Senate
4 June 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2513

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) left Australia on Sunday for a visit to China, Europe and the United States of America. Mr Peacock will attend the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ministerial meeting in Paris and will meet with the Secretary-General of the United Nations in New York. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is acting as Minister for Foreign Affairs during Mr Peacock’s absence. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is expected to return to Australia on 23 June. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) left Australia on 1 June to attend the International Conference of Women Leaders in Israel and to take up activities associated with the International Year of the Child in the course of visits to Europe and the United States. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) is acting as Minister for Social Security until Senator Guilfoyle ‘s return to Australia on 24 June. Senator Chaney will represent the Ministers normally represented by Senator Guilfoyle in this chamber.

page 2513

PETITIONS

Indexation of Pensions

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 40 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 and read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 324 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 construction 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.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 173 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.

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:

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 Senator Carrick.

Petition 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 Senator Lewis.

Petition received.

page 2514

COMMENCEMENT OF NEW BUSINESS AFTER 10.30 P.M

Notice of Motion

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

- Mr President, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 68 be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings.

page 2514

QUESTION

POKER MACHINE CONTROL (AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE 1979

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -Mr President, on behalf of Senator Ryan, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2514

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2514

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Education. I refer the Minister to his guidelines for the Tertiary Education Commission issued on 9 June 1978. In these guidelines the Minister stated:

The Government may find it possible to review the capital allocation for 1979 and the Commission -

That is, the Tertiary Education Commission- is asked to have in reserve some high priority projects which could be added to its recommended program.

I ask: What effort did the Tertiary Education Commission expend in preparing such a list of high priority projects and in fact were any further projects added? With the benefit of hindsight does the Minister regard this somewhat ad hoc method as the best way of planning capital expenditure in education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I recall the statement to which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition refers. I am happy to tell him that the Tertiary Education Commission did provide a list of high priority building projects amounting to some $5m- those projects included, for example, the Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of New South Wales- and that the Government was able to proceed with them. If being able to start new jobs a year or six months ahead of time is ad hockery, let us hope that the Government will always be able each year to make additional ad hoc arrangements. I think it has been a very useful expenditure of an extra $5m.

page 2514

QUESTION

UPGRADING OF TASMANIAN AIRPORT

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In view of statements that have been made, particularly one by Sir Reginal Ansett that he would support the upgrading of one airport on the north-west coast of Tasmania to jet port standards, can the Minister advise, firstly, whether there has been an investigation into the prospects of such an upgrading; secondly, whether at any time there has been an estimate of cost; and, thirdly, whether, with the support of the major operators, government support could be expected?

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

– The honourable senator has asked a series of questions relating to a statement made by Sir Reginald Ansett supporting the upgrading of one airport on the north-west coast of Tasmania to jet port standards. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that evaluations of the various options have not been undertaken. No estimates of costs are available as yet, and as a result the Government’s attitude to the upgrading of airports to jet port standards will have to await the outcome of those evaluations. In other words, the Government does not have adequate information at the moment to make the sort of decision in which the honourable senator is interested.

page 2515

QUESTION

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

- Mr President, I direct a question to you relating to a statement you made in the Senate last Thursday concerning a matter which had been raised by Senator Cavanagh. In your statement you said:

  1. should I receive any Further information, I shall, of course, immediately acquaint the Senate.

As co-chairman of the Joint House Committee, Mr President, will you obtain the following information: During the last few weeks, was a barbecue set from the Senate courtyard missing for several days? Was the set eventually found in the Senate garden? Did the Acting Speaker call a member of the House of Representatives into his office for discussions on the removal and use of the set?

The PRESIDENT:

– As I indicated last Thursday, I shall be making a further statement. In respect of the specific questions put by the honourable senator, I shall consider the matters raised and obtain a reply for him.

page 2515

QUESTION

TRADE WITH PERSIAN GULF COUNTRIES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources studied reports which estimate that by 1985 countries of the Persian Gulf area are likely to be importing products and raw materials to the value of $2 1,000m, which is a dramatic increase from the present value of $6,000m? What are the latest steps being taken by the Government to increase its share of that trade, given Australia’s position? Further, has the Government initiated any program for Australian businessmen and exporters to enable them to understand the particular circumstances of the Persian Gulf countries, taking into account styles of negotiation, knowledge of Arabic and the fine requirements of the Islamic religion? Finally, has the Government any plans for additional ministerial visits to be made to those countries, in view of the fact that France sent over 20 Ministers to those countries last year?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The Minister for Trade and Resources is aware of the enormous potential for trade with Middle East countries. A number of steps have been taken to ensure that Australia participates as fully as possible in those developments. The Minister for Trade and Resources visited Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain in February this year and realised at close hand what enormous strides those countries have taken. On that visit the Minister was accompanied by the chairmen of the Australian Wheat Board, the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Overseas Projects Corporation, the Metal Trades Industry Association and the Livestock Exporters Association and the Secretary-General of the Australian Automobile Association. The visit enabled the Minister to explore the possibilities of expanding trade in a large variety of commodities. He signed a memorandum of understanding with the Saudi Arabian Government in relation to meteorological services. At the Minister’s invitation, the Ministers of Commerce from Bahrain and Saudi Arabia visited Australia this month. A trade, economic and technical agreement with Bahrain was signed and an economic and technical cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia was initialled.

Major seminars within Australia have been organised to bring to the attention of top Australian businessmen the great opportunities in the region and promotional missions and displays are planned for next year to follow up the interest expressed. In September or October this year the Government expects to see the Ministers of Commerce from both Kuwait and Iraq come to Australia to sign trade, economic and technical co-operation agreements. The Government is pleased to see that the States are playing a very active role in encouraging a greater awareness of Australia’s capacity to supply the Middle East with products and skills. For example, at the present time a specialist mission of agricultural experts from Iraq is in Australia and will be touring South Australia and Western Australia.

page 2515

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of a previous decision regarding the provision by the Australian Government Department of Housing and Construction of essential services, including water supply, bore maintenance, electricity generation and general technical advice to Northern Territory Aboriginal communities which have moved to their homelands? Has the provision of all or some of these services been suspended? Can the Minister advise whether this change in policy is part of a program to enable the Federal Government to hand over the sections of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory to the Northern Territory Government?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I know of no suspension of the nature mentioned by the honourable senator. There has been, of course, an assumption of responsibility by the Northern Territory Government for the provision of essential services, including water supply. That may be the matter to which the honourable senator refers. His question as to the handing over of the sections of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory to the Northern Territory Government is not based on fact and there is no intention to take action of the sort he mentioned.

page 2516

QUESTION

BEEF IMPORTS BY THE UNITED STATES

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. If the United States Congress passes the Ways and Means Committee’s recommendation that United States beef imports be restricted to 1 .2 billion lb, does this mean that the multilateral trade negotiations agreement entered into by Mr Anthony and the United States Administration will have to be renegotiated?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am sorry, but my attention was interrupted while the question was being asked. However, I did get the drift of the question and I will refer it to the Minister for Trade and Resources.

page 2516

QUESTION

CRICKET TELECASTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the announcement on 30 May of an agreement between the Australian Cricket Board and PBL Sports. Is the Minister aware that PBL Sports is a wholly owned subsidiary of Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd of which the Channel 9 network is part and whose chairman and managing director is Mr Kerry Packer? Does this agreement and earlier ones between the Board and PBL Sports have these effects: to give Packer Channel 9 exclusive rights to televise cricket for the next three years; and to give Mr Packer rights to promote cricket for the next 10 years? In view of these decisions what action has the Government taken to protect the public interest, as it could be construed that this agreement is a device to circumvent the Trade Practices Act? In future will other television stations be able to tender for rights to televise cricket in the knowledge that their bids will be fairly considered?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The honourable senator asked a series of questions which in one form or other have come up in this chamber previously. With respect to the agreement of 30 May, I have seen reports of that agreement but I have not seen the agreement itself. With respect to the technicalities as to precisely who owns PBL Sports, I have to say that I have never made inquiries as to the precise ownership but I have always understood that it was a company which came within what is called the Packer group. I think the general drift of what the honourable senator put before the Senate is probably correct.

As to whether the agreement provides exclusive rights to broadcast cricket over three years, my understanding is that that is the position. However, I am relying on reports as I have not sighted the agreement. I am not aware of the 10-year period for the promotion of cricket which was referred to by the honourable senator. I will refer those aspects of the question which are beyond my knowledge to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and seek a further reply.

With respect to what action the Government has taken, honourable senators would be aware of discussions which took place within one of the Senate Estimates committees with representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which at that stage had not received any communication at all from PBL Sports although there had been Press speculation, and indeed speculation in this Parliament, about the role that the ABC might play in filling the gaps left around Australia by the commercial network. But whether there has been any further action taken by PBL Sports to treat with the ABC is a matter about which I will have to make some inquiries. The suggestion which the honourable senator made that the agreement might be in breach of the Trade Practices Act is, as far as I know, a novel one. I pick it up with great interest and, like him, I will eagerly await a reply.

page 2516

QUESTION

TAX AVOIDANCE SCHEMES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to an advertisement in the National Times of 3 June soliciting subscriptions of $300 to ‘Doityourself Tax Schemes Account, Harry Walsh,

The Tax Scheme Brokers’, at an address in North Sydney? Does the advertisement state that such a direct payment entitles a subscriber to a do-it-yourself tax scheme documentation kit which, while stated to have been approved by a leading tax barrister, does not indicate the name of that practitioner? Does the Minister agree that the advertising of such tax schemes must be the epitome of rampant tax scheme retailing, deserving not only investigation by the Taxation Commissioner but also the attention of the Trade Practices Commissioner to ensure that inexperienced people subscribing $300 are not ripped off without first having referred the so-called approved documentation to an independent legal adviser for opinion?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I saw a fairly large display advertisement in the National Times and, from memory, it advertised a do-it-yourself tax avoidance kit. It seemed to me that if it was skidding on the edge of legality, it was certainly plunged into the depths of unethical behaviour.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Immorality.

Senator CARRICK:

– And, indeed, immorality; I accept that. Certainly it would merit investigation at the various levels that Senator Messner indicated, including the Trade Practices Commission. I think that the good old-fashioned commercial law principle of caveat emptor- let the buyer beware- ought to be understood by everybody, because any Australian who proceeds to enter into what he or she thinks is a tax avoidance scheme cannot yell or protest if the Government plugs the hole and people’s fingers get caught in the dike. Let me make that perfectly clear. Along with that advertisement, in the blackest of letters, should go ‘Let the buyer beware’.

page 2517

QUESTION

POST-GRADUATE AWARDS

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education and seeks to draw his urgent attention to the growing graduate brain drain out of Australia as a result of the Government’s attitude towards post-graduate research grants. Can the Minister explain the cutbacks in the number of Commonwealth postgraduate awards from 875 in 1975 to 680 in 1979? Has there been a severe deterioration in the value of the grants, due partly to the eroding effect of inflation which has brought some of Australia’s most useful and enthusiastic research workers virtually down to the poverty line? In view of the relatively small amounts of money necessary to remedy this situation, will the Government consider reasonable increases in the amount of these grants to apply as soon as possible?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of any correlation between any suggested brain drain out of Australia and the number of grants. If Senator Mason can give me any kind of proof that that is the situation, I will be happy to hear of it. He must know that due to the steady demographic state in respect of population in Australia at present, opportunities for academics have not accelerated in the way they did during the population boom. Therefore, there would be a tendency for academics to seek opportunities elsewhere if such opportunities existed. The reduction in post-graduate grants was made at a time of Budget restraint and in the knowledge that those grants represent only one part of an overall pattern of research undertakings and assistance throughout Australia, and should be taken as such. I am conscious of the fact that the Williams Committee has indicated the need to upgrade research, including post-graduate research. When opportunities occur I will be eager to represent such ideas to the Government in due course. I cannot comment on the immediate future. The number and size of the grants are Budget and policy matters on which I cannot comment. As to the value of the grants, I am happy to say that in its early years in office this Government was able to remedy, to I think at least the degree caused by inflation, the erosion that had been caused during the term of office of the previous Government. It is true that the imposition of taxation has created an erosion. I am conscious of that and have the matter under consideration.

Senator MASON:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question which arises from the Minister’s reply. Is he aware that the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations feels, and has expressed the opinion, that there is the beginning of a brain drain which may increase as a result of these matters?

Senator CARRICK:

– I cannot say that that specific point has impacted upon me. I am aware that the Association is keen that post-graduate awards should be increased in both number and value. I would certainly be very interested to have any practical information on the matter.

page 2517

QUESTION

NABARLEK RADIOACTIVITY LEVELS

Senator KILGARIFF:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Mention was made on AM this morning that a report from the Department of Science and the Environment indicates that radioactivity levels at Nabarlek uranium mine in the Northern Territory are higher than was previously indicated, and that the health of workers there may be endangered. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether the report is correct? If so, are sufficient safeguards being carried out, and what is the present overall situation?

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

– I heard this morning’s AM report on the subject and I understand that it referred to my Department’s assessment report on the final environment impact statement prepared by Queensland Mines Ltd. In accord with normal practice in the administration of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act, the Department’s report was referred to Mr Anthony, Mr Howard and Senator Chaney, the three Ministers with direct responsibility for Commonwealth decisions relating to Nabarlek. It was also referred to Queensland Mines and to the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory. The report was not referred by my Department to the Uranium Advisory Council.

The report indicates that it is difficult to make estimates of radiation levels until mining actually commences, and that continuous monitoring is required to guide mining operational practice. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has made estimates of radon daughter and gamma ray exposure levels, which are five to ten times higher than estimates made by Queensland Mines in the environment impact statement. The Department’s report recommends that appropriate environmental protection measures be taken in order to safeguard the health of workers. I believe that the point of the honourable senator’s question is met by the fact that these measures have been incorporated as conditions of the approval to mine, and that they are being implemented by the company in respect of its operations, which commenced recently. The honourable senator knows, of course, that responsibility for ensuring compliance with these conditions rests with the Northern Territory Government.

page 2518

QUESTION

LEAD LEVELS IN CHILDREN

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for National Development seen the report of a two-year survey, headed by Professor L. Smythe of the University of New South Wales, which states that almost a quarter of 1 ,200 children tested in Sydney had levels of lead in their blood above those found to cause adverse effects on health and behaviour? I also ask whether it is reasonable that large sections of the community be exposed to high levels of lead, carbon monoxide and dioxide and sulphur dioxide, when the remedy is in the Government’s hands- to promote the use of liquid petroleum gas, which contains only minute quantities of pollutants and, at the same time, to bring about huge savings in oil imports and public health costs.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This question, insofar as it relates to a report, of which I am not aware, of a Professor Smythe concerning the level of lead in children and others in New South Wales, would appear to be more appropriate for reference to the Minister for Health. Senator Elstob has endeavoured to relate it to the portfolio of the Minister for National Development, whom I represent, in that he believes that the promotion of the greater use of liquefied petroleum gas would assist to overcome the problem. On several occasions I have stated in this chamber, on behalf of the Minister, what is the Government’s policy in relation to the encouragement of greater use of LPG. I refer Senator Elstob to those statements. However, I will refer his specific question to the Minister for National Development in case there are any additional matters that the Minister wishes to add.

page 2518

QUESTION

DRUG TRAFFICKING AND CORRUPTION

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In addition to the purported drug corruption matter currently under investigation, the Attorney-General will be aware that a Melbourne author, Mr John Halpin, claimed in a book released last week that he has evidence of involvement of Federal narcotics agents and State police in drug trafficking. I make it clear that I acknowledge the honesty and dedication of the majority of the people involved in combating drug trafficking. I believe that is beyond question. I appreciate that in many cases their occupation places their lives at risk. Nevertheless, does the Government agree that in criminal activities such as this where literally hundreds of thousands of dollars are involved the probabilities are very high that there will be bribery, corruption and blackmail? Will the Government take and adopt expert advice on the steps necessary to limit these probabilities of bribery, corruption and blackmail associated with drugs arising not only with Federal narcotics agents and police but also in surrounding areas, such as judges and their staffs, prosecutors, magistrates, lawyers and their staffs and even the Minister’s own Department and his own staff?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Lewis has cast a question in very wide terms. Many of the aspects of the matter that he has raised are not within the area of the Federal Government’s responsibility in that they refer to State police and presumably State law enforcement and legal authorities. I have very little knowledge of but have heard about the publication of the book to which Senator Lewis has referred. I have not yet had the opportunity of considering it or taking any advice in relation to it. I will do so in due course. To that extent 1 will take note of the question and give it further consideration. As to the broader aspects which Senator Lewis has raised, in many respects they deal with the portfolios of other Ministers. For instance, I do not have direct responsibility for the police or the Federal Narcotics Bureau. As other Ministers would be interested in the question, I will take steps to refer it to them.

page 2519

QUESTION

EARTHQUAKES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. It arises through my having been shaken out of my usual apathy on Saturday afternoon in Perth by an earthquake. Is the Minister satisfied that his Department has available to it sufficient means of assessing the possibilities of further earthquakes or earth tremors in Western Australia, part of which does appear to lie on a fault? Is he satisfied that particularly Commonwealth property in Western Australia is so constructed as to be safe in the event of a future earthquake or earth tremor? Does he believe that adequate work is being undertaken altogether by the Department of Science and the Environment to inform people in Western Australia of future dangers and the best means of avoiding them?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– It may cause something of a stir if I suggest that that question be directed to the Minister for National Development. I think that the Department of National Development, through the Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, is the appropriate body to respond to it. My Department would not be able to comment on whether sufficient information regarding this matter is gathered in Australia.

Senator Wheeldon:

-The CSIRO?

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Wheeldon is correct in that the Department of Science and the Environment has some reference to the matter. For instance, in Alice Springs my Department has the responsibility for the management of an operation called the JGGS- the Joint Geological and Geophysical Station. That is more or less a monitoring operation concerned with movement in the plates of the earth and nuclear explosions. The monitoring that takes place so far as the Federal Government is concerned is done by the Department of National Development. A number of universities, certainly in South Australia, have an interest in the various stations that are established. I am quite certain that an assessment as to whether sufficient monitoring is done is not carried out within my Department.

page 2519

QUESTION

PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYMENT

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs aware that certain statutory corporations, including Trans-Australia Airlines, and some government departments have an unwritten policy of not employing people who have been employed previously by other statutory corporations and departments where there is a substantial long service leave entitlement? Would the Minister not agree that this is a blatant discrimination and is against Government policy on employment? Will the Minister issue written instructions that the practice be discontinued forthwith?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have no personal knowledge of the policy referred to by Senator Watson. I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations and/or the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

page 2519

QUESTION

PASSPORTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the Fidler trial in Sydney concerning a drug conspiracy and to further evidence of this resurrection from the dead, as it were- the practice of using dead people’s names on passports. The Minister gave an assurance to the Senate that legislation was in the offing to block off this sort of white collar crime. I wonder whether he can give the Senate an updated report on what is happening on the legislative front.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question is a significant one. I do not have the information immediately available. I will seek that information and let the honourable senator have it.

page 2519

QUESTION

OCEAN ISLAND

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– Is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of recent reports that the Banaban people of Ocean Island, many of whom live on the island of Rambi in Fiji, wish to regain control of Ocean Island and intend to take direct action in an effort to achieve this end? Can the Minister indicate whether any disruption has occurred on Ocean Island? If so, what form has this taken? Can he say whether the Australian Government has taken any action with respect to these developments?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have a brief regarding the Banabans. I am advised that the Government certainly is aware of the desire expressed by the Banaban people to achieve independence on Ocean Island, separate from the Gilbert Islands of which they constitute a part. The Government has always taken the view that the issue is one to be settled by the principals- the Banabans, the Gilbert Islands Government and the British Government. It has, nevertheless, given its support to proposals for generous offers of compensation to the Banabans by the British Phosphate Commissioners, who mine the deposits on Ocean Island. In an incident last February, a number of Banabans destroyed some of the mining facilities on Ocean Island. They are now subject to procedures in the civil courts. Fortunately, no further destruction has occurred since, although a group of some 95 Banabans landed on Ocean Island recently- that is in mid-May- with the declared intention of closing down the mining operations. It is our hope that further confrontation will be avoided, especially as on 16 May there was a meeting in Fiji of Banaban and Gilbertese leaders, under the auspices of Ratu Mara, in which a spirit of reconciliation was evident. It is our hope that a compromise approach will prevail in this issue. We look forward to the Gilbert Islands, including Ocean Island, becoming independent as the Republic of Kiribati- I am told that that is pronounced ‘Kiribus’- on 12 July this year.

page 2520

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION FUNDS

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs by reminding him that superannuation funds belonging to employees of the Bank of Adelaide were used to bolster the ailing Finance Corporation of Australia by directors who held directorships in FCA, the Bank of Adelaide and the superannuation fund. I ask the Minister: What can be done to ensure that employees’ superannuation funds are not appropriated and endangered in this way? Further, will the Government consider encouraging- by legislation if necessaryemployee representation, including relevant trade union representation, on bodies entrusted with employees ‘ superannuation funds?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 2520

QUESTION

DRUG ABUSE

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Health seen a report in the Press from the drug rehabilitation agency, We Help Ourselves, suggesting that a critical situation in drug use exists across Australia and that an even more critical situation might exist in the next few years? Does the Minister agree that the figures quoted are important and that rational public policy will be most effectively offered on the basis of accurate measurements of the problem? In light of that, does anyone know what are the real usage levels of the drugs in question, and is there any firm basis for the kinds of projections the agency has made?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I did see the newspaper article to which the honourable senator has referred. I have to agree that the figures quoted, if correct, are important and very sobering. I think that what the honourable senator put is axiomatic- that sensible policies do have to be based on ascertained facts. I will make some inquiries to ascertain whether the figures given in the article are accurate and, if they are accurate, on what basis they were obtained, and let the honourable senator have that information.

page 2520

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY RESERVE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and /or the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Social Security, refers to a report about unemployed citizens who join the Australian Army Reserve. The Minister will have seen recently a very useful advertisement, supported by the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, and Mr Hawke, who advocated encouragement by government agencies and employers to young people to join the Reserve and pointed out the tax-free advantages. Has the Minister seen the report in today’s Canberra Times indicating that, in contrast with what happens to public servants, these young unemployed citizens suffer a disadvantage when they are serving in continuous camps or undergoing periods of training. If the Minister has not seen the article, will he inquire into it and confer with the Minister for Defence and with Senator Guilfoyle, if necessary, to see what can be done to correct this position?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the endeavours by way of a bipartisan approach to encourage young people to join the Australian Army Reserve. Indeed, I support that approach wholeheartedly. I also believe that nothing should be done to their detriment if they join the Australian Army Reserve. I have not had the benefit of the opportunity to look at the Canberra Times today, but if detriments are emerging, certainly they ought to be brought to the attention of the Minister for Defence. I will do so and ask the Minister to study the matter and take whatever action he can.

page 2521

QUESTION

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment, concerns statements reported today by the head of the wildlife division of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Mr Bill Jordan, who is visiting Australia. Mr Jordan has said that Australia has become a leader in conservation due to its stance on whaling. My question relates mainly to the importation into Australia of seal products. Firstly, is it true that it is illegal for seals to be killed in Australia? Secondly, will the Minister consider a total ban on the importation of seal products? Thirdly, will the Government consider a ban on the importation of products from any endangered species in the world?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I acknowledge the question which the honourable senator has addressed to me. I believe that in many ways Australia has become a leader through its environmental legislation. Indeed, in recent months, the Federal Government has taken a most major stance by declaring the Kakadu National Park. The abolition of whaling in Australia’s coastal waters and the Government’s decision to proceed to an international forum to argue that whaling should be prohibited certainly have made Australia a leader in that field. The assessment of the importation of seal products has been raised because of the killing of harp seals in their culling season in Canada. It has been put to me generally that this is a matter for the Canadian Government. It has been stated that the type of killing that takes place is the most humane that can take place, and that science investigations in Canada have endorsed the way in which it is carried out. I am not aware whether that is fact.

I can assure the honourable senator and the Senate that the Government is at present considering its attitude towards the culling of seals. I certainly take the honourable senator’s question as being of immense importance to him. He raised a query as to whether there should be an end to the importation of any products from endangered species. I am unsure of the ambit which that may embrace. I will take that question on notice and see what reply I can give to the honourable senator.

page 2521

QUESTION

AIRLINE EMPLOYEES: DISMISSALS

Senator EVANS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to the summary dismissal last Thursday of two airline traffic clerks in Melbourne- Mr Michael Atkinson of TransAustralia Airlines and Mrs Carol Stamp of Ansett Airlines of Australia- both of whom have been involved in organising a new union, the Airline Employees Association. These dismissals have already resulted in a degree of industrial disputation around Australia. Does the Minister agree that these dismissals appear to be blatant and quite intolerable instances of employer intimidation of legitimate trade union activity? Will he set in train an investigation to determine whether the dismissals contravene the industrial intimidation provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act introduced in 1977, or does the Government regard its only obligation in industrial relations as being to protect employers?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Dealing with the last part of the question first, the Government certainly does not take the view suggested by Senator Evans. I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations and draw his attention to the matters raised by Senator Evans. Presumably the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Bureau.

page 2521

CONTRACEPTIVE PILLS: HEALTH

page 2521

QUESTION

WARNING

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Advice has been given that packets of contraceptive pills in Britain are to carry an official health warning. Women who have the pills prescribed by their doctors or by family planning clinics will be given a warning leaflet with the pills. As the first company to issue the warning- the Schering company- also markets contraceptive pills in Australia, will the Government insist that this company distribute the warning with its product in Australia? Will the Government arrange for similar products to carry a similar warning?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Health for reply.

page 2521

QUESTION

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. The Government will be aware of Mr Hayden ‘s proposal that to combat youth unemployment, with all its long term morale sapping effect, a youth voluntary service program should be established. Has the Minister noted in today’s Press reports that the National President of the Returned Services League has indicated the full support of the League for Mr Hayden ‘s scheme? Does the Minister agree that Mr Hayden ‘s proposal merits the fullest consideration by this Government and community organisations so that a just solution to the grave situation facing our young people may be reached?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

page 2522

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK

Senator BUTTON:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Is it a fact that the boundaries of the proposed Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park overlap the areas of permits Q/4P and Q/5P?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I believe that that question should be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development.

page 2522

QUESTION

MAIL ADVERTISING

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications: Are householders required to provide a receptacle for the reception of mail articles delivered by Australia Post? Can the Minister say whether householders are required to receive other than mail in their boxes? Does the householder have any redress in relation to such receptacles being filled with advertising material? Is the Minister aware of the growing resentment in the community at the unauthorised use of letter boxes by major business houses? Has the Government received any complaints from Australia Post about letter boxes being so filled with advertising junk that articles of mail cannot be properly delivered?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am beginning to think that I am unaware of all sorts of interesting things. The only complaints that I have ever heard about letter boxes have come from many people I have met who strongly resent the rubbishy literature that is poked into their letter boxes at election times by Labor candidates. Apart from having had that complaint put to me time and time again, I have heard remarkably little comment on advertising material about such things as refrigerators, and so on. It may be that I do not receive the complaints because I only represent the Minister in this place. I will make inquiries to see whether Mr Staley has been receiving a different form of complaint from those which 1 have been receiving. If he has, I will let the honourable senator know. In light of my earlier answer, I am sure it will be clear to the Senate that I am not aware of any growing resentment in this field. Again, I will seek Mr Staley ‘s guidance on that matter. I will also seek his guidance as to whether there have been complaints from the postal people about their inability to stuff the boxes further with Her Majesty’s mail.

page 2522

QUESTION

GLOBAL ATMOSPHERIC PROGRAM

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Minister for Science and the Environment to the Australian drifting buoy program for the global weather experiment. Passing reference has been made in the Press recently to the Global Atmospheric Program, or GARP, and also to the First GARP Global Experiment, or FGGE. Could the Minister outline briefly the Australian program in relation to the drifting buoy segment? What does he see as the objectives of the program? When can we expect to see some results from the program?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Over the past few years there has been a gradual upgrading in the type of weather forecasting taking place, not only in Australia but also in other countries. I believe that during the last 3 or 4 years a better service has been provided in Australia to important areas such as aviation, agriculture, and certainly shipping, which may be dependent upon the forecasts that emanate from the central office in Australia. That is endorsed by the fact that over the past 2 or 3 years we have commenced taking direct imagery from a Japanese satellite, and a cloud picture is received every three hours. That has enabled great refinement to take place. We are part of the World Meteorological Organisation, which for a number of years has been planning the program mentioned by the honourable senator. The Queensland Government, which is interested in cyclones and the damage they can cause, has raised this matter with me.

We as a country have entered into the first Global Atmospheric Program, which the honourable senator mentioned, and that experiment is progressing at the present time. A couple of years ago it was necessary for the Government to decide to contribute to that program. To the best of my understanding, over 300 drifting buoys have been deployed throughout the world. They have satellite connections and they are sending to the satellites information on atmospheric pressure and ocean temperature. Previously there has been no possibility of us in Australia gaining such information. As much of Australia’s weather is determined by what occurs in the southern oceans, over a period we in Australia have been able to deploy about 50 of the buoys developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. It is an enormous advance in understanding the origins of the weather patterns for this country. The honourable senator’s question raised a matter which is very important, not only to his State but to the whole of Australia.

page 2523

QUESTION

MONITORING OF EARTH MOVEMENTS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Science and the Environment a question which follows the most unsatisfactory answer he gave to a very serious question asked by Senator Wheeldon. Will the Minister check with his Department to see to what extent such earth movements are monitored and will he discuss the matter with the Minister for National Development?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I accepted Senator Wheeldon ‘s question as being very important. Indeed, over many years the subject of that question has been -

Senator Gietzelt:

– The answer sounded very facetious to us.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Well, I may have misunderstood Senator Mcintosh’s question. I thought that the question asked whether I would take up with my Department the matter of an assessment of the situation concerning earthquake monitoring and discuss the matter with the Department of National Development.

Senator Mcintosh:

– Yes, that is right.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If the honourable senator desires a short answer, the answer is: I will look at the honourable senator’s question and give him a reply.

page 2523

QUESTION

SKYLAB SATELLITE

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– As Senator Wheeldon has drawn our attention to subterrestrial events, I wish to move to the matter of the air space above. The Minister for Science and the Environment will remember that earlier this year I asked him a question on the proposed re-entry date and re-entry path for Skylab. Now that we seem to be getting very much closer to that event, can the Minister update our information on where Skylab is likely to come to earth and at what time?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-As late as this morning my Department conveyed to me information to the effect that the re-entry path of Skylab is still a matter of some conjecture. I think that the term which scientists use in respect of that re-entry is the critical path’, or words similar to The information I received this morning was that apparently it is possible for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to move the space laboratory in such a way that the path it is following at the present time can be changed somewhat. NASA is still unaware of the exact path of Skylab ‘s entry into the earth’s atmosphere. Its path can be varied from one which perhaps is more critical in terms of populated areas. I am unable to convey any more information than that to the honourable senator, but I will seek an adequate statement on the matter and see that he receives it at the earliest opportunity.

page 2523

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Is Mr Groom, who represents the Minister for Science and the Environment in the other place, adequately briefed on important matters within the Minister’s portfolio? If he is, why did Mr Groom fail to correct Mr Newman when Mr Newman gave what the Government claims was an incorrect answer to a question from Mr Humphreys last Thursday?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-With due respect, the honourable senator really should put the question on notice. It is quite futile to ask: ‘Is Mr Groom adequately briefed?’ The honourable senator should recognise from the last half a dozen questions that have been asked of me that it would be impossible for me to be adequately briefed on all subjects which come within the portfolio of Science and the Environment, let alone for the Minister who represents me in another place to be adequately briefed on them. The honourable senator also asked me why the Minister did some particular thing or why he did not do it. With due respect, I am unable to answer for that Minister.

Senator WALSH:

– I ask a supplementary question. Perhaps I should clarify my original question for Senator Webster. I ask: Is Mr Groom adequately briefed, and was he adequately briefed on or before last Thursday, on matters pertaining to the boundaries of the proposed Capricornia national park and the infringement of oil exploration permit areas on those boundaries? The rest of the question follows from there.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I would be pleased if the honourable senator placed the question on notice. If he does, I will read it and see whether I can get an answer for him.

page 2524

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DRINK DRIVING LEGISLATION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory consider introducing into the Australian Capital Territory legislation similar to that implemented in Victoria to detect those who drink and drive? I believe that this is particularly important following the proven success of the Victorian legislation.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator surprised me when she proposed that the Australian Capital Territory should introduce legislation in respect of those who drink and drive. I would be surprised if the Australian Capital Territory did not have legislation which had some bearing upon this matter. Perhaps the honourable senator is suggesting that any legislation or regulations in the Australian Capital Territory should be in line with the legislation in Victoria, which prohibits people with an alcohol content of over 0.05 per cent from driving, whereas the laws in some of the other States and possibly the Australian Capital Territory are more liberal. That is something to which I am unable to respond. I will treat the question as a question on notice and ensure that it is directed to the Minister for the Capital Territory.

page 2524

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY ELECTION

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to the result of last Saturday’s election for the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly? I also ask him whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by Mr Haslem, the member for Canberra, blaming the Government’s policies for the result and saying that the Government ought to be prepared to stand up and take a bit of notice. Will he now put into operation the advice which he gave to the Labor Government between 1972 and 1975 and allow all the electors of Australia to pass judgment on the present Government, as did the residents of the Australian Capital Territory on Saturday?

