Senator

Mulvihill for the matters that he has raised and for the documents he has incorporated in Hansard. I will see that Senator Webster has them drawn to his attention and also that the attention of other relevant Ministers is drawn to this matter. I think that we all appreciate the sincerity and the depth of interest of Senator Mulvihill in these matters which have long been his concern. There maybe those who think that at times he pushes a bit hard. I think he pushes the Government very well to do those things that I believe the Australian people would wish to see done. I will see that the Ministers who have responsibility for many of the matters that Senator Mulvihill raised tonight give him a co-ordinated and cohesive reply as soon as possible.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.8 p.m.

page 2041

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Minister for Science and the Environment: Overseas Visits (Question No. 13S4)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose ofthe visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names ofthe persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) ( d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel: if so: (a) has the charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in ( 5 ) (a ) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer to the Minister representing the Prime Minister’s answer to question 1335 which is recorded in Hansard of 2 May 1979.

Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1357)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose ofthe visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff, (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names ofthe persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred; (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister: (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister: (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) (d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so: (a) has the charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 1335 as reported at page 1609 of Senate Hansard of 2 May 1979.

Warley Bush Nursing Hospital, Cowes (Question No. 1411)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 6 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has approval been given for funding the proposed geriatric wing of the Warley Bush Nursing Hospital, Cowes. Phillip Island, Victoria under the Nursing Home Beds Section of the Aged Persons Housing Program: if so. when can the Warley Bush Nursing Hospital Committee expect to receive the money; if not: (a) is more than 30 per cent of the island’s population over the agc of 65, and are these senior citizens obliged to travel 85 miles to the nearest accommodation for the elderly; and (b) when will the project be approved.
  2. Did the hospital launch a public appeal to raise the required local contribution in November 1977, and was $50,000 raised within six months from a resident population of 2,000 people.
  3. What representations have been made to the Minister on this project.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, subject to the organisation satisfying the terms of the legislation, the funds will be provided in the 1980/81 financial year.
  2. Information held by my department indicates that the Hospital launched a public appeal in November 1977 and that at 23 May 1978 an amount in excess of $50,000 had been raised.
  3. Written representations have been received from approximately 12 persons. In March 1977 I met a deputation from the Hospital.

Kakadu National Park (Question No. 1412)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment the following question, upon notice, on 27 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Why has the linchpin for the protection of both the Aboriginal people and the environment at the Ranger Uranium mine site, that is, the declaration of the Kakadu National Park, not been enforced.
  2. When will the park be declared as previously promised by the Government, as mining operations at Ranger are now proceeding and hundreds of workers will be coming to the area in April.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. On S April 1979, in a Ministerial Statement, I informed the Senate of Executive Council’s approval of the proclamation of Kakadu National Park. This Statement set out in detail the various steps which have been taken for the protection of both the Aboriginal people and the environment in the Alligator Rivers Region since the government announced its uranium decision on 25 August 1977.
  2. The proclamation to declare Kakadu National Park was published in Gazelle No. S 6 1 on 5 April 1 979.

Domestic Air Fares (Question No. 1432)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 6 March 1979:

Does Federal Government policy prevent the introduction of cheap domestic air fares, as stated in the Gold Coast Bulletin, & Match 1979.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No. The Government’s policy is for domestic air fares to bc as low as practicable.

The Government encourages the airlines to offer a wide range of domestic air fares to enable all people who wish to travel by air to be able to do so.

In this context I approved the introduction of standby fares last year which are discounted by 30 per cent below the economy fare. Standby fares are available between all adjacent State Capital cities as well as between Launceston and Melbourne.

I recently announced a major new domestic air fares package. This package included an expansion of the existing 25 per cent discount domestic Apex (Advanced Purchase Excursion ) scheme to now cover all jet airports served by TAA and Ansett. In addition a new Super Apex scheme providing a 40 per cent discount on the return economy fare has been introduced for certain periods of the year.

Aboriginal Affairs Programs (Question No. 1434)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What increase in Aboriginal population, by State and Territory, has been revealed by the 1 976 Census.
  2. If there has been a significant national increase, what effect will the increase have on the programs of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  3. When will the Aboriginal Summary Data File ofthe 1976 Census become generally available and what information will be made available through this file.
  4. What normal accountability procedures are used by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs under the Housing, Health, Education, Employment and Welfare States Grants Program for the performance of State Government Departments.
  5. 5 ) Have there been occasions when the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have been dissatisfied with the administrative performance of State Government Departments; if so, what procedures have been utilised to evaluate the performance to ensure a more effective delivery of services to the Aboriginal community.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Bureau of Statistics has provided the following details of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia:
  1. The programs of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are developed to meet needs of Aboriginal communities, in accordance with the Government’s objectives and priorities. Population distribution is one factor taken into account in determining the allocation of the available finance. Rapid population growth has been for some years an important factor to be taken into account in developing policies and programs in Aboriginal affairs.
  2. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has indicated that the Aboriginal Collection District Summary File will be available towards the end of April. The tables produced on this file are in the same format as the tables produced from the 1976 Census Collection District Summary File and cover all topics from the 1976 Census, except that tables relating to birthplace and race and some dwellings tables are excluded and some additional household tables are included.
  3. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs makes cash releases to each State at two-monthly intervals with the concurrence of the Department of Finance. The amount of each release is determined on the basis of cash expenditure and cash flow projections submitted by each State. An annual certificate of expenditure signed by the State AuditorGeneral is required.
  4. 5 ) There have been occasions when there has been dissatisfaction with the administrative performance of State Government Departments. To assist with evaluation of performance, relevant State Departments are required to provide the Department of Aboriginal Affairs with statements of physical progress on each project at 3 1 December and 30 June. There is close consultation with Commonwealth functional Departments such as Health, Education, Housing and Construction and Employment and Youth Affairs in the development and review of relevant programs. In addition, there is an arrangement for discussions between staff of the Regional Offices of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and relevant State authorities on programs supported by State Grants.