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I thought that the whole of the Australian Labor Party’s case was against precipitate elections of any kind. After all, members of the Labor Party were very annoyed and vociferous- that will be found in Hansardwhen in 1977 this Government went to the people one year ahead of time. They thought that was a sinful thing to do. No doubt this is another reversal. My reading of that phenomenon over the weekend was overshadowed only by my reading of another phenomenon whereby a cuckoo in the nest here has been disturbed by a predatory hawk and is seeking out another nest. Let me simply say that the instinct of selfpreservation in the Labor Party ought to make Konrad Lorenz’s book On Aggression fully understood. I commend to all honourable senators the reading of Lorenz’s book On Aggression. If there was a significant situation over the weekend, it was the re-emergence within the Labor Party of the civil war which has for some 60 years destroyed that Party and which will do so again in the decades ahead.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate a very pertinent question which he did not answer. I asked whether the Government intended to take notice of the suggestion from Mr Haslem, the member for Canberra, that it ought to stand up and take notice.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-If Senator McLaren means to ask whether we will be interested in the election results and will comport ourselves so that we doubly ensure that we win the next Federal election, honourable senators can be assured that we will do so and that we will keep Australia under very good government indeed.

page 2524

QUESTION

EDUCATION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. Has the Government considered the Neal-Hird report on Northern Territory education? If so, are its recommendations to be implemented? Will the proposed transfer of the Northern Territory section of the Department of Education to the Northern Territory Government on 1 July 1 979 have any effect on the recommendations of the report?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The question asked by Senator Kilgariff implies that the Neal-Hird report was specifically on Northern Territory education. This was not the case, as it dealt with the professional staffing of schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The recommendations of the panel on the Northern Territory were considered by a working party composed of the parties involved in education in the Northern Territory, but implementation of the working party’s recommendations was deferred pending negotiations with the Northern Territory Government on the hand-over of education from 1 July. These recommendations have now had the endorsement of the Northern Territory Minister for Education as improvements that he would like to see implemented in the Northern Territory education system. However, they involve a considerable expenditure of Commonwealth money and, therefore, are being reviewed by the Government in the context of Budget discussions. The honourable senator can be assured that the Government will be endeavouring to provide the Northern Territory Government with resources to apply these recommendations as early and as far as possible.

page 2525

QUESTION

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK

Senator BUTTON:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is it a fact that the boundaries of the proposed Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park overlap the areas of permits Q/4P and Q/5P?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer the question to the Minister for National Development.

page 2525

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. In the course of my remarks last Thursday in the debate on the High Court of Australia I had occasion to make reference to Sir Garfield Barwick ‘s ‘closest judicial and legal admirers’. By one of those inspired but presumably inadvertent slips that afflict even the most professional publishing enterprise this reference appears in the daily Hansard as a reference to Sir Garfield Barwick ‘s judicial and regal admirers’. I do not know whether Sir Garfield has any regal or royal friends and I certainly would not presume to speculate on that subject. However, I would certainly not wish it to be thought, particularly after 1975, that I assumed that he had any such admirers. Accordingly, I would appreciate it if that correction could be noted pending the appearance of the weekly Hansard.

page 2525

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

The PRESIDENT:

– On 31 May I made a statement to the Senate concerning an allegation by Senator the Hon. James Cavanagh involving a member of the House of Representatives. Today I have received a letter from the Acting Speaker which reads:

Speaker’s Office House of Representatives Canberra 4 June 1979

Dear Mr President,

On Thursday night last 31 May the honourable Member for Isaacs (Mr Burns) in a personal explanation drew the attention of the House to a serious accusation made against him in the Senate by Senator Cavanagh.

Mr Burns stated that the allegation of Senator Cavanagh was completely untrue and Mr Burns asked me as Acting Presiding Officer to take certain action.

After considering the matter I made a brief statement (o the House in which I said I would send a copy of the honourable Member’s remarks made in the House to you with a request that you take such action as you deem appropriate.

Accordingly, I attach a copy of the Hansard report of Mr Burn’s personal explanation.

I have acknowledged Mr Acting Speaker’s letter and sent to him a copy of Senate Hansard of 3 1 May containing my statement to the Senate concerning the matter and the statement in response by Senator James Cavanagh. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I will have that statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

The PRESIDENT:

– Earlier in the sitting Senator James Cavanagh raised a matter concerning an alleged assault within the rose garden of Parliament involving a member of the House of Representatives and the housekeeper. With the concurrence of the Acting Speaker I have inquired into this matter. I have now received a signed statement from Mr W. G. Burns, Member of the House of Representatives for Isaacs, and advice from Mr Donnelly, Secretary of the Joint House Department. Mr Burns ‘ statement reads:

I have been told that a speech was made in the Senate this afternoon accusing me of assaulting the Housekeeper of the Parliament. That allegation is completely untrue.

I did not hear the speech and I have not been able to get a copy of it from Hansard.

I will deal with any other allegations which might have been made in the speech when it is available to me but 1 repeat, any allegation that I have at any time assaulted the housekeeper is completely untrue.

Mr Donnelly has advised as follows:

The statement of events made by Senator Cavanagh has been read to and discussed with Mr Pretty by the Secretary, Joint House Department, Mr Pretty has denied knowledge of all the alleged events.

The Secretary, Joint House Department has denied that Mr Pretty was called before the administration of the Department or threatened.

Because of the serious nature of the allegations, I have responded as quickly as possible. For the moment I cannot take the matter any further. However should I receive any further information, I shall, of course, immediately acquaint the Senate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-by leave-I have no desire to injure any man with false or untruthful statements. The Hansard record will show that when I made my statement today I commenced by referring to the story as one which I thought was well known about the Parliament. It is a story that has been repeated by stewards and staff in Parliament House. I was informed by a person who I thought was a reliable informant and, having told the story, I expressed my desire to protect the workers of this building. Mr President. I asked you to inquire into this incident and the question of what protection the workers in this place have. I also mentioned in my speech that, on the information given to me today by my informant, at that stage Mr Pretty was prepared to say that the incident did not happen. That was stated this morning. 1 accepted my informant as reliable. I will have to go back to him to see whether the allegations can be supported. If he is willing to do so, I will have to raise the matter on another occasion. Because there is no proof to substantiate the allegations at this stage, I apologise to anyoneI have injured and to the Senate.

In my statement to the Senate of 3 1 May, I indicated that, should I receive any further information on the matter, I would immediately acquaint the Senate. I have this day received from the Secretary, Joint House Department, a statement which reads:

Allegation by Senator Cavanagh

Departmental investigations have been carried out into the following aspects of the allegations by Senator Cavanagh. These investigations have failed to produce any evidence in support of the allegations made.

Medical Treatment

The record of medical treatment given in the first-aid room contains no entry to support the statement that Mr Pretty was ‘doctored with bandaids, et cetera, in the first aid room’.

Barbeque Fire

The foreman Gardener has reported there is no evidence of recent fires being set or lit in the Senate or House of Representatives Gardens.

Administrative Action

The senior administrative staff of the Department comprise:

The Secretary- Mr E. J. Donnelly

Sccurity-Co-ordinator- Mr W. J. McLaren

Chief Executive Officer-Mr R. L. Burrell

Senior Administrative Officer- Mr M. D. T. Niven

They first became aware of the allegations as a result of Senator Cavanagh ‘s statement and each has denied involvement in or any knowledge of any administrative action or threats directed against Mr Pretty.

Police

Enquiries have been made of the Commonwealth Police and the preliminary police reply indicates that the police patrols were not aware of any incident of the nature alleged.

It has not been possible to interview the female employee allegedly involved because she is not identified in the allegations and the joint House Department has no information which would enable identification.

J. DONNELLY 4 June 1979 1 will communicate to the Acting Speaker a copy of the statement I am now making, including the statement handed to me this day by the Secretary of the Joint House Department.

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

– by leave- My attention has been drawn to the extract from the Hansard report of the House of Representatives which was referred to you, Mr President, by Mr Acting Speaker, and I also understand that today in another place Mr Burns has requested that action be taken at the level of privileges, whether by joint privilege or otherwise. As I understand it, on 31 May Mr Burns said:

I request Mr President to take appropriate action for Senator Cavanagh ‘s gross abuse of the privileges of Parliament, his false accusations against my integrity and his slanderous statements regarding my behaviour.

Of course, the matter does not reflect on Mr Burns only. It reflects very heavily upon a wide range of officers of the Joint House Department, over which you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker have administration. It is imperative that the matter be cleared up and I simply rise to ask whether, in the light of the requests made to you, you will look at this matter and consider what further action it is competent for you to take in regard to those requests, and in particular, the use of this place in regard to allegations concerning people, either in another place or outside of the Parliament, who need and deserve the protection of the Parliament.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave-The Opposition had no knowledge that this course was to be adopted today. Whilst I do not find any particular difficulty because of that I am sure it has not been the best situation for Senator Cavanagh to be confronted with this statement today without some prior knowledge of it. I understand that the matter has now been referred to the Privileges Committee of the House of Representatives, at the instigation of Mr Burns, the relevant member of the House of Representatives. If one looks at the situation revealed by the documentation before the Senate, the first thing which is clear is that on 31 May in the House of Representatives what Mr Burns was asking for was an apology from Senator Cavanagh. I was present in the Senate on the night of 31 May, when I believe Senator Cavanagh made a most dignified apology to this Senate in the circumstances.

Even today, Mr President, you allowed questions and undertook to give answers to questions raised in this place which go to the circumstances of this matter. You were asked by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) to look further into the matter. On behalf of the Opposition I invite you to look into a number of matters which go to the validity of the statement made on behalf of the Joint House Department which is not, with the greatest respect, a very specific document in terms of the discussion of this matter which has gone on. I also invite you to look at some of the circumstances raised by Senator O ‘Byrne in his statement today, and to look at the apology which was made by Senator Cavanagh on the night of 31 May. I reiterate that, with the greatest respect, in the difficult circumstances of this matter, which Senator Cavanagh illustrated in his apology on Thursday night, it would have been proper for some notice of this procedure to have been given today.

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia )-by leave- On Thursday my statement was denied by the one person who I thought would admit it was true. I said in the statement that it could not be substantiated. Therefore, 1 did the only thing which I thought proper, which was to apologise to anyone I had injured with that statement. Recorded in Sir Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice is a case which arose in the House of Commons in which a member was brought before the Privileges Committee for making a derogatory statement against another member. Because he had apologised by letter, and the statement was made outside the House, no further action was taken. I would welcome an inquiry into this question because, whilst I was prepared to apologise, I would like many of the witnesses to give evidence on oath and under cross-examination. I notice that the housekeeper did not make a statement to you, Mr President; a statement was made by the Joint House Department. Like Senator Button, I think this inquiry ought to be extended to the whole of the activities of the Joint House Department. There are many revelations to come out of this. Notice has been given in the House of Representatives of a motion that the matter be referred to the House of Representatives Privileges Committee. Senator Carrick has asked that you, Mr President, do what is necessary. Whilst I welcome any investigation into the matter, I do not think I should be accused twice. Mr President, you and Mr Speaker must decide between yourselves which committee deals with the questionthe House of Representatives Privileges Committee or, as a result of action by the President of this Chamber, the Senate Privileges Committee.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- Honourable senators will recall that last week when the matter was raised, the Opposition moved to adjourn the debate and the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) intervened. Honourable senators were all pleased to accept what the Government leader then did, which was to accept the apology of Senator Cavanagh. I thought at that time that the Government was taking a very sympathetic and compassionate approach to a problem that had flared in this place. I was of the opinion that as far as the Senate was concerned the apology was accepted and the matter was over and done with. But it seems to me now that we are about to go back over the whole of this untidy affair. It will not serve us very well if that happens.

What seems to have emerged from today’s debate is a suggestion from the Leader of the Government in the Senate that you, Mr President, should look at this matter. I do not think he suggested a reference to the Privileges Committee but merely to you to view and to decide whether it was a matter for the Privileges Committee. I suggest that the good sense that prevailed last should again prevail and that the Senate should consider the matter closed. It is an extraordinary situation. Rumours have swept through this Parliament in a most unreal fashion. From the short appreciation that I made of the matter during a dinner recess last week, it emerged as one of the strangest sequences of events which led two people- Mr Burns and Senator Cavanagh- into difficulties. My opinion is that the Senate was correct last week in accepting the apology and that as a Senate we should consider the matter closed. Nothing that will do any of us any good at all will come out of this. For that reason I am taking the opportunity to impress upon you that perhaps that is the better course to take.

Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia

-by leave- Mr President, I am troubled still that it is proposed that this be a closed matter. An honourable senator has made allegations, it appears, on the basis of very limited evidence. As a result of those statements, newspaper, radio and television reports have heightened rumours that have been circulating in the community to the great disadvantage of a member of parliament. Indeed, in the statement he just made, Senator Cavanagh alleged that many revelations are yet to be made. If the Press were to take up that statement, there could be a continuation of those stories in the media. The original allegation, which was based upon limited evidence, may be further compounded with a resultant reflection upon the Parliament as a whole and also upon individual members of parliament.

I believe that the call for investigation of the aspect of privilege in this matter has not been satisfied by statements made in the Senate this afternoon. I believe that the requests for you to carry out what you regard as being the proper investigations into this matter should be complied with. I do not believe that this is a closed matter. I believe that if any honourable senator or honourable member makes such an allegation on the basis of limited and inaccurate evidence, there should be some redress for the offence.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- I have little doubt that there is nothing further to be done on this matter this afternoon. What 1 think was said by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick)- I have spoken briefly with him since he sat down- arose out of the material which you, Mr President, have put before us today. You put that material before us pursuant to the undertaking that you gave when you spoke on Thursday, that if you received any further information you would immediately acquaint the Senate. Part of the material you put before us was an extract from the House of Representatives Hansard of 3 1 May, which sets out Mr Burns ‘s requests. Those requests include requests to Mr Speaker and requests which he asked Mr Speaker to pass on to you. The requests to Mr Speaker have been acted on to some extent in that there has been a communication with you. Mr President. As I understand it, no suggestion has been made that Senator Cavanagh should be brought before the bar of the House of Representatives. That was the first request made by Mr Burns. His second request reads:

  1. . I request Mr President to take appropriate action Tor Senator Cavanagh ‘s gross abuse of the privileges of Parliament . . .

It continues, but I wish to refer just to that part. I think all the Leader of the Government was saying was that in the course of your consideration of this matter, Mr President, and as part of any inquiries that are continuing, at some stage you should indicate to the Senate your attitude to the various requests that have been put before you. That would be simply an indication of a view point, I think. Any action would depend on whether the Senate wished to move in a particular direction. The request has been made publicly that appropriate action, whatever that is, be taken- I say that without wishing to make any inference as to what it is- with respect to an alleged abuse of privilege. That is a matter on which at a later stage the Senate usefully might hear your views. I think we should leave any further discussion until then.

Senator Cavanagh has raised an important principle about which honourable senators would be concerned but where there is probably no formal protection. Drawing an analogy with trial proceedings, he said that he would not wish to be tried twice. That is the sort of matter on which I think all honourable senators would wish to ponder. One of the most disturbing things about the whole area of privilege- whether we are using it and making statements under its cover or whether we are concerned to protect the Parliament- is the ill definition of what that privilege entails. It is a matter that I know concerns may honourable senators on this side of the chamber and I am sure that it concerns honourable senators opposite, some of whom would have debated this years ago in the context of the Rae report. These are difficult matters, Mr President, and I respectfully suggest that, having heard your comments this afternooon, we should await your further comments. We can then give the matter further consideration, if it appears necessary.

The PRESIDENT:

– I assure honourable senators that I will consider the statements made this afternoon.

page 2528

CHILD MIGRANT EDUCATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971 1 present a report on provisions for child migrant education for the year ended 30 June 1 978.

They enter school as a hostile system, where language and culture has little relationship to their homes and relatives. They struggle to understand teachers and content material. They suffer indignities because they are different and because they came here as welcomed settlers.

Gradually, they learn to forget who they are, and lose the ability to speak in their mother tongue. They often become semi-linguals: speaking fluently neither their first language nor their second. They most probably never learn to read in their home language, and may have considerable difficulties learning to read the second.

That statement is quite contemporary and current in regard to the problems which migrant children or ethnic community children face. These problems are again dealt with in the survey to which the article refers, that is, the study by Bourke and Keeves entitled Australian Studies in School Performance: Volume III- The Mastery of Literacy and Numeracy. At page 1 93 the authors say:

What is hoped is that more can be done in the future to improve the educational opportunities of children from migrant backgrounds. More assistance must be given to all migrant students so that they understand English sufficiently well to take part in normal classroom activities.

Migrant students must also be given special assistance in order that they develop reading skills appropriate for their level of development. The provision of such assistance appears to be particularly necessary in areas of high migrant density which occur within the urban areas of New South Wales and Victoria.

In an educational context that statement might be described as a statement of assessed need. I want to make some brief comment on the response to that need. Firstly, let me refer to the concerns of ethnic communities about this matter, as illustrated in ethnic newspapers. For example, the Maltese Herald had this to say:

The Federal Government is expert in setting up Committees, inquiries and commissions which yield no substances . . . the migrant is no fool and a halt should be called to this exercise in futility.

That quotation relates specifically to migrant education, but, of course, it could be ascribed to a vast range of the present Government’s endeavours both in education and elsewhere. Neo Kosmos said :

What is needed is not another committee but Government action on recommendations made by previous Committees on migrant needs.

II Corriere di Settegiorno stated:

Migrants have become interesting animals to be studied like the platypus and the wombat.

I appreciate and Senator Carrick, as Minister for Education, would appreciate that the cost of the implementation of the programs which many migrant communities seek in terms of multi or bilingual education would be very large indeed. Nonetheless, in some States of the Commonwealth there is a significant response to the assessed needs. I refer particularly to South Australia. I know that some members of the Senate have visited schools there and have seen children from a variety of countries studying at least two languages and studying in at least two languages all the time. The main point that I want to make in terms of the response to the assessed needs is simply that the money allocated to the teaching of English to migrant school children, which is a different problem from that of teaching in two languages, has declined in real terms since 1 976. In the last Budget year the sum increased from $26. 2m to $27. 7m, which was a 1.2 per cent decrease in real terms.

I reiterate that this is not only a perceived area of need- one in which the response in financial terms has not been what it might be- but also an area which is a cause of great concern to migrant communities and an area which bears very directly on debates which come up in the Senate on numerous occasions in the form of questions and comments about the overall standard of literacy and numeracy in the Australian community. This problem can be related very much to comments in reports such as the Jackson report and the Crawford report, all of which refer to this matter in terms of adult workers as a major problem for Australian industry. For this country it is a major problem which, as I say, bears most importantly on the literacy and numeracy debate with which employers seem particularly concerned.

I make one other observation about this matter. Thirty years after the major immigration programs began in this country, particularly of people from southern Europe, we are now giving some little attention to this question. Perhaps we are doing so three generations too late. But we are giving attention to this question in the context of European migrants at the very time when the well of European emigration, particularly southern European emigration, to Australia is drying up. The more recent wave of emigration is of Asian migrants, whether they be refugees from Timor, Vietnam or a variety of countries in the South East Pacific. What 1 am saying is that the problem has been with us for 30 years and governments of various complexions have not really done very much about it. At a time when we are starting to do something in regard to European migrants the ball game is changing entirely. A very important question to ask in terms of Asian refugees and migrants is whether we are to make the same mistake over or whether the problem can be grasped at the beginning of that influx of migrants from South East Asian countries, which is when it is most appropriate to do so. I wanted briefly to indicate my views on a statement which has a very important heading insofar as its subject matter is concerned and which, as I said earlier, I have not had the opportunity to read in detail. I hope that it foreshadows more vigorous government action in this area of migrant child education.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-I wish to speak to the motion because I am concerned about the subject of this report. Like Senator Button, I have not had a chance to read it. But in the last week I received a reply to a request I made to the Victorian Minister for Education for some details about Victoria’s migrant education program and migrant education teachers. A paragraph in the letter caused me some concern, lt reads: lt is pointed out that a State-wide survey of all schools will be carried out by the Child Migrant Education Service in June. Statistical information regarding the enrolment of children of migrant background in schools which have not sought assistance from the Child Migrant Education Service in the past will then be available.

That seemed extraordinary to me. Over the last 25 years migrants have been bringing their children to this country. Over the last 25 years children of migrant parents have been bom in this country. We have had problems involving children being isolated from their parents because the children have spoken one language and the parents have spoken another. We have had migrant mothers isolated from both husbands and children because they have no longer spoken the language spoken by their husbands and children. We have had people who have lost their pride in the culture of the country from which they came. We have had people in this country who have not had the knowledge of the role that their forebears played in the development of Australia. We have had a tremendous loss of pride by people because they did not know the part that their own country- their country of originplayed in developing world culture.

We have had extraordinary problems which could have been solved had somebody bothered to find out the sorts of problems existing, the numbers of migrant children involved, or the numbers of children with migrant backgrounds in school. Yet the Minister for Education in Victoria is telling me that next year a survey will be carried out to find out the sort of problem that exists in Victoria at the moment. It seems to me that if somebody had cared a little more, a long time ago, either on a State or Federal basis, children from migrant backgrounds might be growing up with a lot more pride and standing a lot taller in the community than is the case at the moment.

We might have found that just as knowledge of Captain Cook perhaps does something for British children, and knowledge of Burke and Wills might do something for Australian children, knowledge of Columbus- and Australian children’s knowledge that Columbus was Italianmight have done something to give Italian children a greater feeling of belonging to the Australian community. We might have found that Australian children took a different view of the Greek children at their school had they known that Plato was a Greek, and the part that he played in developing our civilisation. We might have found the reaction of Australian children to Arabs and Arab children might have taken a different turn had they realised the origins of mathematics and where that skill and that science had originated. We do not know yet where migrant children are located. We do not know where they are enrolled, and we do not know in what numbers they are enrolled. I find that extraordinary.

I was told in the ministerial letter that I received that schools must apply to the Department for migrant teachers. If they do not apply to the Department, they have no entitlement to migrant teachers. I was told that the guidelines for entitlement were determined by the Department, and they were determined not to provide an entitlement for migrant teachers where they are needed, but to provide an equitable distribution of the total number of migrant education teachers. That seems to suggest that the Commonwealth provides funds and the States allot those funds not on the basis of need- not on the basis of the areas in which children who need this assistance to become properly educated are located- but on the basis of the total number which we can afford to help. The funds are then doled out to those areas where the Department thinks they might do some good.

I live in the second largest Greek speaking city in the world. The high school that my youngest children attend has a large number of Greek children. They have no appreciation of Greece and no appreciation of what Greek culture has meant to this world. No Greek teacher is provided for the Greek children who attend that school. So they have a very low regard both of themselves and of the culture of the country from which they come, as well as a low estimation of the contribution that they can make to Australian culture at the moment. I also find in this second largest Greek speaking city in the world that those Greek parents who are concerned about their children and who are concerned that they should retain their Language and their culture are asked to pay rent for the use of state school buildings. Yet they are the ones who organise the classes for their children. The parents have to organise the classes as well as to arrange for and pay the teacher. This whole field of education has to be undertaken by the children in their spare time. In addition to that the Department requires that the parents pay rent for the time that they use the school building.

I as a parent- I suppose originally I came from some migrant background, but it is so far back that it plays little part in my life or the lives of my children- resent the fact that my children are growing up alongside children whose background and culture could enrich their lives and my life if the Department of Education in Victoria and if the Federal Minister of Education (Senator Carrick) took a broader view of what we mean and what: we want when we say that we want education funded they make little effort to employ bilingual teachers. We talk about bilingual teachers and bilingualism. We know that all children love to watch television. When this Government went to the polls at the last election, it promised to provide ethnic television programs. Now, very belatedly, it is attempting to do something about ethnic television.

Instead of giving us some richness in language, some richness in culture from other parts of the world, over the last two or three weeks all we have really had has been a half-baked travelogue which has given us a very rough idea of some cultures in other parts of the world. Such programs may make some of the migrant people who have come to this country nostalgic for the country from which they came, but they would give their children a very rough and ready idea of the country from which their parents came. They make no attempt to use television in the way in which television can be used. They make no attempt to extend the language facility to Australian-born children or to children born of foreign parents. There is no reference whatsoever to the problems that arise for children of migrant parents trying to grow up in the Australian community and the Australian culture.

I hope that this report gets to the heart of some of these problems. I hope that it is widely read by Australian born people in the community so that they understand some of the problems. I hope that the Minister takes the report to heart and extends his vision when it comes to dealing with migrant children in the community.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 2531

NATURAL DISASTER INSURANCE

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · New South Wales · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a policy information paper on natural disaster insurance. The paper follows an announcement on this matter the Treasurer (Mr Howard) made on 17 January in which he undertook to provide more detailed information on the measures proposed, and on the considerations underlying the Government’s approach, in a policy information paper which would be presented to the Parliament.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I put on record again the view that we of the Opposition are at some disadvantage in not having had this paper before us. Considering the damaging earthquake that occurred at Cadoux in Western Australia over the weekend and recalling the Darwin cyclone and the many cyclones which have occurred in north Queensland over the years, we would like to have had a look at this paper just to see what the Government’s policy is in respect of national disaster insurance, and whether it covers these sorts of natural disasters. I hope that the Government takes notice of Senator Button’s remarks on the paper which was presented just prior to this one. He said that in future Opposition members should be given an opportunity to have a look at these papers before they are presented to the Senate. We all know that once the motion is moved: ‘That the Senate take note of the paper’, and one seeks leave to continue one’s remarks, there is a very remote chance that the debate will ever be called on again. Such matters will certainly not come on for debate now because the Government has indicated that Government Business will take precedence of General Business each Thursday night. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2532

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1 973,I present the report of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation for the year ended 31 December 1978.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2532

AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the summary of resolutions and recommendations of the seventeenth meeting of the Australian Forestry Council held in Christchurch, New Zealand, on 30 January 1 979.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2532

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S OFFICE

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- I inform honourable senators that pursuant to section 48K of the Audit Act 1901, the Governor-General has approved arrangements made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) for Mr Evan D. Cameron, F.C.A., Chairman of the National Management Committee of Hungerfords, chartered accountants of 167 Macquarie Street, Sydney, New South

Wales, to be the independent auditor of the Auditor-General’s Office. Hungerfords is a national partnership totally owned and controlled in Australia. The firm is one of the four founding firms of Alexander Grant Tansley Witt, an international accounting association represented by some 8,000 people in more than 50 countries. Whilst each of the member firms has the right to use the international firm name, Alexander Grant Tansley Witt does not itself practice. Its purpose is to lay down the technical standards and policies for all of its member firms in order to ensure that clients of the member firms are provided with services of the highest quality in whichever countries they operate.

Mr Cameron has been a partner of Hungerfords since 1962. He became Chairman of the firm’s National Management Committee in 1977. Mr Cameron’s appointment is for three financial years commencing with the year 1978-79. As required by the Audit Act, his first report will be in respect of the financial year 1978-79 and will be annexed to the AuditorGeneral ‘s report in respect of that year.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I think it is an excellent arrangement to have an auditor supervising the affairs of the AuditorGeneral’s Office. It is a principle which I think ought to be extended.

Senator Chaney:

– Who takes care of the caretaker’s daughter?

Senator GEORGES:

– I could not think of the quotation at the time; I thought that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) might be able to help me with it.

Senator Puplick:

– Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, senator.

Senator GEORGES:

-Good. Who watches the custodians? We should not get immersed in that. Nevertheless, there is a quotation, either Latin or Greek, which suitably describes the principle behind the provision of an auditor, as announced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). It seems that eventually we will have to look at the Audit Act because, at the hearings of one of the committees on which I serve, I was surprised to learn that the affairs of departments, such as the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs are exempt from the provisions of the Audit Act because one of the branches of that Department is required to be exempted for security reasons. The sooner we look at the Audit Act the better. If the Auditor-General considers it advisable to have the affairs of his office scrutinised, we must appreciate how important it is for the Auditor-General to look at the affairs of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. The affairs of that Department ought not to be exempt from the scope of the AuditorGeneral ‘s inquiry or supervision because of some desire to protect the security of one small section of that Department . Mr President, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2533

COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Copyright Act 1 968.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard what is a quite lengthy second reading speech.

Senator Georges:

– It will create an unusual precedent to grant leave to the Minister to incorporate the second reading speech because the Bill originates in this place. I would like the Minister to read this rather short statement; nevertheless, if he pleads sufficiently I might grant leave.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Copyright Act in relation to photocopying, copying for handicapped readers and record piracy.

Photocopying

The most extensive provisions in the Bill relate to photocopying, or to be more precise reprographic reproduction of works, and they arise out of recommendations made in the report of the Copyright Law Committee on Reprographic Reproduction. I shall refer to that Committee as the Franki Committee, in recognition of its distinguished Chairman, Mr Justice Franki. The Franki Committee was appointed in 1974 by the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy. Its terms of reference were cast in very wide terms so that it could consider all the copyright implications of photocopying developments. In doing so it was required to consider the need for a proper balance of interest between owners of copyright and the users of copyright material.

The Franki Committee furnished its report to my predecessor, Mr Ellicott, in October 1976. I wish, at this point, to express the Government’s gratitude to Mr Justice Franki and to members of the Committee for the service which they have rendered to the community in this most difficult area. In its report the Committee noted that, as a result of developments in reprographic reproduction of published material, large numbers of people now have the facility to reproduce copyright material without having to resort to the laborious methods that had previously limited the quantities of material copied. In these circumstances infringing copying can take place without the knowledge of the copyright owner who, from a practical standpoint, is unable to enforce his rights.

A tension had thus developed between the expectations of many copyright owners that they should benefit from the greater availability of their works, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the needs of the community for ready access to information and knowledge. As the basis of its approach the Franki Committee adopted the following passage of the 1959 report of the Copyright Law Review Committee:

The primary end of the law on this subject is to give to the author of a creative work his just reward for the benefit he has bestowed on the community and also to encourage the making of further creative works. On the other hand, as copyright is in the nature of a monopoly, the law should ensure, as far as possible, that the rights conferred are not abused and that study, research and education are not unduly hampered.

The problem is not peculiar to Australia. The problems considered by the Franki Committee are engaging the attention of copyright experts and governments in many countries, but an early international consensus on how to deal with those problems is unlikely. For its part, the Franki Committee concluded that a reasonable amount of unremunerated copying by a person, at least for research or study, should be allowed. The Committee rejected as inappropriate proposals that would require payment on a per page basis to individual owners of copyright for all reprographic copies made.

The Committee pointed out that the rights of the copyright owner have never been absolute in the sense that no dealing at all with his work could ever take place without his consent. It drew particular attention to the right to copy minor or insubstantial parts of a work; the right to make copies in the course of what is known in copyright law as a ‘fair dealing’; and the right to engage in copying of a public benefit nature by librarians, educational bodies, research establishments and individuals.

The Committee was of the view that much of the photocopying taking place is likely to be within these existing exceptions and that the appropriate course, in the light of photocopying developments, would be to retain those exceptions but to modify or extend them to meet modern needs. At the same time the Committee saw a need to ensure that copyright owners were fairly remunerated in certain fields of multiple copying carried out by educational establishments.

The Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Franki Committee, which I shall now briefly explain. More detailed explanations are provided in the explanatory memorandum I have circulated. I have mentioned the existing right of a person to copy only an insubstantial part of a work in which copyright exists. The Franki Committee was aware of difficulties that arise in this connection but considered it impractical to attempt to lay down any tests to determine what is an insubstantial part of the work. I have also mentioned the ‘fair dealing’ exception. The Committee recommended that this exception be retained in relation to photocopying, but subject to the following amendments:

  1. inclusion of guidelines in regard to what constitutes a fair dealing, coupled with a conclusive presumption that copying within certain specified limits constitutes such a dealing.
  2. omission of the word ‘private’ from section 40, thereby removing the existing arbitrary distinction between a fair dealing for private study and one for other educational purposes.
  3. inclusion of a provision to make it clear that the installation of self-service copying machines in libraries does not of itself impose any liability for copyright upon the librarian or the librarian’s employer provided notices in a prescribed form are displayed drawing users’ attention to the relevant provisions of the Act.

Copying by librarians falls into two main classes. One class includes copying for users of the libraries; the other includes copying for other libraries. The Franki Committee viewed libraries as information resource centres with a legitimate need to copy material. As in the case of copying by individuals, the Committee considered and rejected proposals for royalties to be payable on such copying.