Meat Exports to Middle East: Air Freight Rates (Question No. 1441)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) What efforts has the Minister made to renegotiate air freight rates between Australia and the Middle East with Middle East Governments to. enable scheduled airline operators, including Qantas to set rates competitive with nonscheduled operators in the meat export trade.
  2. ) What was the outcome of any such efforts.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Australian Government does not have a formal bilateral Air Services Agreement with the Government of any Middle East country receiving Australian meat exports by air, and therefore has no direct Government to Government channel through which it could renegotiate air freight rates. Such negotiations must be initiated through the scheduled airlines of the countries concerned. The results of any airline negotiations would then be submitted to the respective Governments for their approval.

Enquiries by my Department indicate that the level of air freight charges is not the priniciple difficulty facing meat exports. Scheduled airlines are presently carrying to the Middle East about twice the amount of meat being carried by non-scheduled airlines. Rather, the difficulties lie in areas such as transhipment. During the recent visit of an Australian Government mission to Bahrain, the problems involved in chilled meat transhipment were raised with the Bahrain Government. As a result a technical committee has been set up, comprising representatives of Qantas (which operates 10 Boeing 747 services a week through Bahrain) Gulf Air, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and the Bahrain airport authorities, to examine the ways in which the trade in air-freighted chilled meat to the Gulf might best be developed.

Social Security Medical Tribunals (Question No. 1449)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How often have specially constituted medical tribunals been established to resolve a dispute on a medical issue (sec page 2 of the Annual Report of the Department of Social Security 1977-78).
  2. Are the doctors appointed by the Department of Health or by the Department of Social Security.
  3. How many doctors are on each tribunal.
  4. How many are general practitioners and how many are specialists.
  5. Are there appeal provisions from this tribunal; if so, what are they; if not, why not.
  6. Why are pensions and benefits not continued until the appeal is determined when they continue during the consideration of an appeal by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) Detailed statistics on the number of cases referred to external medical practitioners are not available.
  2. Yes.
  3. 3 ) Whether one doctor or more than one doctor is chosen to act as a tribunal to undertake a review depends on the nature and complexity of the case.
  4. The doctors are generally specialists.
  5. There is a right of appeal to the Director-General.
  6. Where as a result of a medical review it is found that an invalid pensioner has ceased to be permanently incapacitated for work, payment may be continued for a period of up to two months to give the claimant an opportunity to find work. This procedure is not followed where the nature of the case indicates that the claimant was never permanently incapacitated. Where payment is not continued in such cases, this is because the view is taken that the claimant is not lawfully entitled to the benefit sought. A person resident in Australia who loses a pension or benefit in these circumstances will normally be entitled to unemployment benefit if unable to find work.

Pensions: Payment Overseas (Question No. 1481)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1 979:

Are pensioners who request that their pensions be paid overseas under the portable provisions ofthe Social Services Act 1947 now required to sign an agreement that if the pension is cancelled while the person is overseas it cannot be reinstated unless the pensioner returns to live permanently in Australia; if so: (a) why; and (b) when was the condition imposed.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The form currently used for Application for Payment of Austraiian Pension overseas asks the applicant to acknowledge that, if his pension should be cancelled after leaving Australia, he cannot again receive pension without returning to live in Australia. Such advice was considered appropriate because the Social Services Act requires a claimant for pension to be residing in, and physically present in, Australia on the date on which the claim for pension is lodged.

Both the legal requirement and the form which currently relates to it were introduced prior to the term of the present Government.

Child Care Centres for Ethnic Communities (Question No. 1488)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 27 March 1979:

How many employers or employer groups have been approached by the Minister’s Department with a view to setting up work-related child care centres for ethnic communities- as recommended by the Galbally Report.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Recommendation 40 of the Galbally Report, the Report of the Review of Post-Arrival Programs and Services to Migrants, states:

The current child-care policy should be reviewed and the Government should give priority to funding child-care facilities at places of work, jointly managed by the employers and employees or unions. The employer should meet part or all of the capital cost with the Commonwealth providing assistance for equipment and recurrent costs’.

The practice in the administration ofthe Children’s Services Program is to respond to applications for funds, rather than to directly approach groups soliciting applications. However, to assist in the development of services among disadvantaged groups, grants are made available to bodies to work among migrants, or with, for example, trade unions and employers to assist in the development of applications.

It is proposed that letters be sent to a number of major employers to inform them of the availability of assistance from the Children’s Services Program with establishing workbased and work-related child care facilities and of the general conditions of eligibility and to invite responses from them.

Townsville to Mount Isa Air Route (Question No. ISIS)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:

When did discussions first take place with Trans-Australia Airlines and Bush Pilots Airways in relation to the possibility of Bush Pilots Airways operating on the Townsville to Mount Isa route.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

TAA sought approval by letter dated 1 1 December 1978 for a proposal whereby TAA’s F27 services on the

Townsville-Mount isa route would be replaced by Metro aircraft services operated by Bush Pilot Airways. After that date informal discussions were held between my Department and those operators. The proposal was not followed up by the operators when the Queensland Government opposed it.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1202)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd, (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd, (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd, (d) Dunkley International Ltd, (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd, (f) Denis M. Gilmour and Associations Pty Ltd, (g) International Public Relations, (h) Macintosh Parkes and Associates, (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd, and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2), (3) and (4) All individuals and organisations seeking to see me or my personal staff are accorded similar courtesies.

No special arrangements are made to record approaches by professional agencies. As they are not provided with any special treatment there is no reason why special arrangements should be made to record their approaches.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1220)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

What procedures exist within the Attorney-General’s Department to record approaches made to staff by Lobbyists.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. No special arrangements are made to record approaches by professional agencies; and
  2. As such agencies are not accorded any special treatment, there is no reason why there should be such special arrangements.