Section 49 of the Act already makes provision for copying by libraries for students and members of parliament. The Franki Committee noted that the degree of copying permitted under that section is considered appropriate by most librarians. It also noted, however, that librarians were finding difficulty in determining what constitutes a ‘reasonable portion’ of a work for the purpose of section 4. The Committee was not able to formulate a more satisfactory expression than ‘reasonable portion ‘ but it proposed the addition of a provision to make it clear that the expression covers at least one chapter or ten per cent of the number of pages in an edition. Other changes proposed by the Committee in relation to copying by a library for users are:

  1. The existing requirement that the librarian be satisfied as to the purpose for which the copy is required be changed so that it is sufficient if the librarian or person acting on his behalf receives in good faith a signed statement declaring that the purpose falls within the section and that the copy will not be used for any other purpose.
  2. The inclusion of provisions permitting the copying of an entire work or more than a reasonable portion of it where an unused copy of the work cannot be obtained within a reasonable time at a normal commercial price.
  3. The existing requirement in section 49 that the person supplied with a copy pay not less then the cost of making the copy be changed to a prohibition of any charge in excess of the cost of making the copy.

I turn now to inter-library loans. The Franki Committee was satisfied of the desirability of facilitating such loans, particularly in the scientific and technical field. Provision for such loans at present exists in section 50, the detailed provisions of which, however, the Committee concluded were unsatisfactory. It, accordingly, proposed the following amendments:

  1. The protection to the supplying librarian should not, as it does now, depend on whether the requesting librarian complies with the section or upon the acts of the person to whom the copy is supplied by the requesting librarian.
  2. The position of the requesting librarian should be equated to the position I have already discussed of a librarian under section 49.
  3. The protection of section 50 should not apply to a borrowing by a library for its own collection.

Certain other recommendations relating to libraries and archives have been incorporated in the Bill. The provisions of the Bill giving effect to these recommendations are as follows:

  1. Limited multiple copying without remuneration (up to six copies) of articles in periodicals and of other works are to be permitted where the copies are for use only within a library of a non-profit educational establishment.
  2. b) A library or archives is to be able to copy an unpublished work for the purpose of preservation, security or research use.
  3. A library or archives is to be able to copy a published work for the purpose of replacement of a copy that is damaged, deteriorating, lost or stolen, where an unused copy cannot be obtained within a reasonable time at a normal commercial price.
  4. A library or archives to be able to make one microfilm or microfiche copy of a work where it is intended to destroy the original.

With the exception of the provision proposed for the making of up to six copies for temporary use within a library, the proposals I have mentioned provide for the making of individual copies only.

In addition to those proposals the Franki Committee recommended that provision be made for multiple copying when carried out in non-profit educational establishments. These proposals are possibly the most significant advanced by the Committee. Some provision for multiple copying is already made in section 200 of the Act but the provision in that section is not applicable to photocopying and is regarded by the Committee as unsatisfactory. The Committee was satisfied that multiple copying was taking place in educational establishments and that it was likely that some of that copying was an infringement of copyright under the existing law.

To the extent that there was a demand for the making of multiple copies for use in educational establishments the Committee considered that the copyright law should accommodate that demand. On the other hand it also considered that where the copying represented a substantial use of the property of a copyright owner it should not be carried out without provision for remuneration to that owner. The Committee pointed out that it is open to an educational establishment to seek permission from a copyright owner to make multiple copies of his work and to pay such royalties as the owner may demand. But the Committee’s view was that in most cases it is not practicable to obtain such specific permission in advance.

In these circumstances the Committee proposed a statutory licence scheme. Under the scheme non-profit educational establishments would be granted a statutory licence to make multiple copies of works subject to recording any such copying and an obligation to pay an appropriate royalty if demanded by the copyright owner within a prescribed time. The precise nature of the provisions for fixing any such remuneration was a matter on which there was a division of opinion between members of the Franki Committee. The approach adopted by the Bill is that the remuneration should be negotiated between the parties concerned but if they are unable to reach agreement the Copyright Tribunal will have the function of arbitrating between them.

The keeping by educational establishments of proper records of the copying they carry out pursuant to this statutory licence will, of course, be a matter of great importance since it will be the basis of claims for remuneration by copyright owners. In recognition of this the Bill makes it an offence to carry out such copying and not keep the required records for the prescribed time. In addition there are provisions which will enable the entitlement of an educational establishment to participate in the scheme to be cancelled if it should be convicted more than once of such an offence.

The Bill provides, as was foreshadowed in my Press announcement of the Government’s decision to introduce this legislation, that records should be kept in a manner which will enable the person whose works have been copied to obtain details of that copying without having to examine the details of other copying. That provision should ensure that the records are readily examinable by authors without imposing an onerous burden upon institutions.

Before deciding to implement the proposals of the Committee for multiple copying the Government gave close consideration to alternative proposals submitted to it by the Australian Copyright Council. Those proposals envisaged a voluntary licence scheme, which would apply where a collecting agency reached an agreement with an educational establishment. Under that scheme all authors would have to depend on the collecting agency whether they were members of it or not. The Government concluded that it would not be appropriate to place authors in that position. In saying this I wish to make it very clear that the scheme provided for in the Bill in no way precludes parties from entering into voluntary licensing arrangements.

The Franki Committee made one other proposal for multiple copying. The Committee was of the opinion that a special case could be made out for permitting up to three copies to be made for classroom instruction without remuneration. A provision to this effect has been included in the Bill. It is designed to replace section 200 ( 1) (a) which at present provides for a right of a similar kind but which, as previously mentioned, the Committee considers to be unsatisfactory. Given the considerable increase in the number of categories of copying which will be permitted under the Bill if a copyright owner is to be able to proceed upon discovering a copy, it is necessary that he know pursuant to what provision that copy was made.

Accordingly, the Bill provides that where a copy is made in reliance upon one of the provisions therein referred to, a note must be made on the copy stating the section relied upon, the date upon which the copy was made, the name of the person who made the copy and, if relevant, for whom it was made. Failure to note the copy will prevent the copier from relying upon any of those provisions to gain immuity from infringement proceedings.

Copying for Handicapped Readers

In announcing the Government’s decision to introduce this legislation, I stated that the Bill would include provisions to alleviate the copyright problems at present confronting educational establishments assisting visually handicapped people. There is a simple needimperative in a modern community- for the blind to be able to study and to learn. As was stated, more than a century ago, by Louis Braille, himself blind, ‘Without books the blind simply cannot learn ‘.

The Government has received representations, as did the Franki Committee, although they were outside its terms of reference, regarding difficulties experienced by institutions in obtaining the permission of copyright owners to reproduce published works in braille or sound recording form for the use of handicapped readers. The point of complaint was not that permission had been refused but that there have been troublesome delays which impose difficulty upon students. Students have to comply with the demands of their courses and undergo great hardship if, at the time of classroom instruction or examination upon a particular work, they have not been able to obtain the copyright owner’s permission for it to be reproduced in a form which they can use. Such a student is, by reason of his handicap, in the unique position of being unable to ‘read ‘ a work even though it has already been made available to the general public.

The scheme proposed and included in the Bill is a logical extension of that provided to permit educational institutions to make multiple copies of works for teaching purposes. A statutory licensing scheme is established under which an institution assisting handicapped readers will be able to make a copy of published copyright material in braille or sound recording form for the research or study purposes of a reader, without the permission of the copyright owner, and without being at risk as to infringement.

Handicapped readers who will benefit from the scheme comprise the blind and those suffering severe visual impairment. Also included are the physically handicapped who cannot hold or manipulate books, or focus or move their eyes, and those suffering from dyslexia. The institutions entitled to the statutory licence will be specified by schedule or regulation. The statutory licence will not allow the making of a braille or sound recording version of a work if such a version is commercially available.

The copyright owner will be entitled to receive fair remuneration for reproduction of his work. To this end the institution must keep appropriate copying records which will form the basis for a copyright owner’s claim for remuneration. The Copyright Tribunal may determine this if the owner and the institution cannot reach agreement. Copyright will not vest in the maker of the handicapped readers copy by reason of the making of that copy. As a result institutions assisting handicapped readers will be able to copy handicapped readers’ copies made by each other unless to do so would involve infringement of the copyright in the original work.

The Government is aware that certain institutions assisting the blind and the visually restricted have already come to satisfactory arrangements with publishers regarding reproduction of copyright works. The provision introduced by the Bill need not affect those arrangements; indeed the right of a copyright owner and an institution to make arrangements alternative to those of the statutory scheme is specifically preserved.

Record Piracy

I now leave the matter of the photocopying and copying for handicapped readers for a different but very important subject dealt with by the Bill, namely provisions which will increase substantially the penalties for record piracy. Under section 132 of the Act, it is an offence to sell, exhibit in public by way of trade, or import into Australia for such purposes, articles which the person engaging in those acts knows to infringe copyright material. The penalties provided were satisfactory when piracy was a relatively rare event undertaken by isolated individuals. Today it is a highly organised business facilitated by the spread of cheap, fast copying equipment. Recordings are often manufactured in, and exported from, countries with inadequate copyright laws where no primary recording costs are borne and no royalties are paid to the artists or composers.

Australian record industry sources estimate the value of retail sales lost to cheaper pirated tapes to be in the region of $ 10m annually, and rapidly increasing. To meet this problem maximum penalties for offences will be substantially increased and the Federal Court of Australia is to be invested with jurisdiction. For example, the penalty for importing an infringing article will be increased from $ 10 for a first offence to $ 1 50 per article, with a limit of $1,500 for articles in the same transaction- $10,000 in the Federal Court. Provisions are also added to permit confiscation of equipment used to make pirated recordings.

Conclusion

As the Bill is a long one, I do not propose to detain honourable senators at this stage by describing the provisions of the Bill in greater detail. The detailed explanation of the provisions is set out in the explanatory memorandum which I have distributed. The recommendations of the Franki Committee have been adopted by the Government after very extensive discussions with affected interests. In formulating the legislation, however, many matters of detail have had to be considered. The Government has taken the view that the Bill ought not to proceed to debate immediately but should first be available for public comment. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2537

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the establishment and development of a township at Jabiru in the Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1 975 to facilitate the development of a township at Jabiru, which is located in the Kakadu National Park, consistent with the Government’s announced policies on uranium mining development. The Kakadu National Park was proclaimed under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act on 5 April 1 979 and was a major step in giving effect to the protective measures which the Government announced would be established in the Alligator Rivers region before permitting mining of uranium to commence.

The first stage declared covered an area of some 6,000 square kilometres. The area for stage II will as soon as practicable be declared a conservation zone under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to ensure that the park values are protected prior to its formal inclusion in the Park. In keeping with the recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, the Government decided that the mining town to serve mines developed in the region should be included in Kakadu National Park and should be a closed town with a limited population. The town will be developed on land leased from the Director of National Parks and Wildlife and will be subject to the plan of management.

The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act requires the Director National Parks and Wildlife as soon as practicable after a park or reserve has been declared to prepare a plan of management in respect of that park or reserve. The Director has to follow a series of steps directed by the Act in preparing the plan of management, including the receipt of public submissions and making the plan available for comment by interested persons. There will also be close consultation with the Northern Territory Government and the Northern Land Council in the preparation of the plan of management. The Director then submits the plan to the Minister for Science and the Environment together with any representations made and comments by the Director on those representations. The Minister when he is satisfied with the plan of management, will lay the plan before both Houses of Parliament. Either House of the Parliament, within 20 sitting days of that House, may, in pursuance of a motion upon notice, pass a resolution disallowing the plan. If neither House passes a motion of disallowance, the plan of management then comes into operation.

It was the Government’s intention that by including the townsite in the national park the town would be planned and managed in accord with the park plan of management. Following the Government’s decision in November last year, to allow the Ranger uranium deposit to be developed, increasing numbers of people are moving into the mining areas adjacent to the park. It it important that an early commencement be made on preliminary construction work in relation to the Jabiru town to ensure that a properly developed town of high amenity is established as soon as practicable, so that workers and their families are not accommodated in temporary camps any longer than is necessary. The Jabiru Town Development Authority, a statutory authority set up under Northern Territory legislation, has been established to develop the town.

Under the existing requirements of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act the procedures relating to the coming into force of a plan of management will take some time to complete. The amendment envisages a mechanism which would permit an early start to be made to preliminary construction work prior to the plan of management formally coming into effect. The proposed amendments will ensure that park values are properly protected while such preliminary construction work proceeds. It is the intention that the major construction work in the town will take place within the framework of the plan of management. Construction in the Northern Territory is largely limited to the dry season- that is April to the end of Novemberand during this dry season the Jabiru Town Development Authority proposes a program to build the construction camp and access roads, and to provide temporary water supply, sewerage, power and telecommunication services for the camp. Major construction work on the township is not scheduled by the Jabiru Town Development Authority in this dry season.

The amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act contained in this Bill permit the Director, before the plan of management is in effect, to approve, by instrument in writing, the performance within the park of such work as he considers necessary or desirable for the establishment of a township at Jabiru, upon such conditions as he considers desirable. Before granting a licence, the Director will be required to consult closely with the Jabiru Town Development Authority and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. The Jabiru Town Development Authority will be the focus for co-ordination of the views of the relevant Northern Territory authorities.

In issuing such a licence, the Director shall specify environmental conditions to be a part of that licence to ensure that the park values are preserved. The licence will be a ‘prescribed instrument’ within the meaning of the Environment Protection (Northern Territory Supreme Court) Act 1978, which enables the Northern Territory Supreme Court at the suit of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission or the Northern Land Council to make orders for the enforcement of any requirement under a prescribed instrument so far as the requirement relates to any matter affecting the environment of the Alligator Rivers region. The amendment will also enable the Director to issue a lease or licence for the land on which the Jabiru township is to be developed, in advance of the plan of management.

I would like to stress that, in proposing these amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, the Government is determined to protect the integrity of the Park. The Kakadu National Park is one of the world’s great national parks and will continue to be so. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2538

GENERAL BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, intervening business be postponed till after the consideration of General Business, Order of the Day No. 101 (Pensions Indexation Bill 1979), standing in the name of Senator Chipp.

page 2538

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement on the program for the Senate during this week.

Leave granted.

Senator CHANEY:

-As we face the final stages of these sittings, I have had prepared a list of all the Bills the Government intends for passage before the winter adjournment. The list will be kept under review and it is now being circulated for the information of all honourable senators. The list contains a number of legislative proposals, covering a wide spectrum of Government activity. Consistent, day by day, progress will be required to complete it. If we do slip behind on one day, it will be necessary to make up the time on the next. Honourable senators, of course, have a range of different interests. The Government is conscious of this. By giving prior advice of the legislation coming forward, it is hoped that the debates will proceed in such a way that all will have an adequate opportunity to contribute according to their special interests. In this way too, the various Bills will receive an appropriate proportion of debating time.

Honourable senators will be aware that the Government is faced with the necessity of concentration on its essentia] legislation at this stage of the sittings. I remind all senators, however, that extensive opportunities have been provided during the sittings for debate on matters raised by the Opposition or by backbench senators generally. For instance, over 22 hours have been devoted to urgency debates; 13 to first reading debates; almost 1 1 hours to debates on money bills; 15 hours to items of General Business and just over 1 1 hours to adjournment debates. This, as honourable senators will appreciate, is in sharp contrast to the situation in the New South Wales Parliament outlined by Senator Puplick last Thursday.

Senator Gietzelt:

– What about the Queensland Parliament? It meets for only 3 months of the year.

Senator CHANEY:

-This is the part of the speech to which I think honourable senators should address themselves. As Senator Georges has pointed out on a number of occasions, this place works best when there is a measure of cooperation. The Government has endeavoured to co-operate with all senators and I now invite cooperation in the completion of the Government’s essential legislative program. It is still not clear whether or not we will be able to finish this week, but I will report further to the Senate on this as soon as it is clear. In the meantime it would seem prudent to anticipate that we will have to sit on Friday next and possibly from Tuesday of next week.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -I wish to make a brief statement. I am pleased to have been mentioned in the brief of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). He glossed over the very substantial nature of the program before us. We find included in the list which has been distributed the Income Tax (Rates and Assessment) Bill and other Bills which are part of the mini-Budget which was brought down by the Government. I do not doubt that we need to debate those Bills at length because of their serious effect on the economy. I do not intend to debate this legislation right now. However, faced with the need to take certain economic measures, the Government has brought down legislation which needs to be debated in depth, and as a result our program has been extended beyond what we had anticipated.

Also we are to consider the National Health Amendment Bill and the Health Insurance Amendment Bill. Again these are other important pieces of legislation which need to be debated. The Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill is on the list as are several other pieces of complex legislation such as the Australian Federal Police Bill. We know of all the consequences which flow from that legislation and which need to be debated.

All we can say is that the co-operation that has been given to the Government on many occasions will be given again. Nevertheless we ought not to have these patronising speeches which are made from time to time and in which we are told that the Opposition has been given plenty of opportunity and that we ought to acknowledge with gratitude the way in which we have been treated, that we ought to bow our knees, dip our lids or make other sorts of gestures. I can think of a few gestures we could add to those suggested. We ought not to be expected to bow before the Government, as has been anticipated.

Senator Chaney:

– Touch your forelock, senator.

Senator GEORGES:

– I could bring this whole debate to an end with a weighty pause, not having heard the Minister clearly and not knowing how to answer him if I had. But I am serious when I say that this is not a small program. It is a lengthy one. I can see that we will need to sit as has been indicated by the Minister. We are prepared, and we have always been prepared, to give our full attention to the program, to debate it fully and to spend as much time as is necessary on debate. I am a little perturbed, shall I say, that there is on the Notice Paper a notice of motion to suspend Standing Order 68. I do not know whether I am permitted to debate a motion which we anticipate will be moved tomorrow, but could I make a couple of remarks? If it is the intention of the Government to suspend Standing Order 68 so that it can introduce business after 1 1 p.m., by all means let it go ahead. But I have always found that when new business is introduced after the time for the adjournment, it takes generally four times longer to conclude that business than if it were introduced before 10.30 p.m. or 1 1 p.m.

If the Government has in mind any intention to introduce new business after the time for the adjournment, let it go ahead by all means, but it must expect some very lengthy sittings. That is not a threat. I never threaten or promise. I am merely stating the facts as they appear to me. It would be quite foolish to sit for five days this week and possibly next week if we are to sit after the time for the adjournment. I think that 1 have made my position clear, if I have not made the position of the Opposition clear. On our side there is general agreement that we intend to debate the program fully and, I hope, completely to the satisfaction of the Government, which may lead to some unexpected amendments.

page 2540

EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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 Chaney) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY (Western Australia-

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) (4.4 1 )- I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

Mr President, the purpose of this Bill is to enable the implementation of the Government’s decision announced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his speech to the Parliament on 24 May 1979 that from1 July 1979 it will increase the existing $18.90 per kilolitre- $3 per barrelexcise levy on oil priced at import parity by an amount equal to the increase that will by then have occurred in the import parity price since 3 1 December 1978. As stated by the Treasurer, essentially this measure will provide a selfadjusting mechanism for setting the levy on ‘import parity’ oil so that the public revenue rather than the Australian producers secure the gains which result from the induced price increase of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

This measure, without making any allowance for future OPEC increases, will add an estimated $166m to the revenue in the next financial year without added expense to consumers. Since last year’s Budget the oil producers have paid $ 1 8.90 per kilolitre- $3 per barrel- excise duty on parity oil. Because this levy was not altered when ‘import parity’ oil increased in price on 1 January 1979 the total increase benefited producers alone. This measure will enable the levy to increase so that the producers’ windfall gains since 1 January 1979 will not carry on past 1 July 1979. In effect the producers return for ‘import parity’ oil will return to the level that existed as at 31 December 1978. Obviously, when the Government’s policy was set at the time of the last Budget the international events, which since then have greatly accelerated the world price of oil were not anticipated. Whilst on the one hand the Government has said that the Australian consumer cannot be sheltered from the cost of oil on the world markets, nevertheless it cannot stand by and let windfall gains of the magnitude reflected by the world price increases all go to the Australian oil producers.

The amendment of sections 77L and 77m (2) of the Excise Act is to provide the necessary legal machinery whereby the rebate calculations which currently provide that the producers of parity oil’ pay a levy fixed at $18.90 per kilolitre- $3 per barrel- can be altered by determinations made by the Minister for National Development so that the net levy can be adjusted complementary to changes in the import parity price.

This amendment provides flexibility in the law so that the Government can make adjustments to the levy when necessary or desirable in response to fast changing world conditions. The economies of different size fields also makes it desirable to have maximum flexibility to apply different rates of levy if warranted. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2540

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

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

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

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2541

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER (EXPORT INSPECTION CHARGE) BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

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

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

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

Second Readings

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to allow for the introduction from 1 July 1979 of charges to recoup part of the cost to the Commonwealth of inspecting meat for export. This is the first of a series of Bills covering partial recovery of costs involved in export inspection of certain agricultural commodities. Export inspection is designed to ensure that export products meet specific standards of quality, hygiene and presentation.

The Treasurer (Mr Howard), in the 1978-79 Budget Speech announced that the Government would review the question of charging for the export inspection of meat during 1 978-79 in the light of the economic situation of the cattle industry. Associated Budget statements indicated that the review would also encompass the question of cost recovery from other export industries subject to inspection. The outcome of these reviews was announced in the Treasurer’s statement in the House of Representatives on 24 May 1979.

The Government has decided that meat producers and grain exporters should bear approximately 50 per cent of the cost to the Commonwealth of inspection. The Government proposes further that fees aimed at a similar level of recovery should be imposed for the service provided by the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority. Recovery of part of the costs of inspection and animal health certification for live animal exports is also intended. The Government will move to introduce fees for these services when the necessary arrangements have been finalised.

Turning now to the specifics of this Bill, honourable senators will see that it provides for recovery of meat inspection costs to be achieved through charges on livestock slaughterings at registered export establishments. The Bill provides for the owner of the livestock at the point of slaughter to be liable to pay the charge. Exemption from charge is provided in cases where carcases are condemned or rejected by an inspector.

Provision is made for charge to be applied to the slaughtering of all the classes of livestock commonly slaughtered for meat production. Horses, donkeys and mules are also included because there have been instances of abattoirs being registered specifically to slaughter such animals for export. Provision is also made for charge to be applied to other classes of animals which may be prescribed. This provision may be needed in the event that it should become necessary to provide export inspection services for the slaughter of deer, kangaroos or other species. The Bill specifies maximum rates of charge which may be prescribed for various classes of livestock- for example, the maximum rate which may be prescribed for cattle exceeding 90 kilograms dressed weight is $2.40 per head. It is anticipated that initially the prescribed rates will be lower than these.

To achieve the 50 per cent cost recovery objective it appears that the Governnent will need to propose the following rates to the GovernorGeneral for promulgation in regulations:

Cattle, Buffaloes, Horses, $ 1 .80 per head.

Bobby calves to 40 kg dressed weight, sheep, lambs, goats, 18c per head.

Calves, 40 to 90 kg dressed weight, and pigs, 60c per head.

On current estimates of slaughterings for 1979-80 charges at these rates are estimated to yield $ 16.25m in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1979

This Bill is related to the Live-stock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979 just introduced it is designed to provide for the collection of charges proposed in that Bill. It follows closely the provisions for the collection of levies in other livestock slaughter levy legislation. Specifically, provision is made for abattoir proprietors to pay charges due to the Commonwealth and to recover the amounts from the persons who owned the livestock at the time of slaughter. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979

This Bill is associated with other Bills just introduced. The purpose of this Bill is to allow charges for the export inspection of the grains of wheat, oats, barley and sorghum. Charges are to apply to exporters of the products in question, the aim being to recover approximately half of total inspection costs of these products in 1979-80.

The rates of charging proposed for 1979-80 exports will be specified in regulations along with specific arrangements for the collection of such charges. The Bill includes a provision limiting the rate of charge that can be prescribed to a maximum of 40c per tonne. Actual rates envisaged are well below this, it being proposed that rates of the following order for 1979-80 be suggested to the Governor-General for promulgation in regulations:

Bulk grains, not loaded into shipping containers- 4.5c per tonne.

Bagged grains, not loaded into shipping containers- 25.0c per tonne.

Bulk or bagged grains, loaded into shipping containers- $5.00 per container.

For the information of the Senate a charge of $5 per container is equivalent to a rate of around 27c to 29c per tonne. On current export estimates for 1979-80 charges at these rates are estimated to yield $656,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Collection Bill 1979

This Bill is associated with the Grain (Export Inspection Charge) Bill 1979 just introduced. It is designed to provide for the collection of charges proposed in that Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Wool Industry Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979

This Bill is associated with other Bills just introduced to allow charging for the inspection of meat and grain for export. Its purpose is to provide machinery to recover approximately half of the costs of the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority established within the Department of Primary Industry.

The service for which fees are proposed is that provided by the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority in monitoring and registering wool sampling sites. The cost of providing that service at a particular sampling site reflects the number of samples drawn at the site. Fees would apply only to those sampling sites from which samples are drawn for testing by the Australian Wool Testing Authority, an instrumentality established under the Wool Industry Act 1972.

The Bill provides that the Australian Wool Testing Authority would provide pre-sale test certificates only for samples drawn from sample sites registered and inspected by the Australian Wool Measurement Standards Authority. The Bill further provides for regulations covering matters relating to registration and inspection including appropriate fees. It is envisaged that an annual registration fee for 1 979-80 calculated on the basis of the order of 53c per lot sampled with a minimum annual fee of $100 in respect of any one sampling site will be proposed to the Governor-General for promulgation into regulations. On current estimates for 1979-80 charges at these rates are estimated to yield $ 1 67,500 in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2543

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

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

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

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2543

PENSIONS INDEXATION BILL 1979

Debate resumed from 2 May.

Second Reading

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I move:

I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the Government for honouring the undertaking given to me to allow me to deliver the second reading speech before the end of this session. I thank very sincerely also the staff of the Senate for assisting me in the preparation of this quite complex Bill. Notwithstanding the Bill’s complexity, its aim is very simple. The purpose of this Bill is to bring back half-yearly indexation of social security and repatriation pensions and benefits and to restore the status quo as it was before the legislation of 1978. I will be relatively brief because almost everything that needs to be said about this matter has been said by me and other members of the Opposition. I will confine myself now to what I believe to be the essential things that need to be said in a second reading speech. The main reasons that I have taken this action are:

  1. The large number of people affected by pension and benefit rates.
  2. The importance of immediate and automatic indexation to the welfare and security of pensioners.
  3. The serious hardship caused by the present yearly indexation system.
  4. The overt promise broken by the Government.

This issue has wide support in the community. Pensioners’ organisations are campaigning for the restoration of half-yearly indexation as a top priority. Even the Victorian Liberal Government announced that all State benefits would be indexed half-yearly. A number of Government senators and members of the House of Representatives, as well as the Opposition, the independent senator and the Australian Democrats, have spoken out against the change from six-monthly to once-a-year indexation of pensions. In spite of all this outcry, the Government has persisted in its aim of saving at the expense of those least able to afford it.

Those affected are not just a small group. There are about 1 .3 million age pensioners, and an additional 60,000 wives of pensioners. At a conservative estimate, about a quarter of a million people are receiving unemployment benefits, and there are 650,000 repatriation pensioners and 188,000 service pensioners. This gives a total of around 2.5 million people that have been affected.

Immediate and automatic indexation of pensions is an absolute necessity, both to protect pensioners’ standard of living and to give them emotional security. This is the point which has been emphasised over and over again by pensioner organisations and welfare agencies.

In 1975, when the Liberal Party was reforming its policies, I was shadow Minister for Social Security and chairman of a committee on social welfare policy. These organisations which represent pensioners stated unanimously that this was their top priority. That was why we wrote it into the Liberal Party policy, and emphasised the point in the 1 975 Federal election campaign. It was also repeated in the 1977 election campaign by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). In going back on this overt promise, the Government has brought pensions back into the political arena, and made them once more a ‘political football’, to be kicked around at Budget time. Since the 1978 Budget, with its announcement of the dropping of half-yearly indexation, every Budget will bring new anxiety to pensioners. Every year they will have to worry about what new changes the next Budget will bring. So we are back to where we were in 1975, when everyone agreed that this insecurity had to be remedied.

The main excuse which the Government offered in August 1978 for breaking its promises to pensioners was that the rate of inflation was now so low that no hardship would result. I reject this excuse utterly. Firstly, pensioners are entitled to the protection of their living standards whether inflation is at a high or a low level. Secondly, pensioners are indeed suffering hardship, as I will now demonstrate.

The current annual inflation rate, as measured by the consumer price index increases in the 12 months to March 1 979, is about 8 per cent. But in November when pensioners receive their yearly increases, it is based on the CPI figures for the year ending the previous June. So pension rates fall behind the cost of living by not 12 months, but 16 months. The loss of purchasing power is of the order of 1 1 per cent, meaning a cut of about $6 a week in real terms to every pensioner.

However, the real situation is even worse than this. Most economic commentators agree that the inflation rate will increase in the June quarter, and that in the coming year it may approach 10 per cent. Food prices are increasing much faster than the CPI, with a rise of 3. 1 per cent in the month of April, giving a notional yearly increase of over 14 per cent. Pensioners and other lowincome groups spend a higher-than-average proportion of their incomes on food. They are therefore more seriously affected than is the average family, and their nutrition standard must suffer accordingly.

The latest figures from the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, as reported in the Melbourne Age on Friday, 1 June, confirm that the ‘poverty line’ has been rising steadily, leaving people on pensions and benefits further and further below it. Last November, when pension levels were set, a single age pensioner receiving $53.20 per week was $ 1 above the poverty level. One could hardly call this too generous. Three months ago, this pension was 50c below the poverty line, and it is now almost $3 below. Imagine how much worse it will be in November 1979 when pensioners get their next annual increase.

Other pension or benefit recipients are even worse off. An unemployed single person, and an unemployed married couple with two children, are each about $18 a week below the poverty level. An unemployed couple with four children are $28 below, a single parent with one child is $2 1 below, and a single parent with two children is $27 below the poverty level. This means that literally many thousands of Australian children are living in absolute poverty. What are we going to do about this in this International Year of the Child?

According to the Melbourne Age of Friday, 1 June, Mr Jona, the Victorian Minister for Community Welfare Services, criticised the Federal Government- his own party- for abandoning its responsibilities in the area of income maintenance, and added:

We are spending 25 per cent of our Budget on services that are designed to prop up the inadequacies of Commonwealth funding.

He was referring to Victoria’s own Budget. People in need are being passed on to the voluntary agencies, whose resources are now practically exhausted.

In conclusion, I plead with the Government today to allow the second reading debate to proceed immediately, and the Senate to vote on this urgent Bill before it rises this session. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- Is there a seconder to the motion?

Senator Mason:

– I second the motion.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– In accordance with the tradition concerning private members’ Bills, I move:

Question put.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 23

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion ( by Senator Chaney) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition opposes the course proposed by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). I will indicate briefly why. I am sorry to delay the Minister. Senator Chipp’s Bill goes to a very important issue which is of concern to a great number of Australians. The Opposition feels that it is a matter which should be dealt with now and not postponed in the manner in which the Minister has suggested. In the course of his remarks in support of his Bill, Senator Chipp indicated that this was a matter of concern to him as a former shadow Minister in the Liberal-National Country Party Opposition and was of concern to him because of a promise which was made by that Opposition in 1975 in relation to this matter and which has since been broken.

I refer the Senate to the consequences of that broken promise insofar as it affects the persons who might be subject to the provisions of Senator Chipp’s Bill if it is dealt with by those Government senators who, like Senator Baume, are rightly concerned about this matter as a welfare issue. I shall illustrate that by referring particularly to an article in the Age of 1 June 1979 which indicates that Australian Government pensions and unemployment benefits are well below the poverty line, according to the latest survey of the Melbourne University’s Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. The article states:

Poverty line figures released yesterday show that while pensions have remained static since November, the poverty line has been steadily increasing.

This is the subject matter which goes right to the heart of Senator Chipp’s Bill. The article continues:

Single parents and unemployed people with families are worst off.

After pensions and family allowance, single parents with two children are $27.38 a week below the poverty line estimated by the institute.

An unemployed man with a wife and four children is $28.68 below the poverty line.

Professor Ronald Henderson, chairman of the institute and former commissioner inquiring into poverty said Australia’s pensions condemned recipients to a life of poverty.

He said calls for social security pension cuts were monstrous when existing pensions were too low.

The ordinary age pension is now $2.90 below the poverty line. Three months ago it was50c below.

I draw those figures to the attention of Government senators in terms of particular pensions. The unemployed single person’s pension is now $51.45 a week; the poverty level is $69.50 a week. The difference between the two figures is $18.05. The difference between the figures for the pension and the poverty line for an unemployed married couple is $ 1 8.30. All the figures show a substantial difference, the most substantial being that of the single parent with two children, where the difference between the poverty line and the pension payable is $27.38.I should have thought that the machinery motion which Senator Chaney has moved would be of great concern to the Government senators who, a year or so ago, were agitated to some extent- not to the extent of taking any drastic action- by the abolition of the promise made by the Fraser Opposition in 1975 and its effects on the recipients of pensions.