Killing of Protected Animals (Question No. 1236)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

Have the fines imposed upon Paul Anthony Nobbs and Kenneth George Skinner at the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions for killing protected animals, viz: two grey Kangaroos and a joey, in the Uriarra Forest yet been paid; if not, why not.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I am informed that in the Canberra Court of Petty Sessions on 4 January 1 979 Paul Anthony Nobbs was convicted on 2 charges, one of killing a protected animal and one of discharging a gun in a public place, both offences occurring on 31 August 1978. He was fined $100 on the first charge and $20 on the second. The Court allowed him until 4 April 1 979 to pay the fines which have not yet been paid. Action to enforce payment of the fines will now be taken. On the same day Kenneth George Skinner was convicted on one charge of killing a protected animal on 3 1 August 1978. He was fined $ 100 which was paid on S February 1 979.

Minister for Defence: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1344)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit,
  3. How many (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) ( d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so: (a) has the charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I ) to (7) I refer the honourable senator to the reply to Question No. 1335 which appeared in Hansard of 2 May 1979 (pages 1608-9).

Attorney-General: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1348)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Attorney-General since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what as the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Attorney-General’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Attorney-General on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred; (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Attorney-General; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Attorney-General; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Attorney-General; and (d) by persons other than the Attorney-General’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 )( d ) charged .
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part ofthe travel; if so: (a) has a charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Senate Question No. 1335 (Hansard, 2 May 1979, page 1608).

Minister for Administrative Services: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1352)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 28 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff, (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category (5) (d) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so: (a) has the charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The honourable senator is referred to the Prime Minister’s reply to a similar question on page 1 609 of Senate Hansard of 2 May 1979.

Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1359)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion. What was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members ofthe Minister’s personal staff: (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names ofthe persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) ( d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so: (a) has the charge been raised for

(D-

  1. Recommendations for appointment are made to me by Departmental officers after examination of formal applications and in the light of reports from referees and other inquiries as necessary. The final decision on appointment is made by me as Attorney-General.
  2. 3 ) Persons wishing to be considered for authorization as civil marriage celebrants must demonstrate qualities of capability, responsibility and general personal suitability. They must bc capable of understanding the provisions ofthe Marriage Act and of explaining those provisions to others. They must be able to attend to the documentation associated with a marriage and its subsequent registration. A proven record of community service can be helpful. such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister has supplied me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question 1335 (Hansard of 2 May 1979, page 1608).

Civil Marriage Celebrants (Question No. 1501)

Senator Button:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 28 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many civil celebrants have been appointed in each State and Territory in each year since the inception of the program.
  2. ) Who at present assesses the suitability of applicants for appointment as civil marriage celebrants.
  3. What specific qualifications and /or characteristics are looked for in applicants.
  4. What is the current fee for a celebrant to officiate at a marriage ceremony, and who decides and assesses this remuneration.
  5. Are courses provided for newly appointed celebrants to familiarise them with the program and ensure that certain standards are maintained.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

In selecting people for authorization, the emphasis is placed on providing suitable celebrants in convenient locations to meet reasonable community needs. Celebrants are expected to be readily accessible to the public and to be available to solemnize marriages at all reasonable times and places.

The fees which may be charged by a civil marriage celebrant for solemnizing a marriage are prescribed in the Fifth Schedule to the Regulations under the Marriage Act 1961 and are as follows:

  1. ) Neither religious nor civil marriage celebrants are provided with courses of instruction. All, however, are provided with a comprehensive handbook which sets out the marriage law and the duties and responsibilities of celebrants.

Qantas Airways Ltd: Employees’ Superannuation Rights (Question No. 1516)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) When were the conditions applying to superannuation rights of Qantas employees, referred to in the answer to Senate Question No. 1172 (see Hansard, 27 March 1979, page 1010), introduced.
  2. Does the Qantas administration usually rely on the memory of its staff, as implied by Part (2) ofthe answer, or does it also keep written records.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Qantas Airways Ltd staff superannuation plan came into effect on I June 1939 with major amendments being made, effective I July 1968. The twelve months qualifying period has been in existence since July 1950.
  2. The plan is effectively administered with appropriate written records being kept which are subject to Commonwealth Audit scrutiny.

Prices Justification Tribunal (Question No. 1522)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

  1. What has been the average number of persons employed by the Prices Justification Tribunal in each financial year since its establishment.
  2. How many persons were employed by the Tribunal at 3 April 1979.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Financial Year 1973-74-69 persons; 1974-75-114 persons; 1975-76-138 persons; 1976-77-119 persons; 1977-78-108 persons.
  2. 85 persons.

Family Allowances (Question No. 1526)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

Has research been undertaken in the Department of Social Security on an analysis of family allowances and where they are paid; if so, is there any reason why this research should not be released on request.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

It is not clear what information is being sought. My Department collects, as a by-product of its administrative processes, a range of statistics in respect of families in receipt of family allowances. The following information is available on request to the Department of Social Security:

Four-weekly statistics of families by number of children/students in family; family allowances paid to institutions; grants terminations and rejections of family allowances.

Quarterly statistics of families by number of children/students in family and children/students by age in postcode districts and Social Security regions.

Quarterly statistics showing the number of student allowees by total number of children /students in the family.

Selected statistics on family allowances are included regularly in the following publications prepared by my Department: Annual Reports, Four-Weekly Summary of Statistics, Annual Statistics, Ten Year Statistical Summary, and Recipients of Pensions, Benefits and Family Allowances in Postcode Districts and Electoral Divisions.

Queensland Air Services (Question No. 1553)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

Did the Trans-Australia Airlines timetable effective from 29 October 1978 indicate that on Sundays a Brisbane to Maryborough flight would depart from Brisbane at 4. 1 5 p.m. and a Brisbane-Maryborough-Bundaberg-Gladstone flight would depart from Brisbane at 5.20 p.m.: if so: (a) on which Sundays between 29 October 1978 and 25 February 1979 did these services not operate: (b) why did they not operate on each of these occasions: and (c) what are the details of any alternative flights which were arranged.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Yes.

and (b) On 17 December 1978 both flights were cancelled, together with most other domestic flights, due to a nation wide industrial dispute. On 3 1 December 1978, 7 and 28 January 1979 the Brisbane-Maryborough flight was cancelled due to extremely light loadings.

On 17 December 1978 no alternative flights could be arranged. On the three other ocassions the few passengers involved were transferred to Flight 292, from Brisbane to Maryborough, Bundaberg and Gladstone, that departed sixty-five minutes later.

Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (Question No. 1557)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

Has the Government been reviewing the role of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service; if so; (a) are revised guidelines to be set down; and (b) will they be made available to the Senate.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Yes. A charter for Aboriginal Legal Services has been under consideration for some time. In addition, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, at my request, is inquiring into Aboriginal access to legal aid. 1 am also arranging a review of the operations of the Aboriginal Legal Services in New South Wales.

I shall consider whether new guidelines are desirable in the light of the review; and

b ) if so, I shall inform the Senate.

Health Services for Aborigines (Question No. 1564)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) What changes has the Government recently made, or does it contemplate making, regarding the funding of health services for Aborigines in Australia, including arrangements for the Australian Aboriginal Medical Service.
  2. If funding arrangements have been, or are about to be altered, what is the reason for their alteration.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In August 1978, the Minister announced certain changes to the bulk billing procedures. He also approved that established Aboriginal medical services be given the opportunity of applying for Health Program Grants as an alternative to bulk billing. These grants would be available to meet the salaries and wages of doctors, nursing staff and receptionists employed in providing clinical services.
  2. In deciding to amend the bulk billing procedures, the Government was concerned to ensure that those people identified as being in genuine need of assistance should in fact receive it. The offer of a Health Program Grant to the established Aboriginal medical services as an alternative to bulk billing was in recognition ofthe valuable role these services play in the delivery of health care and the special needs of the Aboriginal people.

Disposal of Commonwealth Car CI (Question No. 1568)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the total cost of press advertisements calling for tenders for the disposal of the 1973 Mercedes 450 SEI sedan formerly Commonwealth Car C* 1 .
  2. What was the amount ofthe successful tender.
  3. 3 ) What was the amount of the highest tender.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) $3,450.00.
  2. $25,957.00.
  3. $25,957.00.

Unemployment Benefits (Question No. 1576)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 May 1 979:

  1. How many persons: (a) under 18 years; (b) 18 years and under 2 1 years; and (c) 2 1 years and over, receiving unemployment benefits, had their benefits terminated by the Department during 1978.
  2. How many appeals by persons in each of the above categories have been: (a) lodged; and (b) upheld.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Statistics relating to terminations of unemployment benefit recipients by age are not currently available. However, my Department expects to obtain such statistics towards the end of this year.
  2. Statistics of appeals in respect of terminations of unemployment benefit by age of the appellant are not available.

Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (Question No. 1580)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

Did an advertisement appear in the Bundaberg News Mail indicating that vocational counsellors would be in attendance at Bundaberg on 28 February 1979; if so, (a) did the advertisement state that rehabilitation service would be available to unemployed beneficiaries; and (b) was that statement correct.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

An advertisement appeared in the Bundaberg News Mail stating that vocational counsellors from the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service would be in attendance at Bundaberg on 26 February 1979:

Yes: the advertisement mentioned that rehabilitation services are availa ble to various categories of eligible handicapped persons, including unemployment beneficiaries.

b) Yes: under Pan VIII of the Social Serives Act 1 947, my Department, through the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, may provide rehabilitation treatment and training for various categories of handicapped persons including, for example, persons receiving invalid pensions, sickness or unemployment benefits.

Food Poisoning (Question No. 1593)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was the National Association of Testing Authorities registration of laboratories, referred to in the Minister’s answer to Senate Question No. 1389 (Hansard, 20 March 1979, p. 795), only one part of action proposed by the Department of Health in relation to food poisoning outbreaks, and were voluntary codes of Good Hygienic Practice and Product Recall procedures also to be introduced by industry.
  2. Was industry told that voluntary registration and codes of practice would become mandatory if industry response was not satisfactory.
  3. Has industry response in these three areas been satisfactory; if not, is the Department of Health prepared to move to the implementation of mandatory laboratory registration and codes of practice.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No. Industry was informed that general acceptance by industry of voluntary co-operation was seen as preferable to regulatory action.
  3. Co-operation of industry has been generally satisfactory. There is no intention at this stage to introduce mandatory laboratory registration and codes of practice.

Australian Legal Aid Office

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 13 September 1978 (Hansard, page 523) Senator Tate asked me the following question, without notice:

Is it a fact that the Estimates reveal that 44 fewer legal officers will be employed by the ALAO this financial year than last year?

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

The Estimate of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1979 shows that the estimate of average employment in the Australian Legal Aid Office for Legal Advice and Assistance in 1978-79 was 93 compared with actual average employment for Legal Advice and Assistance in 1977-78 of 137 (1978-79 Budget Paper No. 4, page 72). The estimated figure of 93 was based on the expected dates of commencement in 1 978-79 of State and Territory Legal Aid Commissions which were to absorb the staff of the Australian Legal Aid Office in the States and Territories concerned. Only the Legal Aid Commission (ACT) and the Legal Services Commission of South Australia commenced operation in 1978-79, on 3 July 1978 and 30 January 1979 respectively.

Electoral Redistribution Inquiry

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 13 September 1978, Senator Button asked me the following question, without notice: 1 ask the Attorney-General: Can he give the Senate an estimate of the total cost to the Government of the McGregor Royal Commission?

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

An amount of $29,581 was spent on the McGregor Royal Commission in 1977-78 and it is estimated that approximately $ 1 84,000 will be expended in 1 979-80.

Thai Radio Station

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 12 October 1978, Senator Harradine asked Senator Chaney the following question, without notice:

Has the attention of the Minister for Administrative Services been drawn to two items on AM on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week in which an Australian citizen admitted to doing broadcasts for the clandestine radio station operated by the Thai Communist Party with the admitted aim of supporting the violent overthrow of the Thai Government by the forces of that party? Has the Minister studied those items to determine whether action is indicated under the Crimes (Foreign incursions and Recruitment) Act or the Crimes Act?

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

I have examined transcripts of the two A M items referred to by the honourable senator. Neither transcript discloses an offence under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1 978 or the Crimes Act 1 9 1 4.

Telecom Australia

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 22 February 1979, Senator Watson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice:

My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, concerns the interim profit of Telecom Australia. When there is a change in accounting practice it is normal reporting procedure to indicate the dollar effect of such a change. Firstly, why was this not done in reporting the interim profit of Telecom and what was the amount involved? Secondly, why were substantial capital cost to Telecom written off in the year in which the costs were incurred instead of being carried forward or allocated to future years which would benefit from those costs, as is the recognised accounting practice in this country?

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

The Telecommunications Act 1 975 requires the Australian Telecommunications Commission to furnish the Minister as soon as practicable after 30 June each year a Balance Sheet and other financial statements in respect of the operations of the Commission for that year. These statements, which are audited and reported upon by the Auditor-General and reflect a high standard of disclosure, are prepared in accordance with standards promulgated by professional accounting bodies and appear in the Commission’s Annual Report which is tabled in Parliament.

There is no statutory requirement for the Commission to submit other than annual financial statements but the inclusion of an interim trading result in the Chairman’s announcement covering all Commission activities for the six months to 3 1 December is in keeping with normal business practice. The interim result while being established in accordance with normal annual closing of accounts procedures is not subject to audit by the staff of the Auditor-General’s Office. It Ls not the Commission’s practice to quantify elements ofthe interim result beyond those required of public companies reporting half-yearly results to the stock exchange, that is, turnover, depreciation charges and interest on borrowings.

On the general question of a change in accounting practice, the Australian Telecommunicaions Commission has a responsibility to keep its accounting policies and practices under review so as to accord with developments within the accounting profession. As part of the continuing review a study was made of the treatment of indirect costs in the accounts. The study researched the statements of Australian and Overseas Accounting Bodies, the writings of acceptable experts, and the practices of overseas telecommunications organisations, Australian public utilities and the business community generally.

The outcome of the review was that there was insufficient justification for maintaining the level of administrative expenditure formerly capitalised and in 1977-78 changes in the treatment of administrative expenditure at Commission Headquarters were introduced, resulting in certain administration costs, which in other years had been charged to Asset Accounts, being expensed. In accordance with normal accounting practice, the effects of these changes were disclosed in the Commission ‘s Annual Report for 1 977-78.

Currently the Commission is reviewing the treatment of administrative expenditure at State Head Office level for application in the 1978-79 Accounts and full details will be disclosed in the current year’s Annual Report. These changes were foreshadowed in the Commission’s Service and Business Outlook for 1978-79 tabled in the Parliament on IS August 1978.

South Australian Deputy Crown Solicitor

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 28 February 1979 (Hansard, page 332) Senator McLaren asked me the following question, without notice:

Is the Attorney-General aware that there is a serious delay in the determination of matters referred to the office of the Deputy Crown Solicitor in South Australia by Federal Government departments? As these delays cause inconvenience to many citizens, can the Attorney-General say whether the delays arc due to the Government’s fiscal policy and the resultant staff ceilings? If so, will he undertake immediate action to rectify the matter?

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

The Deputy Crown Solicitor in Adelaide has advised me that while some matters, mostly those of a more complex nature, are not able to be dealt with as expeditiously as he would wish, the work of his Office is, generally speaking, up to date. If, however, the honourable Senator is able to give me details of particular cases in which serious delay is said to have occurred, I shall have the matter investigated.

Payment of Wages by Cheques Subsequently Dishonoured

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 22 March 1979 (Hansard, page 877) Senator Ryan asked me the following question, without notice:

Is the Attorney-General aware of a loophole in the ACT Police Offences Ordinance of 1930 whereby it is not an offence to pay wages by cheques which are dishonoured. Is he aware of a submission that has been made to the Minister for the Capital Territory by the Australian Capital Territory branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union regarding this matter? Can he inform the Senate when action is likely to be taken to close this loophole in the Ordinance?

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

The Minister for the Capital Territory has referred to me a submission made by the ACT branch of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers’ Union of Australia concerning this matter. A review of the position in the Australian Capital Territory indicates that it is not an offence in the Australian Capital Territory to pay wages by cheques which are dishonoured and accordingly I have asked my Department to prepare legislation, for submission to the Legislative Assembly, to remedy this situation.

Women’s Shelter in Hobart

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 4 April 1979, Senator Walters asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice (Hansard, page 1270) concerning an advertisement by the Hobart Women’s Refuge. The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The Tasmanian Department of Social Welfare, which has immediate responsibility for supervision of women’s refuges in that State and through which Commonwealth funds are channelled, has expressed the view that this advertisement was not discriminatory since it stated that ‘a feminist principle would merely be an advantage ‘.

Because this refuge is conducted by a feminist organisation, it is, perhaps, reasonable to expect the organisation would have some preference for a worker holding feminist views. However, 1 consider that it would be preferable for such advertisements not to contain any such statements because the inclusion of a statement along those lines may deter an applicant who may be best qualified for the position but who does not hold feminist views. The primary objective of such an advertisement should be to obtain the services of a person best qualified to care for women and children in crisis situations. Accordingly, the Department of Health will be requesting the Tasmanian Department of Social Welfare to advise the Hobart Women’s Refuge that, for the reasons stated above, future advertisements should contain no such statement. In the event that this refuge does not comply, the question of continued funding under the Community Health Program will be reconsidered.

International Air Fares

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 5 April 1979 Senator Sibraa asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice:

Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources seen a statement from the chairman of a company called Expo of World Wines Pty Ltd in which he said that trading difficulties caused by strained diplomatic relations with South East Asian nations had contributed to the liquidation of his Melbourne company. Expo of World Wines Pty Ltd, and that the company’s difficulties had been magnified by the international air fares dispute. Can the Minister confirm or deny the claim? If the statement is correct, will further Australian companies be placed in difficulties while the air fares dispute continues?

The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: lt has been drawn to my attention that Expo of World Wines Pty Ltd, an Australian company which had planned to stage a world wine exposition in Singapore during May 1979, is in the hands of receivers. On the basis of information available to the Government it would appear that there were a number of commercial reasons which led to the failure of the company.