The figures to which I have just referred show that the discrepancy between the pension and the poverty line has increased so significantly since that degree of agitation, remorse, guilt and regret fluttered through the hearts of Government senators a year ago. I have drawn attention to them because Senator Chaney, in moving that Senator Chipp’s Bill be made an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting, is essentially seeking the adjournment of the consideration of a very important piece of legislation for which Senator Chipp is to be congratulated for his endeavours. The Government is attempting to bury this important issue which concerned some Government senators a year ago but which does not seem to concern them now. It would be sad if the Senate were to rush into an adjournment and holidays, as some Government senators no doubt will do- Senator Chaney excludedwithout considering this matter as it ought to be considered. Accordingly, I oppose the motion.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-At this stage it is essential to try to persuade Government senators about the sense of priorities that they ought to exercise in our society. Here we have a situation in which Government senators are forcing over a million people in our society into a state of greater and greater deprivation. I have been approached by ordinary, decent Australians who have worked all their lives and who now say that they cannot afford three decent meals a day. Most of them can afford one decent meal a day. The time of the Senate should be exercised on a social sore of this type that is being perpetuated by this Government. The Government stubbornly refuses to do anything about it although it knows about it. All Government senators have spoken to pensioners who have come to this place from all over Australia and who have tried to get through to them the nature of the indignity to which the Government is subjecting the elderly people in our society.

The Australian Democrats did not bring forward this Bill as a piece of politicking. We are not pressing it now for a political reason. Government senators know as well as we do that they are doing the wrong thing. It is time they admitted it. The policy of the Australian Democrats is for quarterly indexation of pensions. I conclude by referring to an article in the Sun-Herald on 7 December 1975 entitled ‘Fraser Gives Firm Pledge on Penions ‘. It states:

The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, today gave a firm undertaking that pensions would be adjusted automatically twice a year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2546

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 3 1 May, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-As I understand it we are having a cognate debate on two machinery Bills in relation to education matters. At the outset 1 wish to make some general comments about the state of education funding in Australia and to illustrate those general comments by referring to some documents. I wish to be quite brief in my remarks on these Bills because I think it was foreshadowed in the little horror Budget statement of last Thursday week that the Senate would have an opportunity to debate the matter of education funding some time this week. Quite apart from any question of keeping one ‘s powder dry, it is important that we should debate the matter in the context of the cuts which have been foreshadowed by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and which we assume the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) is still working on, having been told that they would take place.

As I said, these two Bills are essentially machinery matters. I shall talk firstly about some general aspects of them. There has been much talk in the Senate in the course of a number of debates on education matters about the question of the general level of education funding in respect of two governments- the Whitlam Government and the Fraser Government. I draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that in 1971-72 and 1972- 73- the last years of the Liberal McMahon Government- expenditure on education by the Australian Government in constant dollar terms based on 1970-71 values, was $327m in 1971-72 and $390m in 1972-73. In 1973-74 that expenditure doubled to $666m. In 1974-75 the figure was $ 1 , 089m and in 1 975-76 it was $ 1 , 094m. In 1973- 74 annual expenditure on education increased by 92.8 per cent. In 1974-75 it increased by 90.8 per cent and in 1975-76 it increased by 13.5 per cent. The estimated increase in expenditure for the year 1 978-79 is plus 6.1 per cent. In terms of constant 1971 dollars those figures represent an enormous increase in education expenditure in the years of the Whitlam Government and a tailing off to plus 0.5 per cent in the first year, plus 2.8 per cent in the second year, minus 0.4 per cent in the third year and an estimated minus 1.8 per cent in the fourth year of the Fraser Government. Those figures were provided by the Parliamentary Library’s Statistical Service. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT OUTLAY ON EDUCATION IN CURRENT AND CONSTANT 1970-71 DOLLARS 1970-71 TO 1978-79
Senator BUTTON:

– Those bald figures reflect both the general position in relation to education funding–

Senator Chaney:

– It is not a good table. It has some errors in it.

Senator BUTTON:

-Perhaps they can be drawn to my attention at a later stage.

Senator Chaney:

– You did not prepare it, I gather? They are not your figures?

Senator BUTTON:

-No. I indicated that the figures were supplied by the Parliamentary Library. A copy of the second document to which I wish to refer has been made available to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney).I indicated that the figures in the first document were raw, and the Minister has indicated that they might be more raw than I thought, but we can hear about that later. The second document relates to the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill and the perceived needs of schools in the Australian community in 1978-79.I refer in particular to the report of a survey which was conducted professionally on behalf of the Australian Teachers Federation. It is entitled: ‘National Survey of Conditions in Schools: The National Report’. That survey was conduced under the direction of Dr J. P. Keeves, Director of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Professor Sid Dunn, Chairman of the Education Research and Development Committee and members of the Australian National University Survey Research Centre. The results of the survey were processed by Professor Northcote of the South Australian

Institute of Technology. The results of the survey were summarised in the following terms:

The results give cause for concern. Only half those students perceived by their teachers to need extra help in basic skills are receiving it. Schools throughout Australia are being kept waiting for building improvements that have been approved by State Governments but cannot proceed because funding has been cut by the Federal Government.

The report goes on to deal with the special needs of students which were perceived by the survey and, more particularly, with school building requirements. I refer to page 2 of the document which I have made available to the Minister, where it is stated under the heading ‘School Building Requirements’:

The virtual freeze in capital works funds which has been experienced since 1976 is reflected in the survey results.

Fifty-one point six per cent of Australian schools have made application for a major renovation, structural alteration or addition to buildings. Sixty per cent of these have been approved by their department or authority.

I repeat that sentence:

Sixty per cent of these have been approved by their department or authority.

The report continued:

However, only 27 per cent of those have seen a start made on their building program and on average they have been waiting 11.3 months.

The worst affected areas are inner urban infants schools and secondary schools, technical schools in all areas and country secondary schools.

The report goes on to deal with the details of some of the deficiencies in the building program and various other matters which relate to learning conditions, suitability of accommodation and so on. I seek leave to have the report on that survey incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows-

THE AUSTRALIAN TEACHERS FEDERATION

National Survey of Conditions in Schools The National Report

Introduction

In 1976 the Australian Teachers’ Federation conducted the first survey of conditions in schools throughout Australia. This year another survey has been conducted.

The survey provides a comprehensive picture of conditions in Australian schools: the needs of students, the staffing situation, class sizes, the conditions of buildings and facilities.

The 1978 Survey provides data for comparison with the previous survey in the areas of staffing and class sizes. It also includes new data on special needs in basic skills and the backlog in school building programs.

The survey was carried out in March and April of this by means of a stratified random sample of 14 per cent of all schools in Australia. Responses totalled 894 representing an 85 per cent sample response, or 12.7 per cent of all Australian schools.

The sampling technique was approved by a consultative panel of eminent researchers which included Dr J. P. Keeves, Director of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Professor S. S. Dunn, Chairman of the Education Research and Development Committee and members of the Australian National University Survey Research Centre.

The results of the survey have been processed by Professor R. S. Northcote, Head of Computer Studies at the South Australian Institute of Technology.

The Results

The results give cause for concern. Only half those students perceived by their teachers to need extra help in basic skills arc receiving it. Schools throughout Australia are being kept waiting for building improvements that have been approved by State Governments but cannot proceed because funding has been cut by the Federal Government.

Students’ Special Needs

In Australian Government schools only half those students perceived by their teachers to be needing extra help in basic skills were receiving any assistance.

Forty-nine per cent of those students needing migrant or intensive English were receiving no extra assistance.

Sixty per cent of those students needing remedial number help were receiving no extra assistance.

Forty-nine per cent of those students needing remedial reading help were receiving no extra assistance.

Altogether in Australia there were 328,000 students needing extra help who were receiving no assistance.

Migrant needs are still greatest in the inner urban areas. In inner metropolitan primary schools 18.5 per cent of all children need migrant English. Only 47.7 per cent of these children are receiving this help. In inner metropolitan technical schools 36. 1 percent of students needing migrant English are not receiving this help.

An additional disturbing feature revealed by the survey was that the drift of the migrant population to the outer suburbs had not been matched by a movement of migrant English specialist teachers to these areas- 87 per cent of infants or junior primary migrant pupils in the outer suburbs were missing out on the migrant teaching they needed.

Students in the inner urban primary and technical schools were most in need of additional help with reading and number work with nearly a quarter of students at inner urban technical schools needing but not receiving remedial number and remedial reading help.

Remedial problems are exacerbated by overcrowded classes in infants and primary schools. Seventy-three per cent of primary classes in Australian schools exceeded the ATF Charter of Working Conditions of 25 students per class. Thirty-eight per cent of primary classes in Australian schools were over 30. It is impossible for teachers to deal with the individual learning needs of students in these classes. Many students in these classes have particular problems with English or with reading or number work which require additional help. In overcrowded classes these children have little chance of improvement.

A comparison of the 1 976 and 1 978 results shows little improvement in class sizes over the last two years. In 1976 75 per cent of primary and infant classes contained over 25 students. In 1 978 the figure is 73 per cent.

School Building Requirements

While there have been some improvements in general maintenance and heating of existing school buildings over the last two years there has been very little improvement in school facilities. Money for capital works in schools comes largely from the Federal Government through direct grants or from loans funds. Even if State Governments approve building applications from schools as being necessary they may not have the funds from the Federal Government to proceed with them.

The virtual freeze in capital works funds which has been experienced since 1 976 is reflected in the survey results.

Fifty-one point six per cent of Australian schools have made application for a major renovation, structural alteration or addition to buildings. Sixty per cent of these have been approved by their department or authority. However, only 27 per cent of those have seen a start made on their building program and on average they have been waiting 1 1.3 months.

The worst affected areas are inner urban infants schools and secondary schools, technical schools in all areas and country secondary schools.

Fifty-seven per cent of inner urban schools had made application for major improvements. All these applications are approved, however work has started at only 25 per cent of them and they have been waiting on average 22 months.

All country technical schools have made application for major building improvements. Sixty per cent have been given approval. Only 1 7 per cent of these have seen a start made on the projects and they have been waiting on average nearly 4 years ( 46 months ).

Students’ special needs, class sizes and building requirements are the areas of greatest need, however other needs were revealed in the survey.

Careers Counselling

The area of careers counselling is one which must cause concern. On average, Australian students receive 1.2 hours per year of careers counselling. Secondary students receive 2.7 hours per year and technical students 3.5 hours per year.

Students have contact with the work-force mainly through their parents, teachers and TV and books. Many books in primary schools portray an unrealistic view of the world of work: ‘Here is Mummy washing the dishes. Here is Daddy the Fireman. ‘

There is a need for all students to have adequate counselling and be given accurate information on work, if they arc to leave schools with a realistic idea of what work is about.

Suitable Accommodation

Many classes are being held in classrooms inappropriate for the purpose e.g. science lessons not in science laboratories, English lessons in technical rooms. This affects particularly country schools. There is an urgent need for 1,100 additional classrooms in country secondary schools and an additional 1,000 classrooms in country technical schools. Altogether 9,500 new classrooms are required in Australia to overcome the problem of classes being held in inappropriate areas.

Physical Working/ Learning Conditions

Although there have been some overall improvements in day-to-day working conditions in schools there were still major areas of concern. Nearly a quarter of schools (24.3 per cent) in Australia had overdue maintenance needs. Only 79.2 per cent of schools were adequately heated in winter and only 40.9 per cent of schools adequately cooled in summer. In Canberra schools have had to close because of poor ventilation. Throughout Australia children are having to work in conditions that their parents are protected from by industrial legislation. In many instances schools are excluded from State ordinances that govern other work places.

Worst affected are inner urban and country schools. Less than half (46.5 per cent) of inner urban technical schools are adequately heated in winter. Just over a quarter of inner urban infants schools (26.8 percent) are adequately cooled in summer. The extensive use of demountable classrooms in the country adds to the problems of heating and cooling.

Interference to classes by traffic noise was a major problem for inner urban schools with nearly a third (31.4 per cent) of inner urban primary Schools affected.

Conclusion

The survey of capital needs confirms the Schools Commission’s Report for the triennium 1979-81 which identified school building needs or more than $2,575m. There must be a significant improvement in the level of Commonwealth funding for capital works if the great backlog in school building needs is to be overcome.

There is also a need for increased Commonwealth recurrent funding if the States are to be able to provide the extra remedial teachers so urgently required to improve careers counselling and to lower the size of classes in lower primary and infant classes, particularly in those areas where children have special needs.

DAVID WIDDUP Research Officer

A complete national and State analysis with data will be published later. lmr/8May 1978

Senator BUTTON:

– In relation to schools, it is, of course, with glib lore that Senator Carrick is able to say- with great respect, I do not think entirely accurately- that government schools have reached target resources as suggested by the Karmel Committee. I refer to the passage of the Schools Commission Report for the Triennium 1979-81 dated April 1978 which deals with this specific question. I assume that report is to be the document upon which Senator Carrick relies. The Commission had this to say in paragraph 3.32 of its report:

The Commission does not believe that it is possible precisely to predict future State decisions on resources for schools; projections of previous trends are likely to be seriously in error. For example, projections of the trends of previous years into 1977-78 would have been wrong, as the preliminary estimates, while appearing to confirm continued growth in some States, indicate a slowing down at either the primary or secondary level or both in other States, and a decline in another.

Nevertheless only New South Wales and Western Australia at the primary level and Queensland at the secondary level are likely to be short of the targets by the end of 1978. They are all within sufficient reach of the targets to attain them in 1979 or at the latest by 1980 if there is some continuation of the growth in the State resources and if Commonwealth general recurrent grants are provided as proposed in Chapter 5. In short, the original targets may be reached by almost all government systems by the originally scheduled year of 1 979.

That passage specifically draws attention to the discrepancies between the performance of government systems in various States and to the apparent deficiencies in New South Wales and Western Australia at the primary level and in Queensland at the secondary level. If the figures quoted by the Schools Commission at page 35 in terms of target resource standards are translated into 1979 terms, the $845 primary resource standard becomes $960 and the $ 1,446 secondary resource standard becomes $1,524. Perhaps it is easy at this stage to rely purely on the Schools Commission report of April 1978 and conclude that schools in Australia have reached the desired level of resource standards suggested by the Karmel Committee.

These matters, first of all in relation to schools, are of increasing concern to the Australian community. There is some doubt about the capacity of schools to reach the level of resource standards desired, in terms of the configuration which the Karmel Committee talked about. One need not be too nitpicking about the Government’s achievements in this regard because until quite recently one suspects that the Minister was striving to attain those standards as soon as possible. There is some doubt about the reality of the resource standards obtained but, more than that, in terms of Commonwealth funding there has been a total inability by this Government to make significant contributions to particular programs which seem to be areas of particular need. For example, I refer to the failure of the Government to act on the Schools Commission ‘s recommendations regarding disadvantage in rural schools. Other programs such as the program for migrant children, the innovations program and the disadvantaged schools program are still very important but the Government has not been able to make any significant increases in respect of them. I think that is sad for the education system in this country as a whole, and it is a cause of continuing concern. However, these are matters which can be dealt with in the context of an anticipated statement some time this week.

I refer briefly to the question of funding of tertiary education and the relevant Bill relating to it. Before doing so, I draw attention to the fact that in the second reading speech the Minister for Education has made a number of references to the activities of this Government in education policy, which seem to centre around a number of reports. Every time an education issue is raised a new committee of inquiry is appointed to deal with it. We wait with bated breath- as we did with the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, and get a pronunciamento of the most doubtful validity and value. For example, the Williams report, which was described with a degree of euphoria before it was presented as a blueprint for education to the year 2000, seems to have resulted only in a sort of governmental hangover.

Much can be said of this method of dealing with education issues by establishing yet another committee, and I refer to some of the committees which have been established and the reports that have been made available to the Government. Regular reports have been received from the Schools Commission and the Tertiary Education Commission. There are numerous matters in those reports which have not been acted on, but I do not want to go into detail about that at the moment. Others include the Williams report, the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Specific Learning Difficulties, the Australian Council of Educational Research report on literacy and numeracy, and the report of yet another inquiry, the Auchmuty Inquiry into Teacher Education, which one suspects was stimulated by that debate about literacy and numeracy. Each of those reports make recommendations that one imagines are supposed to be in fulfilment of the Minister’s frequent statements that what this Government is concerned about is qualitative considerations in education in the context of the argument of getting itself off the hook about quantitative considerations. Of course, we are all concerned about qualitative issues in education, but whenever one asks a question about them in this place one is told that yet another committee of inquiry is looking into the problem.

Senator Teague:

– That is not really fair. The Minister does answer questions about quality, and with substance.

Senator BUTTON:

– With the greatest respect, it is absolutely fair. The honourable senator knows that on numerous occasions questions have been asked about literacy and numeracy. The answer is: ‘Ha, ha! Literacy and numeracy! The Auchmuty Committee will look into this matter and pronounce’. Before the Williams Committee reported, any questions relating to tertiary education, particularly the technical and further education sector, were answered in much the same way: ‘The Williams Committee will provide an answer to this question ‘.lam not condemning the Minister for that. I am sure that he believed that these committees would provide answers, but the sad fact is that one must have the gravest doubts about whether they did. Of course, I suppose that is a very useful Question Time device.

I refer briefly to the question of tertiary education funding in the context of these two Bills. We are concerned that the tertiary education sector should not in any sense be made the scapegoat for the Government’s performance in managing the Budget deficit. Of course, the question will arise very nicely at the forthcoming Premiers Conference, both in relation to schools and in relation to aspects of tertiary education funding. It is after the Premiers Conference that we might have the most valuable debate about whether the State contribution in terms of school funding and in terms of funding of certain areas of tertiary education can be maintained and has been maintained, and whether the States will have the capacity to maintain that contribution in the light of general revenue cutbacks and in the light of their expressed concern not to impose the State taxation stage of new federalism. There are some broad facts about which we must be concerned in relation to tertiary education. In spite of the age demography of the secondary student population in Australia, by 1980 there will be approximately 13Vi per cent more young people in the final year of secondary school than there were in 1975. On present projections, the relative number of places available in a tertiary institution will be unchanged. Of course, the Williams committee had something to say about that in the course of its recommendations, although what it said could not be regarded as very conclusive. The Committee said that in 1978 enrolments in universities and colleges of advanced education were slightly greater than the proposed level. In fact, there was a slightly inaccurate estimate of those enrolments.

There are substantial differences in participation rates, and therefore differences in equality of access to tertiary education, between the States. For example, the rates vary from 22.7 per cent of the 17 to 22 year age group in Western Australia to 13.4 per cent of that age group in Tasmania. Because of unavoidable increases in expenditure universities and colleges are being asked to find savings in 1 979 in the order of 5 per cent compared with what was spent in 1975. I make it quite clear that when I say that is a matter of regret and concern in relation to tertiary education, I believe very strongly that the universities themselves have some responsibilies in this matter. In terms of the administration and management of universities I am not satisfied and I am not sure that universities have responded in an appropriate way to the Government’s policies. I regret the Government’s policies, but I think it is incumbent upon university administrations to respond to them in a realistic way.

There are areas of great deficiency, for example in university financing, particularly in areas such as research. I think that all honourable senators are aware of areas of relative affluence in universities. That is a situation in which it is hard to impose the burden of responsibility on governments, unless the universities are prepared to take some responsibility in ironing out those differences. Last year the Government reduced by $ 12m the amounts proposed by the Tertiary Education Commission for operating expenditure of universities and colleges and froze that level of funding for 1979 and 1980. Presumably we will hear more about that tomorrow, so I do not wish to speak at any great length about what happened last year. I am more interested to find out what will happen next year.

Senator Teague raised with me earlier whether it was quite fair to criticise the Government for setting up a number of inquiries and so on, and to use the establishment of those inquiries as an answer, as it were, to questions of qualitative concern. lt is perhaps a little glib, with respect, to try to distinguish qualitative from quantitative considerations in the constitutional context of funding education. I remind honourable senators of the statements which have been made by various Ministers. I refer particularly to what the Minister for Education has said in the past about these matters. For example, in a statement to the Senate on 30 March 1 977 on a matter of urgency regarding education Senator Carrick said:

Those who claim here or elsewhere that we have made cuts in federal education expenditure are deliberately misrepresenting the situation. We have expanded education in every field.

The first part of that statement can be subject to some qualifications; the second part to more qualifications. He went on to say:

The simple fact is that in terms of the quantity of funds provided in every direction, in the quality of delivery and in an understanding of the goals of education, an understanding that we ought to get back to the basics of education, to make sure that we look at the basic skills- numeracy and literacy as well as innovation- this Government is setting a lead, lt is a lead that is recognised throughout Australia.

Senator Carrick was of course talking about another inquiry which was to be set up. The point I seek to make is that it is very difficult to distinguish qualitative considerations- if they are things one just talks about in the Senate- from quantitative considerations in view of the role of the Federal Government in education funding, lt has no real constitutional power. The role has been assumed by Federal governments of both persuasions, creating this somewhat messy situation which we have in which it is difficult to divine a national purpose in education and educational funding. All of us in this Parliament are to some extent subject to the whims of State governments.

The Opposition regards the basic issues raised by these Bills as being of concern. We do not oppose the legislation because it is machinery legislation which is necessary- it has been necessary in the life of every governmentbecause of increased salaries, expenses and so on. For that reason, we do not oppose it, but it is our desire to draw attention to some of the basic concerns and issues involved in education funding.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1979 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1 979, are essentially of a machinery nature. They provide additional funds for the topping up of programs, most of which are already well under way. Perhaps the most interesting feature of the changing relationship between the Commonwealth and the States in the whole of the post-war period has been the changing role that the Commonwealth has assumed in the provision of funds for education. There has been a great change in provision of education services and the degree of control in the education sector by the Commonwealth. Public expenditure on education, which in 1956-57 was about 2.1 per cent of the gross domestic product, had risen to 5.8 per cent by the 1976-77 period. But perhaps more significantly, the Commonwealth proportion of this expenditure had grown from 2.6 per cent to 42. 1 per cent. I think that the changing nature of Commonwealth-State relationships reflected in the education sector is one of the factors that we have to bear in mind in discussions of the Commonwealth’s role of providing the money, as it does in the schools sector, without having much of the constitutional power to see that the money is spent according to its own priorities that it may consider important.

The changing nature of this relationship is reflected even in the table which Senator Button has had incorporated in Hansard. He referred to figures for the 1972-73 period, the 1973-74 period and the 1975-76 period. He indicated considerable increases in Commonwealth expenditure- increases in the order of 92 per cent and 90 per cent in a couple of those years. In fact those figures reflect not simply the increase in Commonwealth expenditure but equally the increase in Commonwealth responsibility for taking over from the States- particularly after 3 1 December 1973- a number of functions and responsibilities which previously had been regarded as almost exclusively within the purview of the State governments. I do not think that Senator Button can really detract from the progress which this Commonwealth Government has made towards the realisation of targets set by the Karmel Committee report. In the report from the Schools Commission it will be seen that in many instances the targets established by the Karmel Committee, and which the Government enthusiastically adopted, have been metmany of them substantially ahead of the time frame in which it was expected they might be achieved. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a table drawn from the Schools Commission report which shows per student expenditure in government and non-government schools in the States in 1976-77 as a percentage of the Karmel targets.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator PUPLICK:

-I thank the Senate. These figures show that in the non-government schools the rate of progress has been somewhat uneven. It has been 66 per cent as far as level 6 schools are concerned, rising to 124 per cent as far as the level 1 schools are concerned. It can be seen that there is a far more even progression in the Government system; in the primary schools from a figure of 99 per cent in New South Wales to a figure of 1 16 per cent in Tasmania, and in the secondary schools from a figure of 93 per cent in Queensland to a figure of 109 per cent in South

Australia. Over the last two Budgets we have seen expenditure on education vary slightly. In 1975-76 it was in the order of 8.4 per cent of the outlays of the Commonwealth Budget, a figure of $ 1,846m. In 1978-79 the Budget papers give an estimate of 8.7 per cent as a proportion of outlays, some $2,498m. It can be seen that education, as an item, ranks only behind social service and welfare payments to the States and health as the most important single component of a Commonwealth Budget.

This topping-up legislation with which we are dealing today will in some ways be the last of its kind, because it will be the last of this sort of expenditure incurred in what one might regard as a pre- Williams situation. Education expenditure from this point onwards will undoubtedly be substantially influenced by the recommendations of the Williams Committee. It is proposed that those recommendations, which have given rise to a certain amount of debate throughout the community, will take place in a number of different fields and in a number of fields which I think will change the emphasis of Commonwealth involvement in education expenditure. I suppose this is neither the time nor the place to go in detail into the recommendations that Professor Williams’s report puts before the Government, but I think it is important to note that we are operating in a slightly different educational atmosphere since the tabling of the Williams report and that Government decisions and Government priorities will be very largely measured against the recommendations of that particular report.

I want to turn to the sort of proposals that we see embodied in the Bill dealing with tertiary education. This Government has particularly committed itself to a substantial expenditure in expanding the technical and further education sector of tertiary education. I believe there has been a great deal of confusion about the role of different sectors in education. There is a great deal of confusion about the proper role that the colleges of advanced education play. There is a great deal of confusion about the proper position of the TAFE sector within the overall education system. Harking back to Williams we know that technical and further education receives particularly favourable treatment from Williams in terms of his recommendations. We know that in terms of the recommendations that this Government has adopted and has acted upon, once again technical and further education appears to be doing considerably better than other sectors. But even so there is some confusion and uncertainty as to exactly what purpose technical and further education will serve, how it should best be worked into the overall post-secondary education system, and how even the priorities within the TAFE sector should be adjusted.

It has been common to hear in the debate in this country, for instance, about the enormous shortage of skilled tradesmen. One of the points that Williams makes is that, despite this, there is a large number of unemployed skilled tradesmen. Although I think the Williams report does not analyse in the sort of detail that the Government would need to analyse particularly what trades are referred to, particularly which locations are referred to, and particularly what is wrong with that specific sector of the tradesman’s activities, it does, I think, cause us to pause and examine where technical and further education should be headed, and how it should relate to other sectors of post-secondary education.

This Bill, in providing additional assistance for TAFE and TAFE institutions, is a continuing recognition of a policy that the Government embarked upon some time ago in improving the TAFE sector in relation to the universities and to the colleges of advanced education. The extent to which that continues and the exact direction in which it continues must be a matter to be adjusted in the light of recommendations and new data and new information made available to the Government. The expenditure provided, as one can see from the second reading speech, also includes the expenditure on the Graduate School of Management at the University of New South Wales. Again, this is a particularly novel and exciting undertaking. It is an area in which honourable senators and honourable members in the other place have from time to time had some critical things to say about the quality and nature of management in Australia. It is to be hoped that in exactly the same way as governments were motivated to establish and support the Clyde Cameron College, in the belief that people operating in the trade union sector ought to have access to a greater degree of expertise, to greater assistance and to greater resources in order to allow them to fulfil their proper role within the educational and industrial sector, so I am sure that Australian management will benefit from taking a more intelligent and more scientific approach to the role it has to play in the mixed economy.

This Bill moves us one step further in the direction of the establishment and maintenance of triennial funding for tertiary institutions. I think this will be one of the more settling and one of the more important aspects of the way in which tertiary education will now be confronted with the necessity to put its own house in order as far as expenditure is concerned; to work on a slightly longer term, and a slightly more integrated program of future expenditure than has been the case in the past, and the way in which institutions reacted to the decision to provide them only with a system of annual funding.

This Bill, and I can only speculate on this, may be the last Bill in which the name of Murdoch University appears as a separate establishment. This is indicated in the current schedules regarding tertiary education. As honourable senators will know, the Williams Committee makes a very significant recommendation about the future of Murdoch University. As I understand it, the Western Australian Government has established a committee to look into the future of Murdoch University, although it has made it abundantly clear that it believes that Murdoch must exist as a separate and complete entity. As I understand it, Dr Birt, of the University of Wollongong, is to act as chairman of that committee. Undoubtedly its findings, placed against the findings of the Williams Committee, and placed against what I suppose will inevitably be the political pressures and priorities of the day, mean that this is another issue to which, when future Bills for the funding of universities come around, the Government will have had to have paid a considerable amount of attention in relation to the response that it makes to the question of Murdoch University.

As this is the first opportunity for debate on educational matters since the tabling of the Williams report it might be appropriate to say something about the question of university fees, if only to indicate that the comments that have been made, particularly the comments that have been made in the newsletter of the Australian Union of Students and elsewhere that the Williams report is a report which urges the reestablishment of tertiary education fees, are not a correct charge. It is not a correct reading of the recommendations that the Williams report makes. I think it is useful to put on the record, when one is talking about tertiary education, that whatever the decisions that may be made in the future, the Williams report is not a document urging upon the Government the reestablishment of these fees.

I turn now to the question of what is a complete initiative in the Bill; that is, the provision of government funding for non-government business colleges. This is to be found in Part IV A of the proposed new legislation. It is true that nongovernment business colleges have received some support and assistance in the past. On 13 October 1978 the Tertiary Education Committee reported on this particular matter to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). The recommendations of that Committee, found at pages 32 and 33 of the Committee’s report, are the recommendations which, by and large, have been followed, I think very commendably, by the Government. As I said previously, nongovernment business colleges have received, or have had indications that they will receive, financial support from the Federal Government. I know that Senator Colston has taken an interest in this matter. He placed on notice the following question directed to the Minister for Education:

  1. What non-Government Business Colleges in each State and Territory are receiving or will receive grants in 1979.
  2. What are the approved courses for which grants may be paid in each of these colleges.

On 2 May Senator Carrick provided an answer containing information as to the number of colleges which will be looking for the grant of money under the recommendations which are to be found in the report. The answer showed that in New South Wales there were some twentythree colleges providing 43 courses, in Victoria eighteen colleges providing 37 courses, in Queensland six colleges providing 10 courses, in South Australia six colleges providing 1 1 courses, in Western Australia five colleges providing 10 courses, in the Australian Capital Territory one college providing two courses and in Tasmania one college providing two courses.

I do not believe that one needs to go through the recommendations in detail. They relate to the length of time for which courses should attract assistance and state that the colleges should move to become non-profit making colleges, that the rate for 1979 should be $55 per student per month, that the total amount of assistance paid to an individual college in a given year should not be greater than the actual expenditure incurred in that year in the provision of the courses supported, that the course approvals should be made by a special committee to be established and that students should be eligible to apply for living allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme as well as any support that the college might be receiving as far as the direct education of those students is concerned.

I think that the movement of the Government into the support of the non-government business colleges is a very worthwhile and commendable one. Harking back to Professor Williams, one of the matters of which one becomes increasingly aware- it is a matter which I would like to take up later- is the limitation on the special training and on the more than ordinary secondary training that is available for girls in the community. I think that Williams is right in drawing to our attention the fact that one of the most insidious forms of sexual discrimination in Australia is that which is practised systematically in the secondary school system against female students. He referred to the deliberate way in which it appears that girls are not encouraged to pursue mathematical and scientific studies but instead are shunted off into courses which are regarded as being more appropriate for girls to study- that is,

I suppose, courses regarded in the perception of the 1 930s as being appropriate for girls to study. That again is something which requires a greater deal of study and attention. But the extent to which the non-government business colleges are still catering, almost exclusively, for female enrollees I think helps, at least in one respect, to break down some of the barriers of financial disadvantage for training and post-secondary courses available for girls.

Senator Colston:

– I do not think those courses are for girls only, are they?

Senator PUPLICK:

-They are not. Undoubtedly many young men would benefit from the secretarial type of courses which are offered. The point I make is simply that the majority of the people enrolled at those colleges at the moment and the majority of the people who as a result will be attracting government support to the non-government business colleges are female. I turn now to a criticism of this legislation, as far as it affects schools, which was made when this matter was debated in the House of Representatives. At page 2676 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 30 May 1979, the honourable member for Griffith, Mr Humphreys, is recorded as having criticised the Bill in the following fashion when speaking of assistance provided for schools:

The wealthiest non-government schools will get an increase of $28 per head, whilst the poorest non-government schools will get only $6 per head. Level one primary schools will get $17 per head, whilst level six will get $5 per head. Levels three, four and five in the primary schools and levels four and five in secondary schools will get zero.

I do not think that that statement should be allowed to pass without being challenged. The figures which Mr Humphreys cited referred only to the respective increases in rates of subsidy. They did not include the additional amounts gained by all non-government schools in the linking of percentage subsidies with the growth in government school per pupil costs. All levels receive an increase from the formula, which links the grant to government school costs, including schools at levels three to five. In fact, the total increases in per capita grants in 1979 are $29 and $37 for level one primary and secondary schools, compared with $28 and $2 1 for level six schools. Those amounts are expressed in current price levels, consistent with per capita grants which are shown in Schedule 6 at page seven of the Bill. I think it is important, therefore, to indicate that simply to read the figures the way in which they were read in the House of Representatives will not enable one to arrive at a correct and accurate perception of exactly what the Bill proposes.

At page 123 of Volume I of the Williams report, in a review of chapter 4 on schools, I think that one can find one of the most devastating indictments of the Australian school system that has yet been given. Although Williams’s brief was initially to inquire into education and training, with particular reference to the postsecondary sector, I think it important that he intruded very substantially into the schools sector to make the following analysis and criticism at paragraph R4.2:

The schools have been given at least part of the blame for the high rate of unemployment among teenagers. Many employers, in the public sector as well as in private industry, complain that a substantial proportion of school leavers who seek jobs lack an adequate command of the basic skills of reading, writing and calculating and have unrealistic job expectations. In effect the employers blame the schools because such school leavers are insufficiently skilled and motivated to be worth employing at current wage rates.