I can assure the honourable senator that trade relations between Australia and the ASEAN countries are developing on a satisfactory basis. The approach being taken by both ASEAN and Australia to the current International Civil Aviation Policy discussions is both cordial and constructive.

Aerosol Sprays

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 5 April 1979, Senator Gietzelt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs a question without notice (Hansard, page 1361) concerning the health hazards of aerosol sprays and the steps taken to protect consumers. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs subsequently referred the question to the Minister for Health.

The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following information:

Yes. The Department is aware ofthe report and also, that over recent years a number of deaths have been associated with inhalation of aerosol products. However, these have been as a result of abuse or misuse of such products.

The Poisons Schedule (Standing) Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee have investigated aerosol products and concluded that the dangers to consumers were minimal when such products were used correctly and for the purpose intended. Statistics collected by the National Poisons Service of the Depanment of Health support the conclusions of these Committees that the incidence of accidentia! poisonings involving aerosol products is minor in comparison with other commonly used domestic products.

Aerosol products such as air fresheners, deodorants, hair sprays and insect sprays are freely available on the Australian market providing they contain no scheduled poisons or therapeutic substances which would preclude their unrestricted sale to the general public. Certain therapeutic preparations such as bronchodilator aerosols are restricted and arc only available on a doctor’s prescription.

The discharge of very large amounts of aerosol into a room would be necessary to produce a concentration of pro.pellant which could be considered dangerous. This would be most unlikely to occur. The main danger arises from the inhalation ofthe undiluted contents of an aerosol can from e.g. a plastic bag as is the practice in aerosol ‘sniffing’. This practice is potentially lethal. The active ingredients e.g. pyrethrins in insect sprays are usually in concentrations too low to present any danger to human health or are, in themselves, innocuous substances. It is the propellants, such as isobutane, propane or halogenated fluorocarbons which present the greatest danger if inhaled in high concentrations. The environmental and public health effects of these aerosol propellants are being kept under continuing review by the Australian Environment Council and the NH & MRC.

A number of mechanisms have been postulated to account for deaths resulting from aerosol sniffing. These include anoxia, narcosis, oxygen displacement from the lungs, freezing injury to the lining of the lungs, laryngeal spasm or oedema and acute cardiac arrest. Cardiac arrest is probably the most frequent cause of death.

The NH & MRC recommend warning statements and first aid instructions to be included on the labels of commercial products. Labelling of products including a ‘poisons’ warning and first aid instructions is controlled by State and Territory Legislation. This is considered to be the most effective way of alerting consumers to the safety aspects of particular products.

Appreciation by the public of the dangers of misuse of products is essential if tragedies are to be avoided.

Christian League of Southern Africa

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 5 April 1979 Senator 0 ‘Byrne asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question, without notice:

I refer to the so-called Muldergate scandal in South Africa and to an article appearing in today’s Australian from the World Cable Service in London which states:

The South African Government has secretly spent about $500,000 to discredit or destroy the World Council of Churches.

The article continues:

The money was spent on an organisation called the Christian League of Southern Africa which for years has conducted a campaign against the World Council of Churches. 1 ask the Minister: As the Christian League of Southern Africa, which was set up to conduct this campaign, plans to open offices in the United States and Britain, has our Government any knowledge of plans to extend this campaign or to open an office in Australia?

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

The Government has no knowledge of any plans by the Christian League of Southern Africa to extend its alleged campaign against the World Council of Churches to Australia or to open an office in Australia.

Tertiary Education: Victoria

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 1 May 1979 Senator Robertson asked me a question, without notice (Hansard, pages 1463 and 1464) concerning the preparation of a strategy plan by Victoria for the allocation of capital funds for TAFE purposes for the period 1980-82 and when this strategy plan would be available to the Commonwealth.

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

The strategy plan referred to is that which the Technical and Further Education Council requested the Victorian Authorities to prepare in connection with the allocation of capital funds for 1980 and which is referred to on page 200 of the Tertiary Education Commission’s Report for the 1979-81 Triennium. Volume 2, Recommendations for 1979.

In early March 1979 the Victorian Department of Education forwarded to the Technical and Further Education Council of the Tertiary Education Commission an outline of its Facilities Strategy Plan for 1980-82. This plan is intended to set the pattern for the future development of technical and further education operations in Victoria as they affect facilities.

The Victorian authorities have advised the Council that the target date for the completion ofthe Strategy Plan is July 1979. The individual projects submitted for Commonwealth funding in 1980 are those which accord with results already obtained from this study.

Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 2 May 1979 Senator Teague asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question, without notice:

I note that today is the thirty-first anniversary of Israel ‘s independence. I ask the Minister will the Government consider moving the Australian Embassy from the city of Tel Aviv in Israel to the capital city in that country, Jerusalem. I acknowledge that a number of countries have their embassies in the much larger city of Tel Aviv but given the increasing independence and security of Israel, I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider moving the Australian Embassy to the capital city, Jerusalem.

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

The Australian Government has no plans to move the Australian Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Visits by the Royal Family

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 2 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1 543-4) Senator Tate asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question, without notice, concerning the cost of visits to Australia by Princess Anne and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The primary purpose of Princess Anne ‘s brief visit is to undertake engagements associated with the Save the Children Fund of which Her Royal Highness is World President.

The figure of $25,000 mentioned in recent press reports as the cost of the visit is pure speculation. The visit is scheduled to take place from Thursday 19 to Monday 23 July.and details have not yet been finalised. It is therefore not possible to provide, at this stage, an estimate of the cost.

Funds being appropriated in relation to visits during the current financial year by other members of the Royal Family are detailed in the Appropriation Bill No. 3 (see Items 500/3/ 10, 500/3/ 1 1, 500/3/ 12, page 45).

Industry Program Groups (Question No. 946)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Who decides that a particular industry requires study and aid through an Industry Program Group, and what criteria are used in making the decision.
  2. How is representation in an Industry Program Group determined, and by whom.
  3. What requests for legislative changes have resulted from the studies of those Industry Program Groups which are currently operating, and from which groups have such requests emanated.
  4. How much, per group, has each Industry Program Group cost.
  5. Which industries have benefited from the operation of the Industry Program Groups, and in what way.
  6. What criteria are used to assess applications from companies for grants for industrial research and development.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. I ) Decisions that particular industries require study and aid through an Industry Program Group are made by various authorities. In respect of the seven Industry Program Groups (IPGs) currently working, such decisions were made as follows:

Textiles, Clothing and Footwear IPGs- formed as a result of Government decision;

Tyre IPG- formed as a result of a Temporary Assistance Authority Report on the Tyre Industry of September 1977;

Tanning IPG- formed with my agreement in February 1978 as a result of a request from the Federated Tanners Association of Australia, and a desire expressed by the Footwear IPG, which was already operating, to include suppliers (tanning is complimentary to footwear as well as being of export significance);

Whitegoods IPG- formed following Industries Assistance Commission Report No. 16 of 3 February 1978; and

Forging IPG- recently formed in order to adopt the tripartite approach in a program that predated the IPG concept (forging was the first pilot program within which operating techniques have been tested ).

For the honourable senator’s information, requests have been received from seven other industries for my Department to work with them. In general terms, the referrals from the Industries Assistance Commission and the Temporary Assistance Authority are likely to absorb most of the effort available in the Department in the short-term future.

As regards criteria for selecting particular industries which require study and aid, the criteria in genera] are as follows: a perceived need; a willingness on the industry’s part to work with my Department; and the availability of departmental resources.

The priority of other matters such as labour intensiveness of the industry, its contribution to Gross Domestic Product, strategic value, export potential and the like are very important criteria for selection of work areas but these have not yet been employed as all available resources have been committed to the industry sectors to which the Department has been directed by other Government decisions.

  1. Representation is determined by round table talks with industry and unions. Where a number of unions are involved in an industry, representation is requested from the one or two largest and, by arrangement with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the remainder are kept informed through the ACTU.
  2. None.
  3. It is not possible to identify with any accuracy, the costs attributable to the activities of each IPG. This is because the management of each Industry Program overlaps those activities which have been initiated by each IPG.

The cost of operating each tripartite IPG is shared between each ofthe organisations represented. The major cost to the Department has been the administrative cost associated with the fares and allowances necessary for departmental members attending the regular meetings.

  1. All the industries involved in IPGs have benefited. The way in which they have benefited varies slightly from industry to industry. For example in the footwear industry, the IPG has published a footwear report which has been distributed to all footwear manufacturers and is accepted as a standard referral document in the industry for improving company efficiency. In addition, technical standards have been established for one particular style of shoe making (cemented soles) and these standards have been published. An investigation is now underway to investigate the general area of ‘clicking’ in the industry. Two seminars on items of specific interest to the industry have been run and specialised training courses have been set up in co-operation with the Industry Training Council. Individual help has been given to a number of companies. Group membership of the Shoe and Allied Trade Research Association of Great Britain has been arranged and subsidised. This will give all industry members direct access to all the latest materials, technology and test facilities.

In the clothing industry, demonstration programs have been carried out in one firm and a second set are under way in another firm. These have been written up and publicised and the results are available to any clothing firm interested, including discussion and demonstration. The Clothing IPG has also run a specialised training course in consultation with other departments on lay planning. Further courses on such matters as management and control systems are being planned.

The textile group is not quite so far advanced but a report to the industry on the towelling sector has been proposed and is about to be published; the report demonstrates areas of corporate efficiency and inefficiency.

In the tanning industry an active program on materials handling is under way, and in the tyre program the industry is currently discussing product rationalisation- including with the Trade Practices Commission.

In the area of working environment, at least two companies and one union have held discussions with departmental experts on the possibility of setting up 9-day fortnights, and assistance on new factory layout to ensure optimum working conditions has been given to others.

The honourable senator will appreciate that these are but some of the highlights ofthe work done in this area. The general reaction of industry to the programs has been particularly favourable. The Department’s work with other industries is limited only by departmental resources.

  1. Eligibility criteria are set out in detail in S4 ( I ) ofthe Industrial Research and Development Act 1976. In addition on 6 April 1977, 1 issued a direction that the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board shall take into consideration, when evaluating applications from companies for grants for industrial research and development projects, the following criteria:

    1. the technical and commercial merits of the project, including its likely contribution to improvements in industry efficiency and in utilisation of resources, particularly Australian resources;
    2. the capability and resources of the company to undertake, or have undertaken, the research and development work necessary;
    3. the ability of the company to exploit commercially the results ofthe project;
    4. the need by the company for the provision of Commonwealth financial assistance to permit the necessary research and development work and the commercial exploitation of the project to proceed at a satisfactory level and within a reasonable period of time.

Productivity Surveys (Question No. 947)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 24 October 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What productivity surveys has the Department of Productivity conducted.
  2. 2 ) Which industries have been surveyed.
  3. ) What are the results of the surveys.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) National surveys have been undertaken on a regular basis to identify management and personnel practices influencing productivity and the quality of work life of employees.

The Department of Productivity’s Human Relations Branch has undertaken specific surveys on subjects which include absence from work, varied working hours, shift work, induction and recruitment practices and redundancy practices.

New surveys now being developed will examine the impact of new technology and personnel attitudes toward parttime work and work sharing.

Also through the Department’s association with the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia (PPCA) surveys are made of a variety of aspects of productivity. In 1978 two surveys were completed, one in the area of physical distribution and the other concerning enterprise productivity measurement. In November 1978 a third survey commenced into computer-aided manufacture.

Details of these three surveys are as follows:

Physical Distribution Management (PDM)

The survey was conducted jointly with the Caulfield Institute of Technology and covered 205 manufacturing and tertiary industry business undertakings. Its aim was to establish how the management of physical distribution is organised in Australian industry and to identify strategies for improving efficiency through an integrated approach to PDM. The relevant report was released in November 1978.

The significance of this study rests on the fact that physical distribution costs the Australian economy between 15 per cent and 30 per cent of Gross Domestic Product.

Enterprise Productivity Measurement

The survey covered 150 PPCA member companies and was aimed at establishing the current state of the art at enterprise level.