That is only one of many criticisms of the school system. It is one criticism which I think will be adequately taken up and analysed under the new reference which has been given to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. That Committee is to look particularly at the role of the school in preparing the student for employment or for post-secondary education. Although Senator Button may have made some somewhat disparaging remarks about the role of committees of inquiry and about the endless proliferation of such committees, I think that the reference by the Senate of that matter to one of its outstandingly successful committees- one which will be able to approach the matter on a bipartisan and expert basis- gives some cause for one to expect that progress will be made in that regard.

However, at the other end of the scale, an equally great sector is uncatered for in the Australian school system. I refer to the gifted child. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 March 1979, a former very distinguished and undoubtedly very highly regarded Minister for Education, Mr Kim Beazley, wrote an article entitled Needs of the gifted student’. In that article Mr Beazley pointed out quite succinctly the way in which students who are in fact high achievers are considerably penalised by the existing system of schools, particularly State schools. This is not a phenomenon peculiar to Australia. An article in Time magazine of 23 April 1979, under the heading ‘Was the Kid Too Smart to Learn?’ dealt with precisely the same matter being taken to litigation in the United States of America, where the parents of gifted children are taking the school boards to court for denying their gifted children the opportunity to excel within the ordinary State school system.

Senator Robertson:

– Do you think that these Bills have anything for the gifted child?

Senator PUPLICK:

-No. What I am saying in this debate on education, which deals with the provision of money to schools, is that I made the point earlier that the Commonwealth has a very limited constitutional capacity to direct the money it provides to the States for schools assistance into the areas which appear to be the areas of considerably greatest need.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator PUPLICK:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was making a point, in response to a comment by Senator Robertson, to the effect that the Federal Government found itself in the difficult position of being required to provide very large amounts of money for secondary school education without having very much control over the way in which that money is then distributed and spent within the secondary school sector. As an illustration I want to take up a point about the continuing debate in Australia about what is called bicultural or multicultural education. I note with some degree of regret that the legislation we are considering this evening contains no provision for any expanded finance to be made available to combat the problems which are increasingly apparent within the Australian education system as far as our attitude to bicultural and multicultural education is concerned.

In an article entitled ‘Australians: Imprisoned within the four walls of our monolingualism’ which appeared in the Canberra Times of 2 1 May, Professor Ray Cattell, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Newcastle, made a particularly important statement about the lack of effective multicultural education in Australian secondary schools. I want to take a moment to indicate some of the work that has been done as far as this subject is concerned. I draw the Senate ‘s attention to this as an area of considerable deprivation within the secondary school system and an area in which I believe the Federal Government may well have to exercise a little more of its financial muscle to persuade the States to meet their quite apparent responsibilities. At a conference in 1976 called ‘Australia 2000: The Ethnic Impact’ a paper entitled ‘Bilingual-bicultural Education in a Multicultural Society’ was delivered by Pino Geracitano. He made the point that 39 per cent of the child population of Australia was made up of immigrants. He said:

Yet despite this, the multiculturalism of society is muted through the dominance in all facets of life by Australians of Anglo-Saxon background, and consequently on the surface Australia still looks very much an Anglo-Saxon country.

He went on to indicate the complete lack of awareness within the Australian school system of the problems faced by the immigrant child and in one particular passage drew attention to the fact that children in schools were being forcibly, one might say, educated in the English language. He made the observation that a situation developed where:

It is not unusual for such a family to sit at the dinner table with very little conversation between children and parents.

He went on to say:

The school is faced with a dilemma; on the one hand it has the function of socialising the young -

That is, I take it, political socialisation- but on the other hand learning is nourished best in the learner’s own cultural ethos, which includes the learner’s native language. In the past the school has resolved this in favour of socialising towards an homogeneous society. Hence, it has emphasised assimilation at the expense of education.

That is an area which has been taken up by a number of writers in recent years. In an article in the Journal of Research and Development in Education of November 1977, Leon Frazier indicated that part of the problem was the lack of perception among trainee teachers of the need to possess greater awareness of these problems. Frazier wrote:

The major and most important single unit in determining the reality of education that is multicultural is the teacher. The teacher generally holds the reins of opportunity in the educational situation and is a key factor in the formation of critical attitudes in students.

Again the matters which presumably have been referred to Professor Auchmuty as part of his inquiry will impinge very closely upon this. L. J. Dwyer, in an article entitled ‘Education for a Multicultural Society- What and How?’, went on to make this significant point:

The provision of education for a multicultural society is both a political and a knowledge problem.

In discussing it as a political problem Dwyer was at pains to emphasise that the decisions as far as multicultural education is concerned have to be taken at the very highest level. I would particularly commend to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) and to the Government the pioneering work done in Australia by Dr J. J. Smolicz of the University of Adelaide, who will be known to many honourable senators. I think that his published works, particularly his work dealing with Eastern European cultural and ethnic communities, indicate a great deal of research to which governments, Federal and State, have failed to respond in any constructive fashion. I hope that the provision of additional money for the school system will result in the provision of additional information and the payment of additional attention to the problems of what one can call bicultural or multicultural education. To illustrate this point I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out the number of students enrolled in New South Wales for the Higher Schools Certificate language course.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

There were 3 1 ,080 HSC candidates in 1 972, and 34,303 in 1 978, an increase of 10.37 per cent.

Students sat for 7,474 language papers in 1972 (an unknown number sat for more than one), compared with 5,038 in 1978, a drop of 32.59 per cent.

The numbers sitting the three most popular languages in 1972 and 1978, expressed as percentages of the English candidature, were: French, 13.26 to 6.42 percent; German, 3.85 to 3.0 percent; Indonesian, 3.15 to 1.79 percent.

Senator PUPLICK:

-The table shows, for instance, that the number taking the traditional language of French declined from 4,122 in 1972 to 2,202 in 1978. The table shows an enormous decline in a large number of modern European languages in particular. For instance, there has been a decline of 46.6 per cent in French and 13.9 per cent in German. There has been a decline of 37.3 per cent in the number of students undertaking the study of the Indonesian language, which has been in vogue in recent years. Strangely enough, that has been at a period when one would have thought that the teaching of a language like Indonesian was all the more important within the Australian school system. Of course, this decline has occurred partly because the school systems have operated in such a way that there has been almost no provision for the teaching of foreign languages. Mrs Frenkel of the Classical Language Teachers Association drew attention to that when writing in the Education Herald of 22 May of this year. She said:

One cannot expect immature tennagers in large numbers to choose foreign languages in preference to subjects which have greater immediate appeal. The only solution is to make the study of at least one language part of the core curriculum. After all if mathematics was optional how popular would it be?

I believe that we are imprisoning Australian generations of the future in an extremely blinkered and narrow world by not insisting not only that the English language should be properly taught in schools but also people should be encouraged- indeed, directed- to master more than one language or at least to have a passing familiarity with more than one language. This linguistic isolation of the Australian continent is something which, if allowed to continue, will have very detrimental effects in the years to come. Indeed, a paper tabled today- that is, the paper entitled ‘Provision for child migrant education ‘-draws attention to the recommendations made in the Galbally report involving the teaching of English as a second language requiring the provision of an extra $ 10m for funding and the allocation of $5m over the course of three years for multicultural education in schools.

The school as we know it is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today’s society. In the Len Falk annual lecture delivered in March of this year His Excellency the Governor-General, Sir Zelman Cowen, was at pains to point out that schools are no longer fulfilling their traditional and expected role. Amongst other things, he said: lt is no good enunciating aims for the schools which expect them to do things that adults do not do.

Yet it has been the traditional role of the school to provide information, cultural and social awareness- which is very often absent in the home life of many students- and particularly some sort of integration into the Australian cultural ethos for those 39 per cent of children for whom English is not the native tongue. In Gilmour and Lansbury’s book entitled Ticket to Nowhere one of the points they make is the crying need for education systems to be what they described as ‘sufficiently flexible to enable individuals to make considerable changes in their work situations at any stage during their working life ‘. They state:

No longer should an individual with minimal education be condemned to the secondary labour market forever, while the more fortunate have life-long membership of the primary labour market. Education must broaden people’s life chances rather than restrict them to particular segments of the labour market. This means that education must be for life and not merely for work.

At the moment the school no longer is providing that particular milieu. Above all, it is not providing it for the group so clearly identified in the Williams report; that is to say, the early school leaver. We know from the Williams report that these sorts of figures have become apparent. An Australian Bureau of Statistics survey which he quotes, of those who left school between 1971 and 1976, shows that in May 1976 the unemployment rate was 24 per cent for those who left school at 14, 13 per cent for those who left school at 1 5 and 8 per cent for those who left school at 16. The book by Gilmour and Lansbury to which I referred previously summarises the situation in these terms:

The main penalties for failure in the education system are low pay, poverty and unemployment.

If one needed any additional information on this one would have to turn only to some of the published documents in the Poverty and Education Series of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. In one of those studies entitled ‘Factors affecting school leaving and work decisions for girls’ the following appears:

A disturbing number of students left because they found school boring and irrelevant to their perceived needs. An equally disturbing number of students reported that the family needed an extra breadwinner to supplement family income. The decision to leave school shows a strong and independent tendency for students to be responsible for their own futures.

Whilst the idea of responsibility for one’s own future is very much to be encouraged, the idea that one should be pushed out of the school system by financial and other constraints at the earliest possible time should not be encouraged. Another of the Henderson Commission series entitled ‘Poverty, education and adolescents’ reported in the following terms:

This study has demonstrated the pervasive effects of failure and powerlessness on people’s lives, dimensions that correlate highly with poverty, with experiences within the lowest strata of the social scale.

The school system, I believe, should be doing considerably more than it is at the moment to adjust that situation.

I turn to questions which are not addressed in the general debate about education. I believe that the Williams report fails to come to grips with some of the very important aspects of education in the future, including the ability to tell us something about how education will fit in with the new technology. For instance, in the Williams report there is no mention of cable television. There is no mention of what will happen to the education system when, because of television, cables, optical fibres and all the rest of it, one can be educated almost in isolation at home on the end of a television screen. The quality of education will be second to none but it will be conducted in the isolation of one’s home, removed from one’s peers and without any of those human contacts that are so important.

I find it distressing that in a Bill about tertiary education one of the greatest experiments in tertiary education once again receives no mention. In the Williams report there is no significant and intelligent discussion of the concept of the Open University. Yet this year in Great Britain the Open University celebrated its tenth anniversary. Every week 35 tons of written material is being sent from the University to studens through the postal system. It is the largest educational institution in the country. Yet it appears that in Australia, despite the fact that we had a Tertiary Education Commission paper some years ago on the Open University, there is virtually nothing to be said about it for the future. In an article by Christopher Mcintosh in the London Illustrated News entitled ‘Ten years of the Open University’ we read the extent to which the Open University really opens opportunities for disadvantaged people. It goes on to describe the way in which the concept has developed since its inception. It says of its origins:

First, there were then few courses open to working adults who wished to take degrees, and those that existed tended to provide for people who already had educational qualifications; second, there had been a tremendous growth in television and radio programmes of a broadly educational kind; third, there was strong political support in certain quarters for measures to increase egalitarianism and combat elitism in education.

I believe that that is one of the most important things that an open university can do. The journal New Society indicates in its 15 March edition the concept and development of the Open University as it is in Paris at the moment. The University of Paris VIII, otherwise known as Vicennes, is again a bold experiment which appears at the moment to have no place in the Australian education system. Finally, one could cite as an example the La Guardia project which has taken place in the United States and to which my colleague in the other place, Mr Peter Fisher, referred in his speech on the Bills. At that college there is not only a core of enrolled students but also people who come and go off the streets to receive additional part-time education.

The final thing that needs to be said in this respect is that there is some need for a return to what tended to be regarded as basic standards in education. I think that most people who follow the education debate would be familiar with the views of Professor Lauchlan Chipman on why schools appear to be increasingly irrelevant, why parents increasingly are shirking their educational responsibilities and why there is no form of increasing accountability in public education. I believe that unless these issues are confronted the education system in Australia will simply grind along with the deficiencies that Williams and others have exposed year after year. I have pleasure in supporting these Bills at this stage because they are quite simply topping up measures. They do not point us in new directions. I hope that they will be the last Bills which do not take account of the sort of material which Williams has put before us and of the sorts of challenges which the education system will need to face up to in the 1980s and beyond.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I rise in this debate to support the comments which were made earlier by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and which will be made by those Opposition senators who will follow. We are not opposing these Bills but there are some comments that need to be made. Before I move into my prepared remarks perhaps I could comment on a few of the remarks that Senator Puplick made in his contribution. Early in his speech he looked at the need for some sort of control of education, as he called it, by the Federal Government because of the funding that has been provided by the Federal Government. I remind Senator Puplick and the Senate that the Federal Government provides only about 6 per cent of the total expenditure in any State and that, therefore, one could not expect a great deal of control. Nevertheless, I support his proposition that there should be some role for the Federal Government, and I am going to make a few comments about that in the course of my remarks.

He remarked also that the Karmel targets had been met, ahead of time in some cases. I think that we need to look at a definition of the word target’ because the Australian Teachers Federation suggests that, whilst some pans of the target have been met, the general configuration of the Karmel targets have not been met. But I do not think that this is the time for such a debate. I foreshadow that in later debates on the Karmel targets we will mention this. If they have been met- and I put the point that probably they have not been met- then we on the federal scene must not take all the credit. We must remember that the actions of the States have contributed a great deal. I shall have something to say about that also.

Senator Puplick mentioned that he had read through the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training and that he supported many of the contentions in it. We have listened to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), who has said that the more he reads Williams the more he finds in it and the more lead it gives him. As I understand the Williams report, one of its aspects is that it ties funding to the formula principle. It does not have the same concept of needs, of innovation and so on, that we saw in the Karmel report, and I certainly hope that the Government does not follow this sort of lead. I hope, despite what Senator Puplick has said, that in future we will see some innovation, some provision made for disadvantaged schools and so on; that we will not be simply tied to the retrograde step of complete formula funding.

Senator Puplick also mentioned the funding of non-government business colleges under the Bills and hailed this as representing some sort of innovation. I seem to recall that the matter was discussed when the Labor Party was in government, so it is not completely innovative. It was certainly considered by the Labor Party and if it was not introduced it certainly would have been but for the activities of II November 1975. Nevertheless, one gives praise for the fact that this is being done and one supports this sort of proposition.

I was pleased to hear Senator Puplick mention bicultural education. This legislation does not exactly provide for that. In fact, the honourable senator criticised it for not doing so. I remind him that the innovations program of the former Labor Government would have catered for this sort of thing, in order to give the States a lead, shall we say, and to show them the way. Senator Puplick suggested that the States should shoulder the responsibility for bicultural education. One wonders whether that sort of concept should be supported and whether this is not an area that might attract some funding from the Federal Government. Because of the feelings of Senator Puplick in regard to this matter, I hope he will press the Government to look at additional funding in this area.

He mentioned the Galbally report and some of the actions which have followed it. I remind the Senate that the Government withdrew support from those excellent schemes that were operating overseas and on board ship, for migrants. There is certainly a need for migrants to be given some assistance, and the point has been made many times- I have done so myself in this place- that the guidance, instruction and education could be given, or could at least start, in the originating countries and on board ship. It seems a pity that this report does not suggest the reinstitution of that proposition. Senator Puplick moved then to talk about life-long education and, in one of his quotations, said that education was for life, not for work. This leads into the comments that I have to make on the subject, so I shall move on without commenting on his final discussion.

It is, I believe, generally accepted that education is a life-long process. It is also generally accepted, I suppose, that schooling is usually for young people, although not exclusively so. I would put the proposition that education is for all. Older senators in this place may recall the New Education Fellowship Conference that was held in Australia in 1937. 1 certainly do not recall it. I was a part of the scheme, but at the lower level of the infants’ school at that stage. It brought together educationists from all over the world to look at this topic of education for living. It stressed education of the young, because that was the sort of thing that was in vogue in those days, but it did introduce educationists in Australia to folk schools, adult education, rural education and many of the things that at that time were not part of the Australian scene. It is interesting that in 1937, which was quite a few years ago, we had introduced to the Australian scene this education for living concept.

If education has these broad parameters- I do not think there can be any doubt about that- the Government must be involved. That is accepted. If we broaden the parameters of education, obviously the Federal Government has some responsibility, not only for funding but also in the broad policy area. This comes back to the point that Senator Puplick has made. But we have to recognise that as well as this all legislation passed by a government has some influence. Any legislation in the welfare area has some impact and effect. Liberal governments have accepted the first proposition. It seems to me that they have not accepted the second.

Let us remind ourselves briefly of what happened in the years from 1949 to 1972. University funding was introduced. This was a good thing. It was a new concept. The Federal Government said that it would support universities. In 1952, the then Prime Minister, Mr Menzies, introduced income tax deductions for education expenses. This again was a departure. It was of assistance to those parents who were spending money on the education of their children. In 1963 grants were made for the support of science laboratories. In 1969 library grants came but, like the income tax deductions, they went basically to the richer schools, to the independent fee paying schools. In 1970 we had per capita grants to independent schools. In 1972 Mr McMahon proposed a 20 per cent average state school recurrent cost, provided the State contributed the balance.

These things, although they were innovations at the time, did very little towards achieving the concept of equality of education as we understand it. Rather, it might be fair to say that they further advantaged the advantaged. The cynics would say that the Government was merely buying votes. I am not prepared at this stage to say that, but there is no doubt that those who had were being assisted by the Government in those years. The Liberal-National Country Party governments have a poor record in the second area, that is, what we might call the social wage area, because cuts in social welfare areashealth, housing and social services- all have an effect upon education. There is a cost to parents, if only in respect of the return foregone from their children. Of course, it is much more than that. It is much more than the fact that the parents are missing out because the children are not leaving school and not contributing to the home. We tend to overlook the cost of housing, feeding and clothing children, of providing those additional things that are required by schools, even paying the so-called school fees in state schools. There is a tremendous cost to parents. Unfortunately, there have been quite severe Budget cuts in the areas that I have mentioned. Perhaps I could give three or four illustrations.

In 1975-76, $26.4m was allocated to the health scheme in schools. In 1978-79 nothing was allocated. It was abolished. In 1975-76, $84m was devoted to growth centres. For 1978-79 the figure was $35.5m. In 1975-76, $138m was spent on sewerage and garbage services. In 1978-79 only $7.4m was spent. In 1975-76, $40m was devoted to aged persons’ hostels. For 1978-79 the figure was $29.9m. I have selected this range because one might ask: What has sewerage to do with the cost of education? What has aged persons’ homes to do with the cost of education? However, they are all in this social wage area. Obviously the job has to be done. The need does not evaporate. The money has to be found and it can only be found from the taxpayer. We are thinking in this case of relating the taxpayer to the child. There are many more examples that could be given, but I give these few to indicate the philosophy involved. We just cannot consider funding for education in isolation. We must think of it as a total package. We must consider, if we look at the contribution that the Government makes, what it is doing in this other part of the social welfare field.

Labor came to office in 1972 with a clear philosophy as to what it intended to do. It had a clear intention to improve the equality of opportunity and the standard of education available across the board. In 1977 the needs policy- I do not think I need define that term- had been enunciated at each of the elections from 1967 onwards. The whole concept involved assistance to areas of greatest need. People such as Kim Beazley recognised that they had to work within the Constitution, because it clearly gives certain educational responsibility to the States. But they had the precedents of the Liberal-Country Party to follow, so they were able to move into that field.

It is a proud boast of the Australian Labor Party that within two days of being declared in office it set up the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission and appointed Karmel to tell it what was needed. The Karmel Committee came up with a number of suggestions. It was, according to the terms of reference, to recommend on the financial needs of all schools, priorities within these needs and measures to meet them. It was asked to recommend grants for the period from 1 January 1974 to 31 December 1975. Grants were to be in addition to existing Commonwealth commitments and not in substitution for continuing efforts by the State and non-government schools authorities. The Committee spelt out the values which guided it, emphasising the need for equality of circumstances of schooling- diversity of schools and the devolution of decision making to those working in or with the schools. It found that most schools lacked sufficient resources, that there were gross inequalities amongst schools and that the quality of education left much to be desired.

The Committee recognised that its programs were necessary but not sufficient to remedy deficiencies. It recognised that additional funds could buy services of teachers, equipment and buildings but not a climate of opinion or dedicated teachers. It proposed that funds should be as block grants, with schools and school systems free to spend them in accordance with their own preferences. It recommended a relative scale of grants. It proposed two major programs- general recurrent funding, and general building. Others were: Primary and secondary libraries; disadvantaged schools; special education; teacher development; and innovations. With its recognition of the need of the school as the determinant of the funding, the Karmel Committee effectively set aside the debate about State aid. In retrospect, it is now seen as an historically important settlement. However, the recognition of the school rather than the individual as the recipient ran counter to those who chose to see the per pupil grant as fairer.

We have looked broadly at the Karmel Committee. Honourable senators often hear of Federal assistance being spoken of as ‘topping up’. I noticed that Senator Puplick used that phrase. We have to be very clear about what we mean by topping up’. Surely it is acceptable only if it is recognised that it is used to suggest that the States have responsibilities and that the States should control but that the Commonwealth would give assistance where the States had spent all they intended to spend and needed a little more. In other words, it was not just a bit more of the same thing. Perhaps I have not put that very well. I shall recast it and say that the concept of topping up meant that the States should spend all that was needed to provide the services that they had been providing, but that the additional money would come in to provide all those extra things that I will now mention.

I refer to innovation programs. Surely we recognise that what we are doing at the moment is not necessarily the best. With innovations grants there is an opportunity to try out something new. The States cannot provide funds for this, so the money comes from the Federal Government to allow the States to try out new ideas. Perhaps bicultural education, which Senator Puplick mentioned, might be one of these. In the early stages of bicultural education a pilot program could be set up. Topping up provided money for the area of isolated children. This is a matter at which the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts looked. I am a member of that Committee. The Committee has been very disappointed with the reaction of Government to its report. Out of the Karmel report came assistance to isolated children and the encouragement to the States to do a lot more than they were doing. Perhaps one of the most important areas was that of disadvantaged children. Under the Schools Commission the concept of disadvantaged schools was recognised. It was seen that some schools needed additional help to be able to cope with the massive problems which they had.

I was fortunate to be involved with one of these schools in the early days when, at the Katherine School, it was found that the money which was available, even under the generous Federal funding, was not enough to meet the special needs of a group of children at that school. So, money was provided through this program to set up a very small project that simply involved the appointment of two staff members and some additional moneys for services. In that area we were able to take a group of children, who were not achieving because of their deficiency in language, give them concentrated language training and equip them to move into the normal stream. In the time of the Labor Government much money was spent on Aboriginal children- not only in the communities and settlements and missions, as they were then known, but also in the community at large. So, we saw the introduction of the Aboriginal Secondary Education Grants scheme, bi-lingual education and a number of other projects which helped Aboriginal children.

Two other areas must be mentioned. The first, curriculum development, was introduced through the establishment of the Curriculum Development Centre in Canberra. There was also improvement in the preparation of teachers, not just the normal preparation of teachers but preparation with the additional skills needed by teachers who were to operate in areas with particular demands. These are legitimate areas of Federal assistance, areas which would be affected if funding were cut. What was the State’s reaction to Federal funding? After a settling in period, it is fair to say, most States used the money wisely and were prepared to cooperate, and because the people in the State departments saw the needs of the children they were able to clarify for the Federal Department of Education the needs in their areas. Of course, it must be admitted that there were some dogmatic and bigoted politicians in the States who denied any credit to Labor for what was being done. In the total analysis I suppose this does not matter; the children got the advantages.

It is interesting to note that because of the Federal money provided, in many cases State funding was increased. I think the proposition could be put that the Karmel goals are being met, if they are being met- that is the slight proviso that the Australian Teachers Federation introducednot only because of Federal funding but also because the States have been prepared to react to the provision of money. In other words, funding which came from the Federal Government acted as some sort of incentive- or perhaps in the educational sense, since the Senate has a Ph.D. in Education in the chair, the motivation to do these things. A justification which would be implied for any sort of cut in funding- I am afraid we must expect cuts because the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has warned there will be cuts and the Minister for Education has not denied that there will be cuts- would be along the lines that schooling is not effective. That was implied in some of the comments made tonight. Honourable senators say ‘education’, but they mean schooling. They talk of low levels of literacy and numeracy and young children not being prepared for employment. The obvious reaction to this must be to suggest that schools do not prepare children only for jobs. This is only one part of their role. There has already been agreement from Government senators that education is for life.

It is interesting that a Senate committee has been given a reference to look at this question following the Williams comment. Let us fact it, it is not exactly a novel comment to say that schools are not preparing children for the work force. Before the Williams report, the present Minister for Education, whenever he was questioned about these things, would always come up with a comment to the effect that it is not possible to compare what is happening at the moment with what was happening 10, 20 or 30 years ago because there are not statistics for those times; we have only the current statistics. Even if one accepts the proposition that schools are not doing the right thing, surely there is very little logic in saying: ‘They are not doing it with the present funding, therefore we ought to cut out some of the funding’. Surely if they are not doing it with present resources they will not do it any better if those resources are cut.

Certainly, arguments can be put for better utilisation but I cannot accept the proposition- I do not think anyone who seriously thinks about these things would- that money is not everything. Of course it is not but money does mean more teachers and resources, better schools, more aids, supporting staff, counselling, remedial classes and special education. Nobody could possibly say that these things do not represent better education or, for that matter, better schooling. When confronted, the present Minister for Education always trots out comments about the quality of education and says- citing the piece of research done in England- that class size is not important. He seems to have some vague idea of dedicated teachers sitting like Plato on a log.

What do we mean by ‘quality of education’? I wish to quote the Queensland Teachers Union idea of what quality of education is, even though those comments refer to the scene in one State. Honourable senators are reminded that we were told in the Senate the other day that the standard of schooling in Queensland is better than in the rest of Australia. In the Union’s submission to the Queensland Treasurer, under the heading

Quality Education and the Individual Needs of Children ‘ it states:

Queensland parents should be entitled to feel confident that the education provided in the state system is of the highest standard, that ample attention is given in the schools to the pupils and students as individuals and that their educational needs will be met by professional people whose ability to meet these needs is not seriously impaired by the imposition of unreasonable funding constraints.

We would bc failing in our duty if we did not reiterate what has been stated many times before- that the continuing financial stringencies imposed on this state’s education system have exacerbated the inadequacies in the provision of basic resources, both human resources in terms of professional and non-professional staff, and physical resources in terms of buildings, facilities and equipment.

Teachers throughout the world are remarkably consistent in advocating that maximum class size should be set at 25 to 30 pupils for primary and secondary levels of education, with smaller classes at the senior secondary level, infant level, for practical work and for specialist groups.

The Australian Teachers Federation, the Australian College of Education, the Council of Government Schools Organisations and so on have all come out with pretty clear statements about what we mean by the quality of education. Possibly the greatest problem facing society at present is unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. The present Government does not see this, of course; it sees inflation as being more important than youth unemployment. But I think in the community unemployment is seen as a great problem, particularly by those who are unemployed or who have children who are unemployed. Professor Pearl, professor of education in California, came to Australian ‘to raise the level of debate on reasons behind growing unemployment problems, particularly youth unemployment’. The following question was put to Professor Pearl when he was in Australia:

If education is to play the role it should play what sort of new directions and new approaches would have to be followed?

The answer was:

There are two directions. Firstly there would have to be very big changes in curriculum. We would have to move away from an essentially static curriculum in which the students arc passive recipients of knowledge for future utility and move towards problem solving education where the knowledges are being directly applied immediately to relevant problems so that the curriculum is organised around seeing the students as participants in life rather than being organised for a preparation for life. I think that this is a very important kind of discussion that ought to be going on now. The one thing that education doesn’t need to do as our society very rapidly is facing important decisions and undergoing rapid changes is to be forced back into some antiquated notion of educational programs. Education must go forwards, not backwards and it is not going to go forward unless it provides the relevant curriculum.

I cannot speak in a debate on education without mentioning the Northern Territory but I will be very brief. I recall to the Senate that the Minister promised to hand over to the Northern Territory Government on 1 July a system which could be taken as a model for the rest of Australia. What do we see in the Northern Territory at present? We still have a shortage of aids for disadvantaged classes. The situation is extraordinary in that I wrote to the Northern Territory Minister about this and he wrote back to say that the whole matter will be fixed up ‘when we take over education’. In other words, the system will need improvement in the first few weeks. There are still problems with Aboriginal education and with staff ceilings, a shortage of support staff and so on ad nauseam. I will not go through these problems; I have mentioned them in this place often enough.

I will mention one other aspect, and that is the Bill which will oversee education in the Northern Territory after 1 July. This is the Bill which no doubt had its genesis in the Minister’s office, the Bill which should have been the pacesetter for the rest of Australia, this wonderful opportunity that we had to be innovative, perhaps to introduce something completely new in education and to provide, on the experience that we had in the States, a system which hopefully would be without defects. It is a Bill which was to lay the foundations of the Northern Territory’s educational system. I note from the Northern Territory News of 3 1 May that this Bill, this wonderful Bill, was passed after 70-1 repeat 70- amendments. But that is not the worst of it. Not only were there 70 amendments, but also some of these were collected by the Northern Territory Minister for Education and some were collected by the Leader of the Opposition. This wonderful preparation required a joint effort on the part of the two parties in the Northern Territorycommendable though that might be- to make 70 amendments to a Bill setting up education in the Northern Territory. The Australian Teachers Federation has expressed real fears about the course of education if funds are cut. Parents have expressed the same fears. I call on the Government, when considering future funding, to remember that education is for life. I recall to the Minister the speeches that were made by his great leaders in the 1 960s about the wealth of the country being our children. An Australian Teachers Federation newsletter which was sent to the Minister stated:

Spending on Australia’s youth should be seen as an investment in the future and not as an item which is up for grabs when government is looking for spending areas to be cut.

The immediate needs of Australia’s young people and the long term needs of the nation for a skilled and literate population are in danger of being lost amidst the obsession with the Budget deficit and with the political calculations accompanying it.

By all means, as I said earlier in my speech, let us get value for money, but obviously simply cutting funds will not achieve this end. Let us find out how we can use our funds most effectively. Let us recognise the Labor Government’s contribution in 1972-75, which has been applauded by all educators as showing the way with innovation programs, the programs for disadvantaged children and the practices which grew out of them. These programs have set the pattern, but they must be given a chance to succeed. Let us give them that chance by giving them reasonable funding.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I take advantage of the debate on these Bills concerning the funding of government schools to draw attention to an area in which funding is not being extended, an area of education to which the Federal Government and the State governments have not looked. I maintain that it should be looked at. I wish to talk about children who find themselves confined to hospitals for the mentally retarded, even though they are not mentally retarded. I shall mention a girl who has been in one of these hospitals all her life and who has turned out to be highly literate. I shall talk about the authority’s attitude to the children in those schools and I shall ask the Federal Government to take some action in this area. In Victoria we have the St Nicholas Hospital for the grossly mentally and physically retarded. It was the old Royal Children ‘s Hospital.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Rosemary Crossley?

Senator MELZER:

– Yes. It was the Royal Children’s Hospital until that hospital got a new building. The Mental Health Authority took over the old building and put in it grossly and severely retarded babies. No structural change was made to the hospital. It was opened in 1964 for these severely retarded children. But those babies grew and now, 1 5 years later, there are young people in the hospital of 1 7, 18 and 1 9 years of age who have known no life other than the life they have led in this building which was not built for their needs and which has in no way helped them. The facilities are very over-crowded. There is no privacy. The children live in dormitories housing 25, 27 or 30 children each. There is no privacy in the toilet facilities. Yet teenagers live in this building. They sleep in the old iron cots that were put into the building for the babies for whom it was supposed to cater in the years prior to 1 964.

These young adults go to bed at 4.30 in the afternoon because that is the routine that has been set up in this hospital. They are dressed in clothes that are chosen at random from a common stock. These teenagers have never been to the pictures or the football and have never had a holiday. They have lived all their lives in this environment because the bureaucracy- the authorities- says that they are mentally retarded and require no more than to be kept warm, to be fed and to be sheltered. In this hospital there is one full time physiotherapist. There are no speech therapists and no occupational therapists. Before 1 974 there were no teachers in the building. It was felt that because it was thought that the children were mentally retarded they required no sort of education. So they were given no education; they were just kept in the building. In 1974 one teacher started there. She found that there was no educational program for the children and endeavoured to begin one. Until the end of 1975 she was the only teacher there although there were nearly 200 children in the establishment. Most of them had been there since they were babies- some since they were as young as four months old, some fourteen months old and some four years old. Not many were older than that when they went there. The children had lived all their lives there without any education program at all.

At the end of 1975 the Education Department conceded that they might need some sort of education. The first teachers from the Department came into the hospital in mid- 1 976, when some of these young people were really well grown, young adults. Amongst those young people was a girl who had been put into the hospital when she was four years old because authorities said that she was severely mentally and physically retarded. Between 1964 and 1977 Anne lay on the floor; she was fed, kept warm and kept alive. There was no stimulation, no companionship and no educative program. Because there were so many children to be fed by so few staff their food was mixed up into one bowl. If the food for the evening meal was soup, roast lamb and three vegetables, and apples and custard, it was all mixed into one bowl and fed at once because there was not sufficient time or staff to feed them properly and because, in any case, they were all mentally retarded and would not know the difference.

In 1977 a woman came to St Nicholas who felt that something else should be done for these children, that there was a spark there, a recognition. She began a program designed to teach, to communicate and to stimulate these children. She began to teach Anne to communicate. By September of that year- a bare five months later- Anne, who had never had any education or stimulation, had begun using words in sentences and spelling out sentences. She had read books such as Roots and communicated to people on matters of current interest such as who had been selected for seats in the Federal Parliament and what was being done on the matter of mining uranium. She had spelt out a page of phonetic Yugoslav. It was Yugoslav but it was phonetic because she had never seen it written. She had spent all her life amongst people who spoke Yugoslav and had learnt the language. After not being given any education until 1977, Anne is now at a most advanced level, and some people say that she is capable of doing third year university mathematics.

The Director of Special Education in Victoria was told of the program. The Director of the Mental Deficiency Services in Victoria was told of the program and her advance. The superintendent of St Nicholas was told of the program and of her advance. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Special Education in Victoria were told of the program that was being conducted for the children and of the advance they had made, but no action was taken, presumably because they were still quite sure that their original prediction that Anne was mentally retarded was right and that these people were fooling themselves. Apparently people who are mentally retarded do not have to be educated. Only the normal or the brilliant pupils have to be educated. We do not have to educate people who may take a little longer to learn but who may have something to contribute to society.

Because the hospital was nagged and because reports kept coming to it during this period, it agreed to purchase automatic page turners for the children. In August 1977 the hospital agreed that an automatic page turner, costing $1,000, could be bought because at that time there were three children at St Nicholas who were fully literate and seven more who were at the word recognition stage of literacy. That is the information that was put forward in respect of the decision to buy the page turner. Even though the people in authority were saying that these children were still retarded, they were prepared to put forward that argument when they agreed to buy a page turner. In August 1977- the same year- the superintendent agreed to purchase a Possum communication device costing $5,000, and the purchase was approved by the Mental Health Authority. Even though it maintained that no education was necessary, it agreed that the Possum communication device, costing a large amount of money, could be bought.

The device did not turn up at the hospital until February 1978, and it was then apparent to people that the children would be unable to use the device unless they had remedial therapy. However, the authorities were not prepared to supply the remedial therapy to enable the children to use the device. They had agreed that $5,000 should be used to buy it but they were not prepared to admit that the children could use it or were capable of using it. They were not prepared to put the money into the remedial therapy that was needed to assist the children to use the device. So 13 children who had built up their hopes and expectations of at last having a means of communicating with the outside world were sent back to the darkness of disappointment because the authorities were prepared to waste $5,000. Evidently they were not prepared to argue that the $5,000 was not needed. They were prepared to waste the $5,000 and not provide the equipment and the assistance needed to use it. The authorities were prepared to disappoint the children to that extent.

By this time other people outside the Mental Health Authority and outside this establishment had become interested in these children and were impressed by them. The special education centre at Burwood State College had watched the children work and had watched this particular child work. It had agreed that she could communicate and that there was intelligence there. The State College of Melbourne had watched the children communicate and had communicated with them and it agreed that there was intelligence there. Therapists and other people in the community also had watched and listened to the children and had agreed that there was intelligence there and that something should be done about them. But none of the people in authority was prepared to act. The Mental Health Authority was not prepared to let anybody else into its area, the Department of Education did not have the strength or the will to move in, and the Ministers could not have cared less. Nothing really was done about educating these children. People who were concerned and who worked with them asked the State department for funds in order to give these children proper education and a proper place to live. This request was refused. The Schools Commission was asked for funds from the innovations program to give these children the education and the environment they needed. Funding was refused.

The case was submitted to the Federal Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) and he showed concern. He said that he understood the situation because he had worked in the area but that he had better refer the matter to his comrade in the State. He referred it to the State Minister of Education and to the Minister of Special Education, who replied that it was a matter for the Mental Health Authority and that they should not interfere. They inferred that he should not interfere, and he did not.

The State would like to hide behind the idea that the mentally retarded do not need any education, that the mentally retarded are not the problem of the Education Department, and the Department agrees. It too would like to hide behind that barrier because it is a difficult situation. It is a hard area to move into, especially when the money is not available and there is insufficient equipment and staff. It is especially difficult when one looks at the hundreds and hundreds of people who have been in institutions for years and who have not been educated but have been left to rot. Nobody wants to front up and say: We should have been concerned and it should have been our problem’. So the Health Department is left with the problem, and by now it must have built up some sort of barrier which guarantees that the hurt will not get through. The Health Department maintains that these people are mentally handicapped and that their proper place is in institutions for the mentally retarded. These people are not mentally handicapped, but the State and Federal governments and the State and Federal education departments do not want to know about what is happening to them and do not want to look at them.

The report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training- the Williams reporthas been quoted to us over the last few weeks and will be quoted to us again. It states:

The Committee recommends to Commonwealth and State authorities that existing special education programs for the handicapped bc extended beyond the statutory school leaving agc and provided in the vocational setting.

But what the Williams Committee did not say was that there are people who are handicapped in more ways than one. There are people who are handicapped by bodies that will not work for them. There are people who cannot get the message out because of the ridiculous bodies which handicap them. Somebody has to listen to their cry for help and do something about it. The teachers in Victoria heard that cry and knew something of the problem of the people inside St Nicholas Hospital. They raised the matter of the future of St Nicholas Hospital, of its children and of its education annexe and its staff. They asked: What will be the extent of departmental restructuring following the imminent disbandment of the Mental Health Authority? Victoria no longer has a Mental Health Authority. It just has a Health Authority. These children are now caught up entirely in the functions of the Health Authority and the Education Department has no word in it.

The Victorian Teachers Union has said that these are just some of the questions for which it is experiencing great difficulty in obtaining answers. The Union sent letters to the Minister for Health, Mr Houghton, and the Minister for Special Education, Mr Scanlan, in September of last year. The Ministers were advised that education staff in the old building at Drummond Street, Carlton, which was formerly the Children’s Hospital, were jeopardising their health and the safety of the students by carrying the children frequently on a 16-step fire-escape which provided the only access between the dormitories and the education area. At the annexe, five teachers and four full time and three part time teacher aides provide an educational service for children who are multiple handicapped. The need to lift the children has caused four injuries to staff. One teacher aide had to retire this year through a back injury. There is no equipment to accommodate these children. They have none of the special chairs that could be used, they have no lifts to use and there is no special equipment that they can use to educate them. The Union has held discussions with the Mental Health Authority and the Minister for Health. The Teachers Journal of December 1978 states:

When this Journal went to press, a picture of utter confusion existed.

At a time when only 55 of the 108 children can receive any help from teaching staff, only 38 of them participate in group ward programs and 17 receive any intensive programming, there appears to be prolonged procrastination between the Health, Public Works and Special Education Departments.

This frustrating situation exists despite Premier Hamer ‘s public comment in September: ‘Elsewhere -

Presumably, that is outside Victoria- children moderately or severely handicapped arc regarded as a health or mental health responsibility- Victoria regards them as trainable and educable’.

But Victoria has done nothing about them except to make such pious statements. Thirteen children who have spent their lifetime in that institution, who have now been proved to be educable, to be intelligent, and who are locked up in ridiculous bodies that will not work, have to put up with pious statements like that while Ministers and Premiers do nothing at all about them.

The authorities feel threatened. These children were placed in these institutions when they were very young and they have never been reassessed. Nobody has ever done anything to assist them.

The authorities tend to put the responsibility onto the parents. For years the parents of these children were not brought into any programs because there were no programs to bring them into. Over the last few years, as it has been proved little by little that the children are able to be educated, the parents have been kept in the dark. The staff has been told not to communicate with them, not to take the matters to them. Now the authorities tend to put the responsibility on the parents and the parents are left in a terrible position of doubt, fear and self-blame. What would most parents do if they had a small baby or small child whom the authorities said was severely retarded and had advised them to put away? They would be faced with a terrible problem. They are not geniuses; they are just human beings whose baby will never be any better according to the people who should know. What should they do if they are told that it will never be any better, that it is hopelessly retarded, that it is a vegetable that they should put out of their family and out of their mind, and they have nothing else to do but rely on the people who give them that advice? I suppose that, with a lot of heartache, they will take the advice of the experts and put the child away and then try to forget that they produced that child. It would be hard for them not to believe that there was something wrong with them for producing that child.

They are now threatened by people who come along and say that because they care more, because they have taken more time, because they have used more tests, the child is not hopelessly retarded. It may be physically retarded, but mentally it is a very clever child, it has got a very high 1Q. Children who have kept their sanity and their curiosity in that sort of sterile atmosphere for all that time would have to be very intelligent. So now we have parents who have to face up to the fact that over those years they have in a sense abandoned a child, left it a prisoner inside a body that would not work. Instead of the authorities reacting with care, love, concern and some sense of excitement because these children are not lost, there is a great future in front of them, and instead of the authorities supporting these parents by bringing them into the programs so that everyone can go on together, they are reacting in a most violent fashion as though they were keeping them prisoners, as though they were gaolers.

I went to St Nicholas Hospital to visit my friends there. I have been there before to visit them and there was never any trouble. Because a move was started to show people that these children are intelligent and should be taken out of the hospital, the authorities have tended to try to close up the place. I went to the inquiry desk at the visitor’s area and said that I wanted to visit my friends. I was told that I had to tell the nurse in charge that I was there. I told her that and she said that I had to fill in a form. I was asked why I wanted to visit these children. I said that they were my friends. I was told that there had been trouble and I should fill in the form. The form I had to fill in asked for my name, age, sex, address, home telephone number, business telephone number, occupation, and place of work. It also asked for the name of the person 1 wished to visit, the age and sex of that person, the reason for visiting, how often I wanted to visit, the days and hours of the intended visits, and whether any assistance would be required and, if so, what sort. I was also asked whether 1 knew the relatives of the resident and, if so, whether I knew the father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather or grandmother. I was asked to state if I had their permission to take the resident home. I had to state whether I had met the superintendent of St Nicholas Hospital, the medical officer of the ward and the director of nursing. I was asked how many members of the therapeutic team of St Nicholas Hospital I knew and requested to give the number and state who they were.

After filling in the form I had to make an appointment for an interview with the director of nursing. Once I had made and kept the interview with the director of nursing and he had to either recommend or not recommend me to the psychiatric superintendent, I was then to have an interview with the psychiatric superintendent, who would confirm whether I was a fit and proper person to visit my friends at St Nicholas Hospital. When all that was done I was told that if the parents of the children, some of whom were over 1 8 and had voted or were able to vote, agreed that I should visit, I would be allowed to visit. I have gained access to prisons in Australia more easily than I could get into St Nicholas Hospital to visit people who I have come to know and love and who have been incarcerated there for years.

What is needed? What is needed is for governments to have enough imagination, enough will and enough love to realise that what these children need is to be taken out of these institutions and to be put into separate premises where they have a home and a school, both of which they have never had. What is needed is accommodation and facilities that will provide 24 hour physical care and provide an introduction to the activities of everyday life to children who have been brought up all their lives in institutions.

What is needed are arrangements for the provision of physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy which is required to give the children the maximum degree of control over their handicapping conditions; arrangements for educational programs to bring the children to the level of learning of children in their age group in the normal school system; arrangements to develop the technology needed to compensate for the children ‘s handicaps.

I have spoken of 12 children who are my friends in an institution in Victoria. There were 13 children. Those 12 friends of mine, because they are physically handicapped and cannot move, had to sit and watch their friend suffocate. He had been placed in one of the bean bags in which they sit. Because he had not been properly placed, he got himself into a position where he suffocated, and they could not help. That is the sort of environment in which they live. Nobody knows, I say, how many more people in Australia are in institutions like that and are prisoners of their bodies. These people cannot get out of their bodies. They are intelligent, caring, thoughtful human beings locked up in a mechanism that will not work. There may be hundreds of people across Australia who are locked up in institutions and about whom we do not care enough. Their minds are not retarded. What they need is a means of communication. It seems incredible to me that in an age when we can put men on the moon, when we can do extraordinarily difficult things, we cannot find a means of communication for these children, for these people, for these adults. The information I have about these matters might be the tip of the iceberg. When the authorities pooh pooh my ideas, I say to them that they do not know because they have never cared enough to find out.

These people need education. I believe that the Federal Government has a duty to provide education for everybody. I believe that it has a duty to provide education for people who are mentally retarded, and to educate them to the full extent of their capacity. It certainly has a duty to provide education for people such as my friends at St Nicholas. I hope that we will take to heart varying portions of the report of the Williams Committee on Education, Training and Employment. The last paragraph of the introduction to that report struck home to me. It reads:

The quality and range of the system of education is of great importance to the future of our country. We hope that our report will contribute to the understanding of the problems and possibilities, and help to raise both the quality and efficiency of the system.

In conclusion, I wish to read from a report that was made on the children at St Nicholas. The last paragraph of that report reads:

If we choose to keep handicapped people alive we must give them a life worth living.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– This -This evening we are discussing two Bills cognately. They are the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1979 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 1979. Before discussing these two Bills, I make one comment in relation to an assertion made by a previous speaker. Senator Puplick, in the course of his address, mentioned the assistance which was being given to non-government business colleges. He stated that mention is made of this matter in one of these Bills we are discussing tonight. That is quite correct. But, lest it be thought that this is a new initiative, I must mention that there has been assistance to nongovernment business colleges for some time. Prior to 1974, students in technical colleges were able to gain assistance from the Commonwealth technical scholarship scheme. This competitive scheme paid compulsory fees and a small means tested allowance. A few courses in nongovernment business colleges were approved under the technical scholarship scheme. It will be remembered that fees in tertiary institutions were abolished in 1974, and the tertiary education assistance scheme, or TEAS, as it is normally called, was introduced. When this scheme was introduced, non-government business colleges which operated under the previous Commonwealth technical scholarship scheme were approved on an interim basis, and a fee subsidy was paid to them. Assistance for nongovernment business colleges from then until the present date has traversed a rocky path. It is important to recognise that the present scheme has been evolving for some five years. For those honourable senators who are interested, I would commend to them the report dated October 1978 of the Tertiary Education Commission on nongovernment business colleges. That report outlines in full and in a very readable manner the history of the scheme.

I move to some of the areas covered by these two Bills which I wish to discuss. Because the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill 1979, one of the two Bills we are discussing, provides grants to States for government and non-government schools in respect of cost increases, I am taking the opportunity to make some mention of primary and secondary education in government schools in Australia. There is a general opinion fostered by some parts of the media and, I suspect, by some sections of the Government that everything is satisfactory with regard to resources provided to education in Australia. Some suggest that sufficient resources are being provided for schools. Only last week I saw a media suggestion that too much is being provided to schools in Australia. This is the approach that obviously has been taken by the Cabinet. It has been suggested over the past couple of weeks- we will find out in the next two days or so whether or not it is correct- that we are to learn of some real cuts in education funding in the forthcoming year. It is easy to suggest that funds should be cut, or that they are at a sufficient level. But do parents in Australia agree that this is the case? Not often do they agree. Especially they do not agree when they are speaking about the schools that their children attend.

The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has continually stated in this chamber that certain resource targets have been reached. I suspect that he will use this argument to justify the education cuts that he is predicted to announce this week. But his argument, which he has used for a long time, is simply quite spurious. Let us look at the funding for primary and secondary schools in an historical context. The Senate is aware that when the Whitlam Government was elected in 1 972 it appointed an Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission. In 1973 that Commission, or committee as it was called in those days, reported serious deficiencies in a great many schools throughout Australia. In speaking about the practicalities of overcoming the worst deficiencies in a reasonably short period, the committee reported as follows:

In its view the minimum acceptable degree of improvement would require an overall average increase of at least 40 per cent in the use of recurrent resources per pupil in government primary schools and 35 percent in government secondary schools.

The Interim Committee did not lay down specifications for desirable numbers of teachers, amount of equipment and so on. It expressed the belief that the allocation of additional resources was a matter for the schools and the schools systems concerned. Nevertheless, the Committee did set out an example of a configuration of resources which schools systems might be using by the end of the decade. Senator Robertson referred briefly to that configuration when he spoke a short time ago. Although the configuration which the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission set out is reasonably lengthy, I think it is pertinent and I shall read it so that we can remind ourselves of what the report of 1973 stated. It stated that the configuration should be thus:

  1. All teachers to have available one working week annually or a month triennially. for professional enrichment purposes, with their normal responsibilities taken care of by competent staff.
  2. Relieving staff to be provided immediately a teacher is absent from duty.
  3. The amount of time approved for the conduct of recognised administrative duties by teachers in schools to be the equivalent of about 10 per cent of staff working hours.
  4. One field consultant adviser to be provided for every 60 teachers in service.
  5. An expansion in the number of primary specialist teachers, which will enable the release of teachers from direct classroom duties for two hours a week.
  6. All new teachers to enjoy a 10 per cent reduced workload during their first year of service.
  7. A reduction in the maximum sizes of class groups to 32 pupils at primary and junior secondary levels and 25 students in the senior secondary forms.
  8. The numbers of ancillary staff and the amount of equipment to be increased, in terms of 1972 levels, by 100 per cent for primary schools and 75 per cent of secondary schools.

The latest Schools Commission report, that for the triennium 1979-1981, which was published last year, showed the increase in recurrent resources for government schools for 1972 to 1976 as 37. 1 per cent for primary schools and 29. 1 per cent for secondary schools. That led the Commission to report that the system had attained or would attain the original targets by or earlier than 1979. I remind honourable senators that that 37.1 per cent increase for primary schools which I mentioned corresponded with the 40 per cent which the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission suggested in 1973 and the 29.1 per cent increase for secondary schools corresponded with the 35 per cent suggested by the Interim Committee. So certainly even by 1976 the money target was within sight and the Commission was quite right in stating in 1978 that the system had attained or would attain the original targets by or earlier than 1 979.

If the resource standards have been reached, however, does that mean that we should stop at this stage; in other words, have we reached an acceptable level at this stage? The latest Schools Commission report suggested that we should not stop at this stage and that we have not reached an acceptable level. It pointed out quite clearly that the original targets had the limited goal of overcoming in a reasonably short period the worst school deficiencies. In other words, the original targets were not set at optimum levels.

What the Schools Commission did in its 1978 report was to suggest that target resource standards should be such that an example it gave of a configuration was attainable. I think that as I read the configuration given as an example, most honourable senators will understand that that configuration mentioned in the 1978 report was not all that different from what was mentioned in 1973. The configuration mentioned in the 1978 report was as follows:

  1. teaching staff sufficient to ensure that- infant classes need nol exceed 25 students- primary or junior secondary classes need not exceed 30 students- senior secondary classes need not exceed 25 students;
  2. relieving teachers are available when teachers are absent from duty;
  3. 10 per cent of the total staff working hours to be distributed among staff for recognised administrative duties;
  4. ) enough additional primary teachers to allow release of teachers from direct classroom instruction for two hours per week;
  5. new teachers to have a 10 per cent reduced working load in the first year of service;
  6. f) an average of five days per year available for attendance at in-service programs aimed at professional development;
  7. classroom aides at the rate of one full-time equivalent per 250 students in primary and 1 SO in secondary;
  8. clerical assistance equivalent on a full-time basis to one per 400 students in primary schools and one per 200 students in secondary schools;
  9. specialist help from outside the school as necessary, but in any case at a rate, the full-time equivalent of which would be one professional per 600 staff in primary and one per 400 in secondary;
  10. sufficient cash resources to obviate the necessity for semi-compulsory fees in government schools and for the purchase of needed equipment and consumable resources.

The Commission in its report of 1978 outlined how that configuration was not more than marginally different from previous target resource standards. In addition, it stated that those standards had not yet been attained by all schools and all systems. It is worthwhile to dwell on that statement that at that stage the standards set out in that configuration had not been attained in all schools and all systems.

The Schools Commission referred in its 1978 report to standard costs which it believed to be sufficient to enable target resource standards to be attained. They were $845 per pupil for primary schools and $ 1 ,446 per pupil for secondary schools. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition when he spoke this afternoon, referred to those target resource standards. He actually indicated the amount of money they would represent in 1979 values. I have some doubts whether the figures which the Commission reported in 1978 are high enough. My doubts arise from the fact that it seems that the Interim Committee for the

Commission did not estimate as well as it might have done. As I mentioned earlier, it set out certain resource targets. Although those targets have been reached in money terms, the concrete targets have not been attained. Perhaps the same has occurred again.

Even if the standard costs are accurate, it can be seen from what is stated at page 37 of the Schools Commission report of 1978 that a number of States were below standard. I refer honourable senators to Table 3.9 at that page of the report, which shows the estimated expenditure for the various States. We see that New South Wales had an estimated expenditure of $835 per student in primary schools for 1977-78. That is below the target of $845 per pupil which was set by the Schools Commission. In secondary schools New South Wales is also below the target. The estimated expenditure is $1,415, compared with the target of $1,446. In Queensland the amount provided per pupil for primary schools is at a level above what the Schools Commission set but for secondary schools it is far below-it is $1,390 which is far below the $1,446 recommended. In Western Australia, which is the only other State where the amount being spent per pupil is less, the amount per pupil is $815 for primary schools compared with the $845 recommended. As a Queensland Senator I notice the stark fact that Queensland has the lowest expenditure per pupil for secondary schools. It is well below the target standards. Clearly the target resource standards determined by the Commission do not suggest that there should be a decrease in funding to schools throughout Australia.

To back up the argument that I am proposing, that there are certain aspects of education in Queensland for which funds are needed, I refer honourable senators to a document entitled ‘ Report of the National Survey of Conditions in Schools by the Australian Teachers Federation 1978’. The Federation at page 30 of that report referred to the situation in Queensland. It stated:

Queensland education is characterised by heavy teaching loads, very large infants classes and relatively large secondary classes. Children needing special assistance with remedial reading and remedial number work are less likely in Queensland to be receiving that help. This is particularly so in secondary classes.

The report deals with student needs, classroom conditions, building works programs, the staffing ratio, class size and teacher workload. Part of its conclusion reads:

Queensland needs to employ many more teachers to decrease class sizes, reduce teacher face-to-face teaching time and allow more time for preparation and marking and to provide the remedial number and reading help that so many students urgently require but Tor the main part do not receive.

During the course of my comments this evening I have not mentioned capital funding. I do not intend to traverse the history of this subject at this time. However, the comments that I would make in respect of capital funding are similar to those which I am making this evening. I do not believe that this is the time to cut funding to schools.

I conclude my comments this evening by mentioning three schools I visited this year that stand out in my memory. Whenever I get the chance I visit schools, particularly schools in Queensland, because I like to see what the standards are nowadays compared with the standards when I was teaching in schools. I like to keep a contact with the teachers in Queensland schools. One of the high schools which I visited is in the electorate in which I live. Some honourable senators might realise that I live in the electorate of Ryan in Queensland, which is not exactly an area which one would describe as lower class.

Senator Mulvihill:

– There would not be many of the proletariat in that electorate; is that what you mean?

Senator COLSTON:

-There was one in that area who happened to be elected to the Federal Senate. But apart from that person and his family 1 think for the most part one would call it a middle class area or an upper middle class area. One usually expects to find fairly good conditions in schools in those areas. However, the facilities in this secondary school were in urgent need of immediate upgrading. I will just mention those facilities which I can remember at the moment. The library was in a very cramped area. The students could not go into the library to carry out individual study of their own. It seems to me that it is vital to foster the use of a library in secondary schools because so much depends upon a child being able to use a library and developing a love of books. But the students of this school could not use the library because it was in such a cramped space.

The manual arts block needed considerable upgrading. Nowadays a reasonable manual arts block has at least one lathe so that the lads can do some lathe work before they leave school. But it was just not possible to equip this manaul arts block with a lathe. The manual arts block was on the second floor of a building and if a lathe had been installed is would have gone right through the wooden floor. The school needed either a new building to house the manual arts block or the manual arts block needed to be shifted to the ground floor. The science laboratories for the junior part of the school were appalling. One laboratory was black banned by the teachers because they thought it was unsafe. I wonder how we can get a spark of enthusiasm for science when we have inadequate facilities like this?

The two other schools which I want to mention are both in the Torres Strait area, which is a fair distance from the secondary school about which I have just spoken. When I go to the Torres Strait area I make a point wherever possible of going into the schools to see what the facilities are like. The level of educational facilities in the schools in the Torres Strait area can be described only as appalling. One would use a worse adjective than that if it were possible to do so. In saying this I make no criticism of the teachers or people such as teaching aides who are engaged in teaching activities. Rather, this is a criticism of the administration which allows such a thing to happen. In many cases the teachers simply are not trained.

I should mention that the schools in the Torres Strait area, except for the schools on Thursday Island, are not under the control of the State Education Department; they are under the control of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. I am afraid that there is not much advancement in those schools. As a one-time teacher I believe that I can make a reasonable assessment of the level of attainment reached by the students in these schools. But the level of attainment was not satisfactory in the two schools I am about to mention. Why was it not satisfactory? For a start many of the teachers are untrained. Try as one must, if one is an untrained teacher, one cannot do as well- all other things being equal- as a trained teacher. In some of the schools trained teachers were in charge with untrained teachers to help them.

I would like to mention one of those schools. Rather than identify the school and perhaps embarrass someone I will refer to the school as school A. This school had an untrained teacher as its principal. I think he may have received some tutoring from people who came around from time to time, but he was untrained as was his staff. I was taken by the school rules that were written on a chart on the wall of his school. I was taken by them for two reasons- firstly, because they were interesting schools rules, and secondly because they showed how untrained this teacher was in terms of lack of grammar and lack of spelling accuracy. I will quote the rules in full and then I will comment on them. I would like to record in Hansard the way in which they appear. The list was headed ‘Our-school-rules’. They were as follows: 1.I must obey my teacher’s word’s. 2.I must not eat food in classroom. 3.I must not use bad, languag in school. 4.I must not throw stone in school area. 5.I mut get permission to live the classroom.

  1. Keep you classroom clean and tidy.
  2. Never sew sewing-gum in school.

The first rule spelt the ‘words’ with an apostrophe before the s. It is a small thing perhaps, but one would not expect a trained teacher to do that. In the third rule the word ‘language’ was spelt without the final e. The fourth rule- ‘I must not throw stone in school area’ could perhaps have had the word ‘the’ inserted in it, but we will not quibble about that. In the fifth rule the word must’ was spelt m-u-t and the word ‘leave’ was speltl-i-v-e. Rule No. 6 featured ‘you’ instead of your’. I presume that No. 7 should have been: Never chew chewing-gum in school’. I quote those rules to give an indication of the level of training or ability of the principal. With a teacher like that, if any of the children succeed they will succeed probably in spite of the teacher rather than because of him. I have no real criticism of the teacher because he was doing his very best there under very trying conditions and in a very poor building, but the administration that allows that to happen should take steps to ensure that better educational facilities are provided for the children.

In what I will call school B the students have what might be called a marginally satisfactory school building, but when I arrived it was about to be demolished to make way for a new airstrip. If a new airstrip is to be put in and a school has to be moved somewhere else because it is on the site of the new airstrip, one would have thought that the new school would be built, the old one would be pulled down, the students would be taken into the new school and then the airstrip would be built. But what happened here is that it is was decided to pull down the school, to put up a temporary structure- which I will describe in a moment- to build the airstrip, then build the new school and move the children from the temporary structure into the new school. I will be happy to show photographs of the temporary structure to honourable senators. I actually photographed the erection of the temporary school using mangrove limbs of about 4 centimetres in diameter for the sides and the roof. Nearby were some Torres Strait Islanders who were cutting down palm leaves from coconut palms to place as a roof of the school. I imagine that this would be a lovely school in some respects on a tropical island, having mangrove twigs holding up coconut palms for the roof. It would be an ideal setting when the weather was fine and everything was going well. But we can imagine what is going to happen if a cyclone rips through that area. The palm leaves will go everywhere and the kids will be back in the open with no school.

I have mentioned these three places- the secondary school and the two primary schools in the Torres Strait area- not because I think that the Bills which we are considering will provide funds for those areas but to illustrate that they are indicative of many things that are happening in schools throughout Australia where the facilities are not good but can be improved a great deal. Yet we still hear many arguments from people who say that we should have less funds for education. If we look at some of the facilities in schools we will soon realise that funds should not be cut. The Opposition does not oppose these two machinery Bills and we are quite happy to see them passed, but some of us have used the opportunity to outline what we consider should be the attitude of the Government when it is looking at the funding of education in the future, and some of the problems that exist in some of the areas we represent.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition is not opposing these two Bills- the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill. Nonetheless, we take advantage of them to raise one or two matters that are of concern to us and to the people whom we represent. I want to make my remarks on these Bills very short indeed. The fact that they are before the Senate at this stage gives me the opportunity to speak now rather than in the adjournment debate later this evening.

In my capacity as a senator representing New South Wales last week I was on the far north coast of my State. I was disturbed to learn of the concern being expressed in Lismore and the surrounding districts about the failure of the Government to make a positive announcement as to whether the proposed cuts in the Federal Budget will affect the development and construction of the campus of the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. It is all very well for the Deputy Prime Minister, the right honourable member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), to say in Murwillumbah last week that the Government has to look at the amount of unemployment benefits being paid, especially in the area that he represents, when for years the Government of which he is a member has been saying that the northern part of New South Wales will be provided with a college of advanced education.

Lismore is the largest city in the Deputy Prime Minister’s electorate and so far, despite the assurances and undertakings that have been given by the Government over the years, nothing has been forthcoming. Last week the Deputy Prime Minister was talking in his area about the high degree of unemployment benefits being paid to unemployed people, and he referred particularly to areas of his electorate. I suggest to the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), who also represents New South Wales, that if a positive assurance were given by the Government to the people in the far north of New South Wales that a college of advanced education would be built in the near future in that area, many of the problems, fears and anxieties of the people in that area would be overcome.

This financial year the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education was allocated about $300,000 for the planning of the $8.1m campus which is to be built in East Lismore. Construction was expected to start next year- 1980. Many people who are anxious to obtain work in the area have been waiting for an announcement as to whether work on the construction of the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education will commence next financial year. The Deputy Prime Minister announced in January of this year that the college had been given approval to prepare a detailed design for the first stage of the campus, but he added that although plans were being made for construction to start in the next financial year, 1979-80, the possibility of a start this year could not be ruled out. As I understand it, Telecom Australia’s coaxial cable in the district has been put down in reinforced concrete so that heavy equipment can be used on the site without damaging it. As I understand it, that preparatory work was funded by the Advanced Education Council, at a cost of some $40,000. It has been proposed that the campus be built in some four or five stages commencing next year, 1 980, and be completed in about 1 986.

What the people of Lismore, and indeed of the far North Coast of New South Wales, want from the Federal Government, and particularly the Minister at the table, the Minister for Education, is an announcement as to whether or not work on the construction of the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education will commence in the coming financial year. The people of that area are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of opportunities for the younger generation of Australians. Certainly, there is a university at Armidale on the northern tablelands of the State and there is a university at Newcastle, but these people on the far north coast of New South Wales have been promised for a number of years a college of advanced education. To date it has not been forthcoming. There are a great many unemployed in that area and the construction of a college of this nature would ameliorate or overcome many of the conditions that are complained of by those who anxiously seek work.

The people of the area are fed up with excuses. They are sick of being fobbed off. They want a plain answer, one that is easily understoodeither yes or no. Because I represent the State of New South Wales, as does the Minister for Education, I should like, on behalf of those who live in the far north coast of that State, an answer from him so that we will all know where we stand. If the Minister cannot answer during the debate on these Bills I would urge him to make a specific announcement later this week when, I understand, he will be making a statement on the general cuts proposed in education expenditure. Employment opportunities- or should I say lack of employment opportunities- and educational opportunities in Lismore and on the far north coast of New South Wales generally, the State that we both represent, really revolve around any such announcement that can be made.

I have before me an article that appeared in the Northern Star of 1 6 May of this year. It states that the principal of the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education, Dr Whitebrook, had said that it was expected that the new campus would be built in five stages, with completion about 1986. The article states that on the Monday preceding 1 6 May: . . the Principal of the college Dr F. Whitebrook, called for a show of public support to ensure that the proposed development of the East Lismore campus was not postponed because of any cuts in the Federal Government ‘s Budget.

I do not know whether the Minister for Education has been in the area in recent times. If he has, I am sure he would agree that the matter is one of great concern to the people, and to the State, that we represent. I raise the matter at this stage, in the debate on these two Bills, in the hope and expectation that a favourable announcement will be made so far as the construction of the campus is concerned.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I regret that I was not present during the whole of the debate. I was engaged on Cabinet duties. However, I will make sure tomorrow to look in Hansard for relevant matters that may have arisen. The Bills provide additional funds for universities, colleges of advanced education, colleges of technical and further education, and schools in the States in respect of cost movements in recurrent programs for 1978-79. In addition, the Bill relating to tertiary education provides additional funds for more new capital projects in the second half of 1 979 and advanced education courses in tertiary and further education institutions. The tertiary education Bill also contains for the first time a provision whereby government funds for approved non-government business colleges will be appropriated through the State grants mechanism. In essence, the Bills are evidence of the Government’s continuing commitment to support education from school to university.

I respond to Senator Douglas McClelland by saying simply that I am very much aware of the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. In fact, last year I received a deputation concerning it in this building and some three weeks ago I assisted at the graduation ceremony of that college. I was then able to inspect the present buildings, the flood level dangers thereto, and the projected sites. I am well aware of the situation. One of the main conditions that the Tertiary Education Commission saw as necessary if we were to proceed was that there should be an arrangement with the New South Wales Government to achieve parallel development of technical institutions on the same campus as the college of advanced education. The college itself is small. Of course, we are keen to have decentralised institutions in country areas. We believe that parallel development of the two aspects is vital. I hope that progress in that regard can be made in New South Wales.

It is true that the matter has proceeded to the planning and development stage. I inspected the initial plan, and am aware of the details. Tomorrow or the next day I will be issuing guidelines to the Tertiary Education Commission, and the Commission will report to me its recommended priorities. I know that in the past the Northern Rivers College has had priority. I would hope that in due course we would be able to indicate the viewpoint of the Tertiary Education Commission on the matter. There is no doubt in the world that there is a very real role for decentralised education as an industry.

Senator McClelland shares with me the desire that there should be employment opportunities in the country. Perhaps Lismore is one of the few rapidly developing and building areas in the country. I was pleased to drive around it and was enormously interested in its developmentespecially the signs throughout Lismore appealing for workers for various projects. It is one of the few places where such development is apparent. Senator McClelland will recall that a big shopping complex, which is to employ hundreds of people, is to be built, so Lismore is indeed a rapidly expanding place. Without delaying the Senate further, I commend the Bills to honourable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2576

QUESTION

LIGHTING IN SENATE CHAMBER

The PRESIDENT:

– On Wednesday, 23 May, Senator Townley directed to me a question concerning the possibility of increasing the lighting level of the Senate Chamber. As I advised Senator Townley in my initial response, this matter has been the subject of a recent study. The details of the study are being considered by technical officers of the Parliament who will be submitting to me their recommendations on the matter. I expect to be able to advise Senator Townley and the Senate of the eventual outcome of the study in the near future.

page 2576

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: AIR CONDITIONING AND FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM

The PRESIDENT:

– During the adjournment debate on Monday, 27 May 1979, Senator McLaren referred to the installation of air conditioning and of a sprinkler system for fire prevention in Parliament House. In the winter recess of 1978 an air conditioning system was installed in the 1947 wing of the Senate side of the building. During the coming winter recess, a sprinkler system for fire prevention will be installed in the 1947 wing. The decision to install air conditioning in the 1947 wing was taken in 1976 and was first proposed for inclusion in the works program in 1976-77. It was, however, postponed because of the lack of available funds, and was included in the 1977-78 program. During 1978 there was a comprehensive review of alternative methods of fire prevention in the building by experts on the subject. It was not until early this year that the results of this review were known, and a decision was taken by the Presiding Officers. The decision made was that a sprinkler system was the most appropriate of the alternative systems, and would be installed in all areas of the building which did not already have it. This work will be done in stages.

The answer to Senator McLaren’s question on why the two jobs were not carried out at the same time in respect of the 1 947 wing is that the installation of air conditioning in that area took place before the review of fire prevention in the building and before the decision was made on the appropriate equipment for fire prevention in the building. What may have attracted Senator McLaren’s attention to this matter is that, in order to install the sprinkler system, it is necessary to remove the false ceiling which was put in the 1947 wing to conceal the air conditioning equipment. It should be pointed out that the false ceiling is deliberately constructed to allow relatively easy removal. It is estimated that it costs $600 to remove and replace the false ceiling. Where there are areas of the building which have yet to receive air conditioning and sprinklers, the two projects will be merged.

In response to Senator McLaren’s other questions about costs, it is not possible to give a figure for the installation of the sprinkler system in the 1 947 wing, as this is only a part of stage one of the project. I am able to say, however, that the cost of extending the sprinkler system throughout the building is estimated to be $350,000. It is also not possible to give a figure for the savings which may have been made had the air conditioning and the sprinklers been installed in the 1 947 wing at the same time.

page 2577

QUESTION

SENATE STAFF

The PRESIDENT:

– At Question Time on Thursday, 31 May, Senator Colston asked me a number of questions concerning the hours worked by Senate officers the previous evening and the extent to which overtime was paid for the extra hours of duty worked. My answer is prefaced with the information that officers receiving overtime are paid at the normal Public Service rate of time and a half. If they are required to recommence duty without having had eight consecutive hours off duty plus reasonable travelling time, the officer is paid at penalty double rates until released from duty for the prescribed break.

The answer to the several parts of Senator Colston’s question is as follows: Firstly, on Thursday morning, 31 May, a total of 35 Senate staff were on duty after 2 a.m. Of these, 26 will receive overtime payment for the hours worked. The remaining nine officers are senior officers of the Department who do not receive payment for overtime. Secondly, 32 officers were required to recommence duty on Thursday morning without obtaining the prescribed break of eight hours, plus travelling time. Of these, 24 will receive penalty payment from the time they recommenced on the Thursday morning until they ceased duty later that day and were able to take the prescribed break. The remaining officers are ineligible to receive penalty payments.

page 2577

JUDICIARY (DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 May, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition has prepared and circulated an amendment to the Judiciary (Diplomatic Representation) Amendment Bill 1979. It is a quite small Bill and is quite circumspect in what it intends to do. In a moment I shall explain the nature of the amendment which the Opposition desires to move. Insofar as the object of the legislation is to ratify, as it were, any irregularities about the appointment of Mr Justice Fox as Ambassador-at-Large on nuclear matters, the Opposition is not concerned to oppose it, and it does not do so. The purpose of the amendment which is to be moved is to indicate that, whatever extensions of this appointment are made by stealth or artificially or in whatever other way the Government is concerned to make them, they should not be made beyond 31 December 1980. The reason for that is quite clearly and simply that the view of the Opposition is that there must be a clear understanding of the duration of this appointment and there should perhaps be more reporting to the Parliament about the cost of the appointment and, of course, the effectiveness of the activities of Mr Justice Fox.

I illustrate the problem by referring in particular to some questions which have been asked in relation to this matter. I asked the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) about this appointment a week or two ago in the Senate. It was at that time that he introduced the legislation which is now before the Senate. Some of the concerns which are now the subject of a question on the Notice Paper to the Government are to ascertain the total cost of Mr Justice Fox’s mission, if I might call it that, in the financial year 1977-78 and from 1 July 1978 to date; more particularly, to find out some of the details of those costs in terms of air travel, accommodation, transport for both Mr Justice Fox and his wife and salaries of persons concerned with his mission; and, more importantly, to find out the estimated cost of the appointment of Mr Justice Fox up to 31

December 1980. That is the date on which the foreshadowed amendment suggests that the appointment should expire. The appointment has also been subject to some queries in the House of Representatives. I refer to a question asked on 10 May 1979 by Mr Lionel Bowen of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock). Mr Bowen asked:

Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs studied the paper published by the International Consultative Group on Nuclear Energy in November 1978 entitled ‘International Custody of Plutonium Stocks: A First Step Towards an International Regime for Sensitive Nuclear Energy Activities’, of which the authors were Russel Fox and Mason Will rich’ While recognising that the views expressed in the paper by the Ambassador-at-Large for Australia may be personal, I ask the Minister whether he will inform the House of his own or the Government ‘s assessment of the views put forward in that paper?

Mr Peacock replied:

I have read the article and have had discussions with Mr Justice Fox. 1 am having the departments concerned also examine the matter and I will provide more detailed information later rather than express a personal view in the House at this juncture.

At this stage that has not been done. I do not make any particular point about that. But I refer to the fact that the matter was again raised by Mr Lionel Bowen on 22 May in the course of a debate in the House of Representatives. Mr Bowen drew attention to the fact that the paper had been published in November 1978, that the proposals contained in it were largely personal ones put forward by the judge and his co-author, and that the approach was a quite radical one in respect of which the Government had made no particular pronouncement. The fact of the matter is that six months after the publication of Mr Justice Fox’s paper a question was asked by Mr Lionel Bowen of Mr Peacock. Other questions have been asked on the same matter and in the course of that period the Government has signed an agreement with the Republic of Korea. That matter was referred to also in the course of a debate in the Senate on 22 May this year.

What the Opposition is concerned about is that there should be answers to these questions as well as to the fundamental question of whether or not Mr Justice Fox is being used as a device by which the Government can defuse questions about its nuclear policy, and particularly about arrangements such as that entered into with South Korea. By having Mr Justice Fox in this itinerant capacity the Government can point to him as a symbolic figure of good endeavour travelling around the globe but at the same time indulge in policies in Australia which in fact ignore both the symbolism and the reality of his position. It can take considerable time to give any consequence to any suggestions which he may have made.

For these reasons the Opposition is concerned that there should be some clarity about the finality of this appointment. If at any stage subsequent to 31 December 1980 the Government continues to see value in this appointment- value which at this stage the Opposition is beginning to doubt can be seen- it will be incumbent upon the Government to amend this legislation or to introduce new legislation to cater for any further extensions of the appointment of the judge concerned. Quite apart from those observations we do not oppose the legislation insofar as it is designed to correct any possible irregularities which may have occurred in the appointment to date. To that extent it is a necessary piece of legislation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate for its support of this measure. No doubt the foreshadowed amendment to be moved by Senator Button will give rise to some debate at the Committee stage. However, I simply point out that the purpose of this legislation is not to authorise the appointment of Mr Justice Fox. The purpose of the original legislation, and of this amending legislation, is to ensure that the acceptance by him of the appointment and the performance of the duties of that appointment will not prejudice his judicial status. Its purpose also is to preserve his rights as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The original appointment of Mr Justice Fox, which I think was in October 1977, was contemplated for a period of 12 months or so. In my second reading speech I indicated the nature of the work in which he is engaged and which it is now anticipated will be completed towards the end of 1980. Nevertheless, despite some comments from Senator Button, I am sure that the Opposition would applaud in general terms the work in which he is engaged. It cannot be said definitely on what particular date the appointment will terminate. This Bill has been drawn in such wide terms so that we will not need to come back to the Parliament if there has to be some extension of the appointment no matter for how short a time. That is the reason why no particular cut-off date has been included in this legislation. I hope that this Bill will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 3- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 4.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-! move:

Page 2, after clause 3, add the following new clause:

Notwithstanding any reference in Section 3 to any extension or extensions of the term of the appointment of the Honourable Russell Walter Fox as Ambassadorat.large, the terms of his appointment shall expire on 3 1 December 1980.’.

In the course of the second reading debate I indicated the Opposition’s concern that this appointment is floating not only in the sense that Mr Justice Fox seems to be floating around the world but also in the sense of the uncertainty in relation to the duration of the appointment and in relation to extensions which might be made to it. The purpose of the proposed new clause is simply to terminate the appointment finally on 31 December 1980. If Mr Justice Fox has not succeeded by that time in achieving some of the Government’s stated intentions in relation to this matter then a full explanation should be given to the Parliament and an effort should be made either to amend this legislation again or to introduce new legislation to cover any further appointment. That is the purpose of the amendment. I do not really need to say anything more about it than that.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. As I have already indicated, the work in which Mr Justice Fox is engaged is expected to conclude towards the end of 1980 and he has been reappointed until 31 December 1980. His actual appointment was not made by legislation and it is not being extended by this amending Bill. His appointment was an executive act, and this legislation is designed simply to preserve his rights as a judge during the period of his appointment. For that reason, I think the amendment is misconceived. Nevertheless, even assuming that it has a place in this legislation, the Government would not wish to have its hands tied firmly by a date for completion of the appointment which may prove to be impractical. The appointment may need to be extended for a short time. If it were to be extended for any long period, obviously that would be the subject of debate. Although it would be an executive act, nevertheless it would be known; it would be public. There is no attempt to prevent public discussion or debate about the matter. In my view, such appointments simply do not have a proper place in this or any other legislation. Honourable senators may as well say that we should have Acts of Parliament limiting the terms of appointment of ambassadors generally.

These are executive acts and are not made the subject of legislation. For those reasons, the Government is opposed to this amendment.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– Firstly, I point out that this appointment is of a very special kind. Secondly, I ask the AttorneyGeneral on how many occasions Mr Justice Fox has had his appointment extended to this date.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I will endeavour to reinforce the argument put by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Although the appointment of Mr Justice Fox was not made by legislation, I think the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has indicated that it can be terminated by this legislation because he admitted that the Government did not wish to be bound to that termination date. Unfortunately, we have had the experience in this place of appointing judges, sometimes retired judges, to royal commissions and inquiries, and finding that those judges in some way extend the period of the inquiry. I call to mind the royal commission on the Great Barrier Reef that went on and on. The Opposition did not object to that at the time because it meant that while the inquiry was proceeding there was a moratorium on the Great Barrier Reef. Nevertheless, the inquiry took some five years and cost well over $lm. Other commissions led by judges have taken an extraordinary length of time.

Senator Mulvihill:

– There was one on repatriation in which the judge did not exactly gallop.

Senator GEORGES:

-As a matter of fact, I was trying to recall his name.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It started with a ‘T

Senator GEORGES:

– It was Mr Justice Toose. His inquiry seemed to go on endlessly. It may be unfair to suggest this, but it is possible that Mr Justice Fox may create the conditions for his further appointment if we have an open-ended arrangement. The Opposition’s amendment endeavours to make it clear to Mr Justice Fox and to the Government that the appointment will terminate in three years time. Only if there were an extraordinary requirement would a reappointment be made, but that would be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliament. I may be wrong in that argument, but I put it to the AttorneyGeneral that this is a reasonable amendment. Rather than hinder the amendment in any way by some general objection, he should accept it and improve the legislation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Specifically in answer to Senator Button I point out that Mr Justice Fox’s original appointment was extended from October 1978 until 17 January 1979, from then until 8 June 1979 and then until 31 December 1980. So there have been three extensions to his original appointment. In answer to Senator Georges, and to answer the general criticism of Mr Justice Fox, an analogy with other appointments that judges have held as royal commissioners, is rather different. In this case Mr Justice Fox has a specific executive appointment. It is not like a royal commission where certain letters patent are issued to do a certain job. He has been appointed as an ambassador-at-large, in the same way as other ambassadors are appointed. I draw Senator George’s attention to page 2 of my second reading speech where I set out the work that Mr Justice Fox has been doing. It is clear that it is not work which he is creating. He is engaged in activities of an international character, including meetings concerned with the nuclear fuel cycle and the fuel cycle evaluation. These activities will continue in the international sphere, whether or not Mr Justice Fox is Australia’s Ambassador-at-Large. It is for our participation in them that we require the services of Mr Justice Fox, and I think we are fortunate that we have been able to persuade him to continue his role in this work in which he has become expert. It is quite the reverse of any concern that the Committee might have that the work is being created by Mr Justice Fox.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2580

QUESTION

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF AREA

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- The Commonwealth Government has taken decisions on the question of future petroleum exploration in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. The royal commissions into exploratory and production drilling for petroleum in the area of the Great Barrier Reef reported in November 1974.

Debate interrupted.

page 2580

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m. in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

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

AYES: 23

NOES: 31

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2580

PETROLEUM EXPLORATION IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF AREA

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– All commissioners- Sir Gordon Wallace, the Chairman, Dr J. E. Smith, and Mr V. J. Moroney, the members- agreed that drilling ‘should not be permitted on any cay, island, or reef or national park or marine park when declared. ‘ Both Dr Smith and Mr Moroney considered that drilling could be permitted in certain areas, provided that recommended buffer zones and safety precautions were strictly adhered to and supervised. Sir Gordon Wallace was of the view that ‘petroleum drilling should be postponed, and be planned and permitted only in the light, and with the aid, of full scientific knowledge of all the effects of oil pollution direct and indirect, short and long-term, on the coral and other marine life’. The Commonwealth Government has given detailed consideration to these differing views and has decided that, in line with the recommendations of the chairman of the royal commissions, there should be no further exploration for petroleum in the Great Barrier Reef region and that there should be no renewal of petroleum exploration permits in the region until the results of both short and longer term research are known.

This decision will give positive effect to the categorical and absolute guarantee that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) expressed in Parliament on 22 May this year when he made it clear that the Government will not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the reef. On that occasion he indicated that AMSTAC- the Australian Marine Science and Technologies Advisory Committee- had been asked by the Government to submit advice to the Government on a program of research on the reef environment for consideration in the Budget context. AMSTACwhich is under the chairmanship of Professor Birch, a distinguished scientist- is a standing committee of the Australian Science and Technology Council. On 4 April this year the Prime Minister wrote to Senator Webster, the Minister for Science and the Environment, and suggested that the Minister might present a submission to AMSTAC on a possible program of research into the ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef. As a result of the Minister’s submission and on account of AMSTAC ‘s own expert knowledge, proposals relating to the research program will shortly be available for consideration by the Government. The Government is confident that the resulting research program will do much to minimise Australia’s existing lack of knowledge with respect to the ecosystem of the reef.

An important feature of arrangements with respect to the reef is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. This body has the responsibility of recommending areas within the Great Barrier Reef region for declaration as parts of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Marine Park Authority, in its 1977-78 annual report foreshadowed the possible declaration of the

Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef region as the first section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Government acknowledges that it has constitutional powers in this area. It has been engaged in discussions with the Queensland Government against that background. It is desirable that the declaration of the Marine Park should await the outcome of discussions with Queensland which flow from the 1978 Premiers’ Conference agreement that the powers of the States be extended to the territorial sea, including the sea bed. Because of the proximity of the reef to the Queensland coast, the question of appropriate jurisdiction over that national asset is of obvious relevance in that context. To this end, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of Queensland on 19 December last year and suggested that there should be consultation between our respective Governments on development of the arrangements resulting from the Premiers’ Conference agreements and also the establishment control, care and development of a marine park in the Great Barrier Reef region.

Consultations, both at the official and ministerial level have taken place, most recently in Sydney on 1 7 May. The Government is confident of an early resolution of these complex questions. The Prime Minister is hopeful that an early announcement can be made on the declaration of the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Government’s attitude and position on these issues is clear: The Government has stated repeatedly that it will not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef or any mining or drilling which would damage the reef. Let there be no confusion on this point. No part of the reef is going to be damaged by any activity that takes place on the reef or off the reef.

The Government has adopted the recommendation of the chairman of the royal commissions that petroleum drilling should be postponed pending the receipt of the results of short and longer term research into the reef. The Government has asked AMSTAC to recommend a program of research to the Government and will be considering that recommendation in the Budget context. Discussions with Queensland on the interrelated questions of the Premiers Conference agreements on the extension of State powers to the territorial seas and the management of the Great Barrier Reef region are at an advanced stage. I move:

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Mr President, insofar as this statement is clear in any sense, it is welcomed by the Opposition. It seems to be a reprieve after a period of prevarication and indecision, and also in a sense an adjournment of the Government’s problem in relation to this matter. It has been brought before the Senate and the House of Representatives today on this occasion as a result of a number of questions and discussions which have sought to elucidate the Government’s attitude on the question of oil drilling in the area of the Great Barrier Reef. The interesting thing about the statement is that it almost protests too much. For example, there are statements like this:

The Government’s attitude and position on these issues is clear: The Government has stated repeatedly that it will not permit any drilling on the Great Barrier Reef or any mining or drilling which would damage the reef.

Let there be no confusion on this point- no part of the reef is going to be damaged by any activity that takes place on the reef or off the reef.

The whole issue in the last month has gone to the credibility of those sorts of statements which have been made repeatedly by Government spokesmen and contradicted by statements by other Government spokesmen, and contradicted by letters which Ministers have written one to another which show that these statements are pretty well worthless insofar as Government Ministers are concerned. Again it is repeated that the Government has no intention of permitting oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef but those statements have turned out to be pretty worthless in the past. We in the Opposition hope that they will not turn out to be worthless in the future. We would like to think that this statement resolves the issues which have been the subject of discussion in the Parliament for over a month.

If one looks at the two views which the Government states right at the beginning of this statement, on careful reading one sees some of the dilemma which still arises. First is the statement of two commissioners, Dr Smith and Mr Moroney, that ‘drilling should not be permitted on any cay, island or reef or national park or marine park when declared. ‘ Even this morning, when Senator Webster was asked whether two petroleum permits are in the marine park he said: ‘I cannot answer that. Refer that to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development’. When the Minister representing the Minister for National Development was asked whether two oil lease permits are within the area of the marine park, he said, ‘I will refer that to the Minister in the House of Representatives’.

When the Minister in the House of Representatives was asked the same question this morning, he refused to answer it. So when this question was put to three Ministers today on this vital issue of what the marine park consists of, they failed to answer the question. That seems to be a very simple matter which could be answered by a Minister of the Fraser Government but, we have to rely on the sort of rhetoric in this statement which emerges from the Prime Minister’s office and reasserts a number of other statements which have had absolutely no credibility about them at all; and the position is still unclear about the question of oil drilling on or near the Great Barrier Reef.

Senator Walters:

– But you have heard the statement.

Senator BUTTON:

-I know the honourable senator believes everything that the Prime Minister says, but the people of Australia do not and that is the problem that the Government has to face up to. The view of Dr Smith and Mr Moroney is expressed in these terms: ‘Drilling could be permitted in certain areas, provided recommended buffer zones and safety precautions were strictly applied and supervised’. The second view which the Government adopts in this statement is the view of Sir Gordon Wallace, and that view is expressed in these terms: that petroleum drilling should be postponed, and be planned and permitted only in the light, and with the aid, of full scientific knowledge of all the effects of oil pollution, direct and indirect, short and long term, on the coral and other marine life.

The Government goes on to say that it adopts the statement of the chairman rather than the statement of the other two commissioners. Of course the people of Australia would like this Government to adopt the statement of the chairman. The people of Australia would like the question of oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef to be subject to all the considerations which are mentioned in the chairman ‘s view of what should be done. But at the same time the alternative view is stated, and the Government goes on to say that consultations about this area, the area in question, are still being carried on with the Queensland Government ‘.

Senator Puplick:

– That is a fairly desperate attempt -

Senator BUTTON:

– Just a minute, Senator. That of course sends great floods of warmth into the heart of the average Australian who is concerned about the Great Barrier Reef, to know that the matter is still subject to consultation with the Queensland Government. If the information which we in the Opposition have is correct, the Queensland Government adopts the commissioner’s view in relation to what and should happen in this area, not the chairman’s view, which the Commonwealth Government adopts.

Senator Walters:

– If your view is correct.

Senator BUTTON:

– If the honourable senator will possess her soul in patience she will see tomorrow that my view is correct, because the Queensland Government adopts one view- that is the view of the two commissioners- and the Commonwealth Government adopts the view of the chairman of the commissioners, which is quite different for the view of the Queensland Government. We are being told in this document that not only is the Government full of good intentions, as it has always said it was in relation to this issue, in spite of letters which proved exactly to the contrary, but also we are told that the matter is still subject to negotiations with the Queensland Government which has a separate and distinct view from that of the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Puplick:

– Do you mean in relation to drilling?

Senator BUTTON:

– If the honourable senator listened to the Minister’s statement, he would know that the areas in question are subject to the potential jurisdiction of the Queensland Government on this matter. If that is so, I invite the Government to have a look at its performance in the area of constitutional power in relation to Aborigines, and its performance in relation to the Queensland Government on that issue. It is not a performance of which any Government in any country could be proud. In 1957 the Australian people voted overwhelmingly to give power to this Parliament in relation to Aborigines, yet this Government has been prepared, in a defacto sense to trade that power to the Queensland Government so far as Aboriginal reserves in that State are concerned. Is the Great Barrier Reef going to suffer the same sort of abdication of power and responsibility from which the Queensland Aboriginals have suffered? That is something which is not cleared up by the statement at all.

Senator Walters:

– You are not doing any better than you did last time.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Walters is doing much better. I am reminded of that great line from W. B. Yeates: ‘I traded my life for an old bellows full of angry wind ‘. If I might say so, no senator should interject at length at this time of night. The performance has been exemplary in terms of staying power, but not in terms of content. We are concerned that the statement not only creates confusion and continues existing confusions, it also raises the very real problem that the Great Barrier Reef will suffer, because of a spineless government, exactly the same fate as the Aborigines in Queensland have suffered. We are not satisfied with the statement. It is just an attempt to sweep under the carpet and to adjourn a matter which has become very embarrassing to the Government because of the activities of the Opposition in this Parliament and elsewhere.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-If I had been a little harder earlier and had spoken for a further half a minute we would not be having this debate tonight. It would have been brought on tomorrow at a more important time, when those of us who want to take part would be able to do so. We now have to debate the matter after the motion that the Senate do now adjourn has been put and resolved in the negative. That does not give us great hopes for what will happen for the rest of the week, especially after the Government moves tomorrow for the suspension of Standing Order 68. I take it that the Government intends to debate the matters on its program into the early hours of the morning. This debate tonight seems to be a lead up to that situation.

The statement by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) concerns me greatly because it revives the fear I had that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, as it is now known- it is not known now as the Great Barrier Reef authority- will be the means by which the Great Barrier Reef area will be dismembered. It will be the means by which it will be fragmented and broken up. The concept of one great ecosystem of world standard is being destroyed. The Minister’s statement reinforces my impression.

Opinion poll after opinion poll has indicated that people in Queensland and throughout Australia are just not interested in finding oil in the Great Barrier Reef area. That decision of the people, as expressed in a variety of ways, and to a certain extent expressed to the royal commission which reported on this matter, ought to be accepted. We ought to forget about continuing the debate on the issue. We ought to accept that as far as the people are concerned the Great Barrier Reef area ought to be protected in total. What is being proposed is the setting up of a series of marine parks with buffer zones which will allow drilling on all of the many leases which extend across the Barrier Reef area. Of course, the great danger is that oil may be found in the area. In my view, that would be the end of the Great Barrier Reef.

I merely wish to indicate that the statement, which I believe was debated at length in the other place, is one which we would have liked to have debated here. The Government, by making the statement after the normal time for the adjournment of the Senate, limits us in some way. I do not propose to limit what I have to say. I again express the fears which have been expressed to the effect that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is being misused. This policy will lead to achieving exactly the opposite to what was intended to be achieved, according to the various debates which took place when the Authority was being established. Also, the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee, which supports the Marine Park Authority, is representative of various departments with conflicting demands upon the Great Barrier Reef area. The Consultative Committee is a committee on which environmentalists are in the minority whereas they should have been in the majority.

I have no great hope that the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will mean that no drilling will take place on the Great Barrier Reef or that there will be no mineral exploitation of the Great Barrier Reef. All this statement tonight means is that the Government has had to move away, because of public pressure, from the immediate exploitation of the Great Barrier Reef. The Government will allow a period of research and then continue with its original intention, namely, to protect some part of the Great Barrier Reef by establishing a marine park but allowing drilling for oil in the province of the Great Barrier Reef. It is my opinion- it is accepted generally by a large number of people- that drilling of any sort within the province of the Great Barrier Reef should not be permitted.

The Queensland Government is not to be trusted with matters which concern the protection of our environment; that has been proven time and time again. At the present time the Federal Government is giving powers to the State which enable it to reduce the importance of the area, to denigrate the whole concept of protection of the Great Barrier Reef and so allow for its exploitation for minerals.

That is all I wish to say at this stage. I merely repeat that it is not right for such an important statement to be made after the normal time of adjournment because this limits debate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 2584

ADJOURNMENT

Treatment of Exported Australian Fauna- Departure Tax- Parliament House: Installation of Air-conditioning and Fire Sprinkler Systems

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to take up again the subject of a very lengthy statement I made on 23 May 1979. At that time I sought action from three Ministers to control the conditions under which we export wildlife to foreign zoos and, further, to ensure that the animals concerned are treated adequately when they arrive at their destinations. Honourable senators would know that on 23 May I had incorporated in Hansard a table which indicated the various destinations of animals exported with the approval of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr W. Fife.

Since that time I have received correspondence from an elector concerning the conditions under which certain wildlife is exported to zoos in Malaysia. I shall adopt the unusual policy of giving the Minister the original letter and seeking to incorporate in Hansard a copy of it with the name of the constituent removed. I shall do that because, as honourable senators will be well aware, it was not so long ago that the Malaysian Government indicated during an industrial dispute that it was not above putting people into gaol when they expressed opinions which differed from those of the Government. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the letter with the name of the person concerned removed. I wish to quote two extracts from that letter. The woman who wrote to me said:

Last year, I wrote to the National Parks and Wildlife Service also, an export company, regarding incidents witnessed at a zoo in Malaya and was referred to the Minister responsible for export in Canberra. Nothing has been done as far as I am aware.

Her son, being upset by the conditions of some of the wombats in a zoo in Malaysia and being a much more forthright person, said to this woman:

I could personally put down the bastard responsible for sending these lovely creatures out here.

There is a familiar pattern about this matter. A Mr Punch of Brisbane wrote to me that he had complained to the Consul-General in Vancouver but no further action had been taken. People from New South Wales have written about this matter to the Minister for Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and no action has been taken.

I know that I have the approval of the Senate for raising this further example of mistreatment of Australian fauna in foreign zoos. I started off by requesting that a troika of three Ministers take this matter into consideration. Firstly, Senator Webster’s officers are probably supposed to provide the expertise as to whether a particular species should be exported. Secondly, Mr Fife, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, issues the certificate and should have some responsibility, particularly in the latter case of an export company that acted in respect of an export to Malaysia. Finally, there is the role played by the officers of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in respect of consular and embassy activities all over the world. Union shop stewards do not get too pally with the bosses because if they did that would inhibit their thinking. Perhaps a lesson could be learned from that, lt seems that our consulate in Vancouver was too soft with the Canadian authorities and it looks as though our approach in Malaysia is even worse.

I want to be fair to all concerned. I have had a verbal acknowledgment from the Minister for Science and the Environment, I have had an acknowledgment from Mr Fife to my submission of 23 May but I have had nothing from Mr Peacock’s office. I am hopeful that the three Ministers will work as a team. I would expect in the next month to get detailed reports of all aspects of this crusade, which I have been waging in alliance with the Sydney Sun. We are checking on at least another 20 zoos at present and it may well be that these three zoos are not the only ones at fault. I will leave the matter at that stage.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is leave granted for the incorporation in Hansard of material in the terms requested by Senator Mulvihill?

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

I was interested in a recent press notice concerning Australian animals in foreign zoos, and congratulate you on your concern and approach to this inhumane practice of shipping our indigenous fauna into unsatisfactory and often cruel conditions. If foreigners are interested, let us conserve and turn the subject over to the Tourist industry.

Consequently, as I have seen some of the conditions, you request information on, I feci I should write you.

Last year, I wrote the National Parks and Wildlife Service also, an export company, regarding incidents witnessed at a zoo in Malaya and was referred to the Minister responsible for export in Canberra. Nothing has been done as far as I am aware.

My son, who has been resident in Malaya 2’A years was my first informant. He wrote home asking who was responsible for sending several wombats to a small base enclosure when they naturally made rapid attempts to dig their burrows. The local population seemed quite unaware that this is a nocturnal animal and would daily ply the animal with stones, cans or any other heavable object to make him emerge from the burrow and ‘amuse’ (hem. Several were injured, one seriously enough to need to be destroyed. Subsequently a wire net was erected round the pen and people told not to throw things. But I doubt such measures helped the wombat in this miserable and totally alien environment. My son was sufficiently moved by their plight to write ‘I could personally put down the bastard responsible for sending these lovely creatures out here’. Climate and lack of natural surroundings and diet obviously would affect them too.

Last September, I paid my son and his wife a visit. The wombats were no where to be seen (perhaps moved elsewhere? or died ) I made a special point of visiting a zoo on Penang. I saw a kangaroo and a wallaby, once more in a base small enclosure and with quite inadequate shade, just lying on the ground, occasionally they would get up and sniff the air then return to prone position. I could not bear to watch for long. I don’t know what they fed on, there seemed to be no one around to ask. Monkeys are allowed to roam free on this park/zoo and they seemed O.K. One gorilla was caged there in reasonable area and seemed resigned, but of course neither of these would have been imported from Australia and were in their natural climate and environment. Turtles in a very dirty pool at the Keh loh Si pagoda were less amusing, crowded and restless, 1 hope we send non of ours there.

The Surong lurd Park in Singapore seems well run and very natural but I did not have time to look for any ‘imports’ there so cannot give opinion of that place apart from it being very well set up and usually clean.

I would sincerely suggest though that all export of Australian fauna be stopped to Malaya, it is most unsuitable in every way for our animals and besides they have such interesting and lovely creature of their own, if they can bc encouraged to provide natural habitat and keep it clean. And if the public must have viewings. Is it really necessary. How much better to learn to live with them not off them. 1 must thank you also for sending me the Senate Notice Paper copy concerning whales, 3 years ago now, it was thoughtful of you. Many concerned people follow your efforts with great interest. We were gratful for the closure of Cheynes Beach and ban on import of Whale products. It will also stimulate our young folk in research of alternatives and it is heartening to find so many now interested in conserving wildlife and appreciating nature.

Thank you most sincerely for your voice in these concerns.

Yours faithfully.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Over recent months I have asked a series of questions of all Ministers in the Parliament in relation to the departure tax. Mr President, because of the absolute propriety of the Presiding Officers, I have not asked you or Mr Speaker the same question. On 20 February of this year I asked the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) two questions in relation to the departure tax. The first question was:

  1. 1 ) How many times has the Prime Minister left Australia since 24 October 1978?

Senator Carrick replied:

  1. Three.

The second question I asked was:

  1. Did the Prime Minister pay a Departure Tax on all such occasions; if not, why not.

The answer was:

  1. Under the terms of the Government’s decision in respect of departure tax outlined in Parliament on 24 August 1978, persons leaving Australia, except in certain circumstances are required to pay a departure tax.

Ministers are not exempt from this requirement. Ministers travelling on official business are fully entitled to have the charge paid officially. If they travel privately they would pay the departure tax as a personal charge.

Although the visits referred to in ( 1 ) above were official visits I have as it happens elected to pay the departure tax personally on each occasion.

I followed that up with another question because I wanted to be absolutely sure that the information given to me was correct. It was somewhat unusual to have the reply that the departure tax could have been paid as an official charge but the Prime Minister elected to pay it himself. In fact, this was the only occasion that such a reply came to me. So on 2 May I asked the Prime Minister this question:

Where and when did the Prime Minister pay the departure tax personally, as indicated in his answer to Senate Question No. 1 42 (see Hansard. 1 May 1979, page 1512).

Today I received an answer to that question. Senator Carrick advised me:

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

I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the honourable senator on 1 May.

This may seem to be a small matter. However, I think that it is an important matter. I asked the question quite genuinely. I sought some information to be sure that all Ministers were paying this tax, which was imposed by the Parliament last year. If the Prime Minister thought that I was being impertinent in asking that question, as he had said that he had paid it personally, I think that the answer to the question could have been couched in such a manner that he thought I was being impertinent. If he thought that there was a genuine reason why he should not advise me where and when he paid his departure tax, he should have said: ‘Because of such and such I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave to the honourable senator on 1 May’.

At this stage I do not think there is anything untoward in the answer that was given to my question of 20 February. I accept that the departure tax was paid personally. But when I receive an answer such as the one I received today to a question I asked on 2 May I begin to have some sneaking suspicions that something is wrong.

Again, I do not believe that there is anything wrong, but if the Prime Minister wants to foster an opinion that something is wrong he has given exactly the right answer. I ask Senator Carrick, who represents the Prime Minister in this place, to refer this matter back to the Prime Minister and inform him that I genuinely asked this question on 2 May, that it was not asked for the fun of it. I also ask him to ascertain whether the Prime Minister would be willing to give me an answer to the question that I asked.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr President, the matter I wish to raise tonight concerns the statement that you put down tonight in reply to a question I asked just a week ago. Before I deal with this matter I would just like to say a couple of brief words about the matter that Senator Colston has raised. I think that this matter opens up a whole avenue of questioning. If there is a rule that Ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister can have the cost of their departure tax met from official sources, surely members of this Parliament who are elected to attend official delegations as representatives of the Parliament and the country are also entitled to have their departure tax paid. I will leave the matter at that. Perhaps we will get a ruling on this matter at the same time as Senator Carrick provides an answer to the question asked by Senator Colston.

Mr President, I thank you for the prompt way in which you have dealt with the question I raised last Monday night. I want to raise some queries in respect of the statement which you made tonight on this matter. In your statement you said:

The decision to install air conditioning in the 1 947 wing was taken in 1976 and was first proposed for inclusion in the works program in 1 976-77. It was, however, postponed because of the lack of available funds, and was included in the 1977-78 program.

I thought that funds were getting tighter and tighter in the community as the Budget was blowing out. If they were not available in 1976-77, 1 am amazed that such a large amount of money will be available in 1977-78. However, you went on to say:

During 1 978 there was a comprehensive review of alternative methods of fire prevention in the building by experts on the subject. It was not until early this year that the results of this review were known, and a decision was taken by the Presiding Officers.

I pose another question: Were these experts not apprised of the decision of the Presiding Officers to install air conditioning at the time they were looking at the need to install a sprinkler system in Parliament House? When I go to the end of your statement, Mr President, I am most disturbed to see that it will cost $350,000 to install a sprinkler system in the areas of Parliament House where such a system is not operative already. That is an enormous amount of money to be spent on a building which has survived for more than 50 years without a sprinkler system. In view of the fact that we now have more attendants employed in the building and more police around the place because of a whim of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), I would think that the risk of fire is lessened considerably. In view of the fact also that the Parliament has decided that we are going to construct a new and permanent parliament house on Capital Hill at enormous cost why should we be looking each year to spend such amounts of money to install a sprinkler system when we have fire appliances all around the building? I think that we have a fire brigade here. We have been told what the fire drill is.

Mr President, you also stated:

Where there are areas of the building which have yet to receive air conditioning and sprinklers, the two projects will be merged.

If it is intended to go ahead with that, I would say that it is a good move. But I want to know which areas are yet to be air conditioned? Do those areas include the areas in which parliamentary staff have to work the year round; that is, the parliamentary staff who are employed in this building for 52 weeks of the year. As I have said previously when I have discussed the expensive air conditioning in this building, politicians are here for only three days of the week on the average when the Parliament is sitting. On many occasions very few of us are here. The staff down in the records office and the administrative section next to it, in my view, have to work in intolerable conditions throughout the year, particularly in the summer. If anyone needs air conditioning and better conditions to work under, surely it is those people and not members of parliament. Because of the lateness of the hour I will not say any more about that matter. If I can get answers to these questions I might pursue the matter a bit further during the Budget session.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in replySenator Mulvihill raised some matters relating to the illtreatment of animals, particularly Australian indigenous animals, in foreign zoos. Senator Mulvihill ‘s humane interest in animals is very well known, and indeed we share it. At this moment I am not completely aware which of my ministerial colleagues has direct responsibility for this matter, but certainly I will take up the matter with them and see what can be done. It may be that conditions can be written into the terms under which Australian animals are provided to foreign zoos to ensure an understanding of the needs of the animals and reasonable guarantees or assurances that they shall live in conditions approximating those of their homes.

I am perfectly sure that the answers given by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to Senator Colston’s questions were not meant in any way to cause him any misapprehension. The fact is that Mr Fraser personally paid a sum of $20 in respect of departure tax for Mrs Fraser and himself. A $20 note was handed to a member of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the money was lodged with the Receiver of Public Moneys without delay. A receipt No. AE 804138 is held. The money was paid personally by the Prime Minister out of his own pocket. As I understand it, the simple rule is that when Ministers go abroad they are in a situation no different from that of any other member of parliament or member of the community. They are liable to pay departure tax. The Prime Minister assures the Parliament that he conforms with that ruling. I ask Senator Colston to inform me if he requires further information at any time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

page 2588

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Telecasts of Rugby League Matches (Question No. 953)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did a commercial channel buy the television rights for coverage of the Rugby League series in which Australia is playing test matches against Great Britain and France.
  2. Did this Channel offer the series to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for televising in areas not covered by the commercial channel.
  3. Did the Australian Broadcasting Commission refuse to take up this offer: if so, will the Minister ask the Australian Broadcasting Commission to re-consider its decision, so that rugby fans in the Northern Territory will not be denied the opportunity of seeing the Australian team in action in this most important series.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. No.
  3. Not applicable.

Quarantine: Newcastle Disease (Question No. 1127)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Did a parrot escape from an Indonesian ship berthed at Kwinana grain terminal in Western Australia, as reported in The Courier Mail, 9 December 1978; if so: (a) have steps been taken to ensure that this does not occur again; (b) did the escape pose a risk of the fatal Newcastle disease among Australian commercial poultry and other birds; and (c) was the parrot captured.

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

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

Yes. The escape occurred because the Master did not comply with instructions to move the caged bird to a secure area on the vessel.

Yes. In all cases where such instructions are given in the future, their implementation will be personally supervised by boarding officers. The amount payable by the Master as a bond for compliance with quarantine regulations in relation to animals retained on board is being increased from $100 to $500.

Yes.

No, despite wide publicity in the press and on television, extensive enquiries by animal quarantine field officers and the offer of a reward. In all, 106 ‘sightings’ were followed up and a small number of sick or dead birds reported were examined for Newcastle disease with negative results. Monitoring activities continued for 20 days after the escape. No evidence emerged during this monitoring phase or subsequently that Newcastle disease had been introduced into Western Australia.

Ministerial Meetings with Business Consultants (Question No. 1200)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

  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. Gilmourand 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 Chaney:
LP

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

  1. to (4) There arc no special arrangements made to record approaches to the Minister or his personal staff by particular companies, professional agencies or lobbyists.

As such organisations are not accorded any special treatment, there is no reason why there should be such special arrangements.

Minister for Post and Telecommunications: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1355)

Senator Wriedt:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, 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 offices, 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 Chaney:
LP

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

  1. ) to (7) 1 refer the honourable senator to the answer provided to him by the Prime Minister to his Question on Notice No. 1335 (Senate Hansard, 2 May 1979, Pages 1608-9).

Social Welfare: Special Benefits (Question No. 1395)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

Did the Minister authorise a survey to be conducted by R. J. Donovan and Associates Pty Ltd, into the characteristics of special beneficiaries; if so:

a ) in what areas was the survey conducted;

b ) what is the cost to the Government of the survey;

will the findings be publicly released on request; if not, why not; and

what other surveys by outside consultants are being proposed by the Department of Social Security in the financial year 1978-79.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The survey of R. J. Donovan and Associates Pty Ltd was not into the characteristics of special beneficiaries but was conducted as part of the evaluation of the Department’s information activities. The aim was to ascertain clients’ experiences with, and opinions of, the existing information systems.

the survey was conducted in the Perth metropolitan area and WA country regions. It included interviews with departmental staff, client groups, agencies and a mail survey of both clients and agencies and a public survey at shopping centres.

$5,000.

It is not proposed to publish the survey report for free general distribution. However, when the report is completed copies will be released on request.

No other major surveys by outside consultants are being proposed for the remainder of 1 978-79.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Rural Radio Programs (Question No. 1445)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 20 March 1 979:

How many times during each month since December 1 977 have interviews with and /or reports of statements by: (a) spokesman for farm organisations; (b) parliamentary representatives of the Australian Labor Party; (c) spokesman for trade unions; (d) parliamentary representatives of the National Country Party; and (e) parliamentary representatives of the Liberal Party of Australia, been broadcast on Australian Broadcasting Commission Radio programmes:

the Country Hour in each State; and

ii ) National Farm Report.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Child Care Centre in East Launceston (Question No. 1452)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security upon notice, on 20 March 1 979:

Were Commonwealth funds used to purchase a house in Stewart Street. East Launceston, to establish a child care centre: if so

when was the house purchased:

from whom was it purchased:

what was its cost:

) what is the current valuation of this property;

what alterations will be necessary to make this building suitable for a child care centre;

what is the estimated cost of such alterations: and

how may children per day is it estimated that a child centre in this building can accommodate.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Yes.

The settlement date was 18 April 1978.

Mr and Mrs J. L. Gerrard

The settlement figure was $85,083.70. including $52.00 for registrations and $31.70 for the purchaser’s proportion of rates and land tax. The asking price for the property in March 1978 was $85,000. In accordance with normal practice my Department sought a valuation from the Taxation Office. This was set at $80,000 at that time. As the asking price was within the 10 per cent variation of the Taxation valuation allowed and as the price was considered reasonable settlement was effected at the asking price plus the adjustments referred to above.

The current valuation of the property, as advised by the Taxation Office on 4 April 1 979, is $80,000.

The alterations proposed to make the property suitable for a child care centre basically comprise internal partitioning and removal of walls, the closing in of a verandah, upgrading of the buildings at the back of the property, and general renovation and improvement of facilities to enable the property to meet State licensing requirements.

The estimated costs of the alterations are still being finalised. I have recently approved an increased total capital grant for the project of $265,000. (An increase of $20,000 on the original approval) The cost to the Commonwealth for the establishment of the centre will be limited to that amount, including purchase, renovations and associated fees.

The plans for the proposed centre are designed to cater for a total of 53 children.

Suicide (Question No. 1496)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) ls suicide now the second most common cause of death in the late teenage and young adult agc groups, exceeded only byroad accidents (see the Age, 20 March 1979).
  2. Is there any known connection between suicidal behaviour, dangerous driving, drug taking and alcohol abuse.
  3. ls it likely that these tragic forms of behaviour will increase, in view of the increased stress and anxiety among young people due to unemployment and warnings of a ‘blitz’ on unemployment benefits.
  4. What measures will the Government take to alleviate the situation.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minster for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and(2)Yes.

  1. Undoubtedly unemployment, and any other stress, may contribute to disturbed behaviour in some people. However, many factors arc involved and it is possible to ameliorate harmful effects of such stresses by a variety of measures. The Commonwealth Government is meeting its responsibilities in this regard (see 4).

The following information has been provided by my colleague the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs:

  1. The causal links between unemployment and behaviour such as vandalism, drug abuse, violence and suicide have not been conclusively demonstrated by empirically based research. The recently tabled Report of the Inquiry into Education and Training recommended that research into the short- and long-term effects of unemployment be undertaken. The Government is presently considering that Report.

Other than health and welfare programs to relieve stress and anxiety, the Government is also providing young unemployed people with various means of support. Apart from the availability of unemployment benefit, programs such as the Community Youth Support Scheme, the Education Program for Unemployed Youths, and the Special Youth Employment Training Program are providing opportunities for young people to cope with unemployment and better equip themselves for the labour market. Outcomes of such schemes include improved self-confidence, motivation, social participation and support from families and other sectors of the community.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 1499)

Senator Melzer:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 28 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs or the Minister’s Department issue a memorandum to officers stating that people moving to areas where there was little chance of work would have their unemployment benefit cut off and would remain deprived of the unemployment benefit while in the area.
  2. How will Social Security deal with people who, after recent propaganda, move to fruit picking areas seeking work but who arc unable to find a job on arrival.
  3. Does the Commonwealth take any responsibility for people who, following advice from the Commonwealth Employment Service, moved into fruit picking areas, and found that it was impossible to earn even as much as unemployment benefit while living in primitive conditions.
  4. Did the Commonwealth Employment Service know it was impossible to earn a living picking in this area before sending unemployed people there.
  5. Will such people bc immediately eligible for unemployment benefit.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has advised me that in January and March 1976, the then Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations announced changes to the guidelines for the work test. Among the new guidelines was that applicants would not be considered to have satisfied the work test if by their own actions they demonstrate that they are not genuinely seeking employment e.g., they place themselves in a situation where they will remain or are likely to remain unemployed. This will apply particularly to a person who moves to a new location where in the opinion of the CES Manager:

    1. There are little or no employment prospects for the individual concerned; or
    2. the move was for purposes other than seeking employment e.g. holidays, tourism, environment factors and the like; or
    3. they have terminated their employment in order to move to an area where employment opportunities arc severely limited or non-existent.
  2. In deciding whether a claimant for unemployment benefit satisfies the work test, the Department of Social Security will be guided by the reports of the CES.
  3. Eligibility for income maintenance assistance from the Department of Social Security is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Social Services Act. In any case where a person is not eligible for a pension or unemployment or sickness benefit and is suffering hardship, the Department of Social Security will consider the payment of a special benefit.
  4. The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has advised me that the CES is aware that there have been reports of harsh conditions associated with some jobs in fruitpicking areas, but it would not knowingly refer people to such jobs. CES officers are trained to obtain as much information as possible from employers lodging job vacancies so that clients being referred to the vacancies may be advised. It is fair to say that the work of CES officers in the fruit areas contributes in no small way to the overall situation, which is that each year many thousands of people are engaged quite successfully in fruit harvest work.
  5. If the CES advises that a claimant for unemployment benefit satisfies the work test, unemployment benefit will be payable subject to other conditions of eligibility being met.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1529)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What studies, if any, are being conducted of the employment implications for (a) the telecommunications industry: and (b) banking and clerical areas of data transfer, of the proposed Australian domestic satellite.
  2. ) When will any such studies be completed and will they bc released to the public.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) These questions have already been the subject of submissions to the National Communications Satellite Task Force and were considered in its Report. Further submissions have been made to the Working Group, which is examining them. I am informed that the Working Group is very concerned to identify employment implications that would bc closely related to a National Communications Satellite. No doubt, il will follow closely the more extensive enquiries that arc being carried out by the Tripartite Committee examining Labour Market Questions and the Committee of Inquiry on Technological Change in Australian Industry.
  2. The Working Group is yet to complete its report. Thus, the Government has made no decision as to whether the report or any information that is used will be made public.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1530)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

Has any company, organisation or individual:

a ) offered to contribute towards the capital cost of an Australian domestic satellite; and

b ) sought or offered to join in any consortium to operate such a satellite.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

In making submissions to the National Communications Satellite Task Force, a number of individuals and organisations offered the opinion that any domestic communications satellite system should be run by an entity that includes public shareholders.

The Task Force, however, subsequently recommended that a satellite system should be owned and operated by a Government authority. I am informed that the Working Group has received no direct financial offers of participation in the ownership of a domestic satellite, although a number of groups have referred to the need for relevant areas in the commercial sector to have adequate representation on any Satellite Commission or other relevant body.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1531)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission been asked for, or has it been offered, a commitment for desired space on the Australian Domestic Satellite.

Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: lt is inappropriate to speak in terms of formal commitment for use of satellite capacity as the Government has as yet made no decision about whether or not to proceed with a domestic communications satellite system. However, the Task Force Report indicates that, depending on a number of factors, the Australian Broadcasting Commission could use a significant proportion of a satellite’s capacity, and the ABC has reiterated this point in its submission to the current Working Group.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1532)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister, representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Have commercial radio and television operators been formally asked by the Interdepartmental Committee now investigating the satellite proposal, for their projected requirements of space on the proposed Australian domestic satellite.
  2. What commitments have been received from (a) commercial television operators; and (b) commercial radio operators to use space on any projected Australian domestic satellite.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Working Group is examining submissions made to it by companies and bodies in the broadcasting industry, and it has had informal discussions with a number of industry representatives on the matter of the possible utilisation by them of a satellite.
  2. It is inappropriate to speak in terms of a formal commitment as the Government has as yet made no decision about whether or not to proceed with a domestic communications satellite system.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1533)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Which companies, individuals or organisations of any kind have been asked for commitments or requirements for space on the proposed Australian domestic satellite.
  2. What commitments or estimates or requirements have been given and by which companies, individuals or organisations.
  3. Have any companies, individuals or organisations indicated any level of price which they would be prepared to pay for use of space on the proposed Australian domestic satellite.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) It is inappropriate to speak in terms of formal commitment as the Government has made no decision about whether or not to proceed with a domestic satellite system. However, several Governmental departments and authorities and other potential users have volunteered to the Working Group preliminary estimates of requirements for use of the satellite. As this information is of a semi-confidential nature, it would be appropriate if interested parties sought clearance to review submissions.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1537)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Which members of the Task Force on a National Satellite System travelled overseas between December 1977 and September 1978.
  2. What countries, companies, agencies or other institutions were visited by each of these members.
  3. What was the total cost of overseas travel by the Task Force and what proportion of each Task Force member’s trip was met by: (a) the Australian Government: and (b) the host ‘ country, company or agency.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The following members of the Task Force travelled overseas between December 1977 and September 1978:

Mr H. White. C.B.E. (Chairman)

MrW. E. Beard

Mr P. R. Brett

Mr J. P. Coleman

Mr W. G. Gosewinckel

Dr B. L. Hennessy

Mr I. H. Maggs

Brig. D. J. McMillen

Mr H. Taylor

MrC. B. Wilson.

In addition, these members were accompanied by Mr R. C. Johnson. Secretary to the Task Force,and Mr D. M. Kennedy, a member of the Secretary’s staff.

  1. The following countries, companies, agencies and other institutions were visited by the Task Force members:

Canada

Bell Canada

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

Canada Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)

Canadian Television Network (CTV)

Canadian Treasury Board

Department of Communications

Communications Research Centre (CRC)

Department of National Health and Welfare

Department of National Defence

Telesat Canada

Ministry of Transport

Europe

British Aerospace

European Broadcasting Union (EBU)

European Space Agency ( ESA )

Nordic Council of Ministers

Thomson CSF ( France )

Japan

Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications

Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

National Space Development Agency ( NASDA )

Nippon Electric Company (NEC)

Nippon Hose Kyokai (Japan Broadcasting Company)

Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Public Corporation

Tokyo Shibaura Corporation (Toshiba )

United States of America

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)

COMSAT General

California Microwave Inc.

Defense Communications Agency

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation

General Electric Company

Harris Corporation

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Hughes Aircraft Company

ITTSpace Communications Inc.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

National Association of Broadcasters

National Broadcasting Company (NBC)

National Telecommunications and Information Agency (formerly Office ofTelecommunications Policy)

Public Broadcasting Service

Public Service Satellite Consortium

Radio Corporation of America ( RCA )

RCA Alascom

RCA Americom

RCA Astro Electronics Division

Rockwell International

Satellite Business Systems (SBS)

Scientific Atlanta

Development of Transportation

Television Station WGR-TV

Television Station WU-TV

Veterans Administration

  1. ) The total cost of overseas travel by the Task Force was $59,900. This cost was met entirely from the allocation of $250,000 by the Australian Government for the work of the Task Force.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1538)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

What study, if any, is being conducted into the economics of various forms of television networking which have been suggested in connection with the domestic satellite proposal.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I am informed that some organisations and individuals have, in submissions to the Working Group and in informal discussions with it, referred to various forms of television networking which they have interpreted as arising from the Task Force Report. In particular, independent and regional television stations have highlighted the economic and social base of the present system of television distribution and television ownership. 1 remind the honourable senator that in my statement to Parliament on 6 March 1979, I have already indicated the Government’s concern not to make any decision which fails to recognise the importance of providing regional television stations with strong local identity, and that the Government will not bc a party to developments that would allow any one broadcasting interest to control commercial television in this country. I have no doubt that the Working Group will bc giving the matter very serious consideration.

Telephone Services (Question No. 1539)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

What study, if any, is being conducted into any possible alternative means of providing telephone services to the estimated 40,000 people who cannot be provided for under present plans for terrestrial network development.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

In the remote parts of Australia, there are scattered pastoral holdings, very small mining communities and substantial Aboriginal populations to which it is impracticable to provide standard telephone services using current terrestrial technology. Developments in digital radio systems over the next few years could provide solutions in some cases and these techniques are understudy.

Over the next 7 or 8 years, Telecom Australia plans to upgrade the existing 100,000 manual telephone lines and in the process it may prove practicable to extend telephone services to some remote areas. This will require comprehensive planning over the next few years.

Currently Telecom is also investigating the practicability of extending telephone service to Aboriginal communities using various forms of terrestrial communications.

Ethnic Television (Question No. 1541)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What Ultra High Frequency channels will be allocated in major metropolitan centres for use by the permanent ethnic television service.
  2. Will the licence for such UHF stations be held by the Special Broadcasting Service or will licences be held by community groups or commercial operators.
  3. What is the estimated cost of the first full year of operation of the permanent ethnic television service.
  4. Will the cost of a permanent service be met wholly by Government appropriations or is the service to be financed also by sponsorship and spot commercials.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) At this stage, UHF channel allocations have only been considered for the high power transmitters in Sydney and Melbourne where the permanent ethnic television service will be introduced. They will provisionally occupy channel 28 in both cities.
  2. ) The Government will not make any decisions on matters relating to the establishment of the permanent ethnic television service until it has received a report on the outcome of the present consultations process with ethnic communities and other interested parties. This report is expected to be finalised at the end of July 1 979.
  3. See (2) above.
  4. Sec (2) above.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1542)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) What are the terms of reference of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Working Group investigating the satellite proposal.
  2. Will: (a) the submissions to, and (b) the report and findings of, that Working Group be made available.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In tabling the Report of the National Communications Satellite Task Force in Parliament on 27 September 1978, I announced the establishment of a Working Group of officials which was to report further to the Government on the matter. 1 refer the honourable senator to the tabling statement for an elaboration of the issues which the Government felt needed further consideration before it could take any decision on a domestic satellite system.
  2. (a) I am informed that the Working Group has already distributed lists of submissions to members of the press who have requested such information. Copies of submissions may be sighted by interested parties after clearance from the submitters.

    1. b ) The Working Group is yet to complete its report. Thus, the Government has made no decision about whether the report or any of its findings will be made publicly available.

Ethnic Television (Question No. 1544)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What are the planned hours for transmission of the pilot ethnic television program in Sydney and Melbourne.
  2. Will that pilot service be relayed to other centres with a large ethnic population.
  3. What percentage of locally produced programming is scheduled for the pilot service.
  4. Which companies or organisations responded to the Special Broadcasting Service’s request for interest in supplying programs for the ethnic television service.
  5. What companies or consultants have already been engaged by the Special Broadcasting Service in preparation for the pilot ethnic television program.
  6. Which officers of the Special Broadcasting Service or consultants retained by the Service have travelled overseas to procure or to view program material.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) From 8 a.m. to 1 1 a.m. on each Sunday begining Sunday 29 April 1979, and extending to Saturday morning for two hours when the flow of overseas program material is sufficient to be able to maintain an extension.
  2. ) There are no such plans at this stage.
  3. Approximately 20 percent.
  4. Interest in supplying program material was expressed by the following companies:

Denis Weedon Productions Pty Ltd

Taimac Video Corporation Pty Ltd

Kew Productions

MCA Australia Pty Ltd

Floating Bridge

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies

Bedford and Pearce Management

Superstar International

Satonyx Multimedia Productions

Ethnic TV Production Pty Ltd

Parvati Puppet Companie Booking Agency

Samaurai Productions

La Mascara International Theatre

Reg Grundy Productions Pty Ltd

Kingcraft Productions Pty Ltd

Michael Robertson Film Productions Pty Ltd

Ricway Films Pty Ltd

Eduard Karen Studio

Go Four Productions Pty Ltd

Medical Media Centre

Video Makers

Vitascope Productions

Moontan Writing and Production

Myad

Transmedia Pty Ltd

Ethnic Advertising Services Pty Ltd

R & R Film Productions

Gadonya Production Pty Ltd

Film Wilson

Open Channel Productions

Burbank Films Pty Ltd

Aries Public Relations

Jerry Cornford & Associates

Monte Miller

First Fleet Films

Tasmanian Film Corporation

Tom Cowan and Lesley Tucker

Greek Connection

Australian Community Television Pty Ltd

Panorama Productions Pty Ltd

Keith Smith Productions

IC Films

  1. 5 ) Australian Community Television Pty Ltd

Panorama Productions Pty Ltd

Kingcroft Productions Pty Ltd

Denis Weedon and Associates

Huveneers Pty Ltd

George Dreyfus

Burton Street Advertising

Grecene TV Productions (S. Young)

Robert Lloyd (Set Design)

Parvati Puppet Companie Booking Agency

  1. Mr John Martin, Media Consultant of the Special Broadcasting Service will be recalled to duty to contact a number of European television organisations while on leave in Europe.

Mr John Walker, of Australian Community Television Pty Ltd, was retained as an external consultant.

Broadcasting Information Office (Question No. 1548)

Senator Missen:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 4 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) When and where will the long-promised Broadcasting Information Office be established.
  2. What services will be offered by the new office, and will there be monitoring and taping facilities available for use by the general public.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Office will be established by administrative action as an interim measure pending enabling legislation. It will begin operation under the interim arrangements as soon as a Director is appointed. The position of Director has been advertised and 40 applications received. These are now being considered.
  2. Detailed proposals on the functions and responsibilities of the Broadcasting Information Office are under consideration.

Financial Assistance to Widows and Dependants (Question No. 1556)

Senator Teague:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 5 April 1979:

  1. What is the extent of funding by the Government through both the Minister’s Department and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to each category of widows and their dependants.
  2. ) What is the general justification for the higher rates of assistance provided through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.
  3. Was there ever any ‘contract’ or formal undertaking by former Australian Governments to assist the dependants of war servicemen in the ways they are now being assisted; if so, what were the undertakings.
  4. What is the particular justification of an ‘Education Allowance’ being provided through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs which is not provided through the Minister’s Department.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Widows who qualify for a pension under the Social Services Act may receive the following weekly amounts.

Plus an additional pension of $7.50 a week for each child or student child.

Estimated annual liability for Department of Social Security widows ‘ pensions at December 1978:

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has advised that the weekly rate of pension paid to a War Widow under the Repatriation Act is:

War/ Defence Widow

War/Defence widow’s pension….. $53.20 (This pension is payable to the widow of a Member of the Forces who died as a result of service or who was, at the time of his death, receiving or was later adjudged to have been eligible to receive a pension at the Special Rate for total and permanent incapacity or for blindness or one of the rates payable to double amputees).

Domestic allowance……… $12.00 (This Allowance is payable to War/Defence widows who ha ve a child or student child, are over 50 years of age or are unemployable).

Each child………… $10.45

Plus an additional $ 1 0.45 for each additional child.

Other dependants of deceased veterans whose death was related to service are entitled to receive a pension at a maximum of $8.50 per week.

Widows of deceased disability pensioners

These may continue to receive dependants’ allowances that were payable to them as a result of their husband’s service-related incapacity, at rates ranging from $0.4 1 per week to a maximum rate of $4.05 per week, if they are adjudged not to be eligible for a war/defence widow’s pension following the death of their husband.

Similarly, the children of deceased disability pensioners may continue to receive disability pension, after the death of the veteran, at rates ranging from $0.14 per week to a maximum of $ 1 . 38 per week.

Widows of service pensioners

Service pensions arc payable, subject to an income test similar to that applied to age and invalid pensions by the Department of Social Security, to a male veteran who has served in a ‘theatre of war’ and who has attained the age of 60 years or is permanently unemployable. It is payable to a female veteran who served in a ‘theatre of war’ or abroad, or embarked for service abroad, and has attained the age of 55 years or is permanently unemployable. Service pensions arc payable to the wives of service pensioners provided that they do not receive pensions from the Department of Social Security. Widows of service pensioners may continue to receive service pension, after their husbands’ death, at a maximum rate of $42.90 per week. Such widows would usually be eligible for a higher rate of Social Security pension ($51.45 per week maximum) if they surrendered their Service Pensions.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has also advised that the total annual liability of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs as at 3 1 December 1 978 was $ 1 77.7m, made up as follows-

  1. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has advised that Repatriation benefits, including war widows’ pensions, are compensation payments to servicemen ex-servicemen and their dependants for disabilities or disadvantages incurred as a result of service with Australian forces. They are not socialwelfaretype benefits which are payable mainly on the basis of need. (3)I understand from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs that he knows of no contract or formal undertaking other than the Repatriation Act 1920 and associated legislation which has been amended from time to time by Governments of various political persuasions since 1920.
  2. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs advised that Education allowance is a part of the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme and it is desirable to have the administration of the scheme and the payment of the allowance under the same Minister.

Departure Tax (Question No. 1579)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 May 1979:

Where and when did the Prime Minister pay the departure tax personally, as indicated in his answer to Senate Question No.1142(seeHansard, 1 May 1979, page 1512).

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I have nothing further to add to the answer 1 gave the honourable senator on 1 May.

Telecom Accounting

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 18 October 1978, Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question, without notice:

Will the Minister agree to emphasise the need for a recording system that details all STD calls irrespective of the cost involved in installing that system? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to set up an independent accounts appeal tribunal until an accurate recording system is introduced?

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

The present position is that the Australian Telecommunications Commission proposes to offer to customers optional subscriber trunk dialling automatic message accounting as a choice on any suitable equipment. This would contain expenditure and would offer the service to customers over a wide area of the network. Telecom expects that this automatic message accounting system could be available in metropolitan areas by 1984, but it is likely to take longer to provide it in other areas because new equipment would need to be introduced. The matter of introducing AMA is under study by the Government but there are a number of matters on which it is necessary to seek further information from Telecom. Of course, the Government will bc looking in particular at the possibility of accelerating the introduction of automatic message accounting.

Concerning the suggestion that an independent accounts appeal tribunal be set up to investigate complaints against overcharging by Telecom, since August 1977, subscribers, who arc not satisfied with the outcome of Telcom’s investigation into account disputes, have had access to the services of (he Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Replays of Sporting Events

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 22 February 1979, Senator McAuliffe asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question, without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister who represents the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Following upon questions by Senators MacGibbon and Martin, and a speech by myself on the failure of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to take up the offer made by commercial stations to allow the ABC access to replays of major sporting events to outback areas where the commercial stations are unable to provide a signal, the Minister at the time replied that the cost of the program was one of the reasons why the ABC has not taken up the offer. I ask the Minister: Is he aware that ATN7 in a letter to the Australian Rugby League Association, one of the major sports referred to, stated:

We would be happy to make the program available free of charge to cover this pocket. Should the ABC not accept this arrangement an alternative could be that Channel 7 would provide cassettes of the games to the rugy league clubs in any of the towns involved.

In the light of this information will the Minister inquire from the ABC as to what is the real reason for its attitude in this matter?

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

The issues relating to this matter arc not solely concerned with the costs to the ABC of sub-leasing program material.

In the past, when sporting programs have been offered to the Commission by commercial stations, it has been a condition of the offer that the events arc only televised in areas not receiving the commercial presentation. To comply with this condition, it was necessary for the ABC to fragment what is essentially a single national network into at least two distinct networks. One network carried general programming to some or all capital cities while the other network provided the sporting program to mainly rural areas.

This practice