Computer-aided Manufacture

The study is aimed at establishing the extent of use of this technology in the typical Australian business. This study is still under way.

  1. Representative samples are developed for these surveys and consequently, all industries are encompassed in the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy.
  2. The results of the surveys of the Human Relations Branch are published in the quarterly journal, ‘Work and People’. Specific reports are also produced and distributed to survey participants and others with a direct interest.

The results of the two surveys which were conducted with the PPCA, and have been completed, were:

Physical Distribution Management Survey (PDM)

The survey indicated that management of physical dis tribution in Australia today is only partially integrated, by contrast with the more fully integrated management of the function in advanced overseas industrial economics; that the Australian tendency is to fail to co-ordinate enterprise-level marketing, production and data processing functions with the physical distribution function; and that a major reason for this was the typical organisational structures in Australian business do not provide for a single line of authority to link these functions.

Enterprise Productivity Measurement

As a result of this survey, which showed that only 3 per cent of Australian enterprises make a total measure of enterprise productivity, a program of workshops on the technique to assist implementation of appropriate methodologies has commenced.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1183)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) On what dates since 10 December 1977 has the Minister or members of his personal staff met representatives from: (a) Canberra Liaison Pty Ltd; (b) Cramb Tariff Services Pty Ltd; (c) Peter Cullen Pty Ltd: (d) Dunkley International Ltd; (e) Ronald C. Fisher Trade Consultants Pty Ltd: ( f) Denis M. Gilmour and Associates Pty Ltd; (g) International Public Relations; (h) Macintosh, Parkes and Associates; (i) Eric Walsh Pty Ltd; and (j) Eric White Associates.
  2. What organisations was each firm representing on each occasion.
  3. What was the name of each person present on each occasion.
  4. Where did each meeting take place and what was its duration.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

No special arrangements are made within my office to record approaches by professional agencies. As these agencies are not accorded any special treatment, there has been no reason to implement such arrangements.

Departmental Approaches by Lobbyists (Question No. 1210)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1 979:

What procedures exist within the Minister’s Department to record approaches made to staff by lobbyists.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

No formal procedure exists in my Department for recording of approaches made by lobbyists. As no special treatment is accorded to these agencies there is no reason why there should be any special arrangements.

Minister for Primary Industry: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1338)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of the persons in category (3) (c) above, in what capacity were they travelling, and who paid their fares and other expenses.
  5. What was the total cost incurred: (a) in connection with the travel undertaken by the Minister; (b) by departmental officers accompanying the Minister; (c) by personal staff accompanying the Minister; and (d) by persons other than the Minister’s personal staff and departmental officers.
  6. To whom were the costs incurred by persons in category ( 5 ) ( d ) charged.
  7. Were the aircraft of No. 34 Squadron used for all or part of the travel; if so, (a) has a charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to Question No. 1335 (Hansard of 2 May 1979, page 1608).

Maroochy Airport: Jet Passenger Aircraft (Question No. 1430)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Department of Transport’s notice been drawn to a statement by Maroochy Shire Chairman, Councillor E. D. De Vere, in the Sunday Mail, 4 March 1979, that he expects that medium jet passenger aircraft may be operating at Maroochy airport within two years.
  2. Has any approach been made to the Department of Transport to operate such jet services.
  3. Would the introduction of jet services to the Maroochy airport require staff that are not currently available at the airport for air traffic control and fire services; if so, what are the details.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2) The Department of Transport is aware ofthe statement by the Maroochy Shire Chairman, Councillor E. D. DeVere. however, no firm proposals have yet been formulated on this matter.

There is a possibility that jet aircraft could be introduced into some air services in NSW and Queensland into airports such as Maroochy at sometime in the future to cater for growth in traffic and the inevitable need to replace the existing F27 aircraft. However, the Department has had only preliminary discussions with the airlines regarding their proposed timing for the introduction of jet aircraft, the possible aerodromes that they would operate at and the type of aircraft that may be used. Extensive investigation work will have to be undertaken to justify the upgrading of the services as considerable expenditure will be required not only to improve the aerodromes but to provide the required standard of air traffic control and emergency services. For these reasons a decision on the upgrading of some Queensland air services to jet standard cannot be expected for a considerable time.

  1. Although some additional staff would be required, it is not possible to quantify the requirement until a firm proposal is received.

Anzac Day Ceremonies in Queensland (Question No. 1581)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

Which members of Parliament represented the Prime Minister at the 1979 Anzac Day ceremonies in Queensland, and at what places.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Prime Minister was represented at the following Anzac Day services and ceremonies in Queensland on 25 April 1979:

The National Shrine Service (Brisbane)- 4.28 a.m. by Mr J. C. Hodges, M.P.

St Stephen’s Cathedral ( Brisbane )- 9.00 a.m. by Mr P. F. Johnson, M.P.

March Past and Commemoration Service (Brisbane)- 10.30 a.m. by the Honourable D. J. Killen, M.P.

Women’s Refuges

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-On 10 May 1979, Senator Harradine asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a further question (Hansard, pages 1797 and 8) concerning an advertisement appearing in the Age for the Victorian Western Region Women’s Refuge.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

A letter purporting to have been forwarded by an organisation known as the Victorian Women’s Refuge Group was received in the Department of Health on 3 May 1 979. Because the letter was unsigned and, more importantly, because the matter was then under consideration by me, in a Parliamentary context, there was no Departmental response to the letter.

Community Health Program funds are not available for political activities. This is clearly reflected in the reply to the honourable senator’s previous question of 4 April. (Hansard 10 May 1979, page 1892).

The Government made available $1 million in 1977-78 and $3 million in the current financial year for women ‘s refuges. This enabled continued Community Health Program funding of 19 refuges that had been approved prior to 1977-78, as well as the commencement of funding of an additional 64 refuges. The 64 refuges more recently approved for funding include refuges conducted by organisations such as community service groups, the Lutheran Church, the Legion of Mary, the Salvation Army, the St Vincent de Paul Society, an ethnic welfare organisation, the Baptist Church and the Save the Children Fund.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 May 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790523_senate_31_s81/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant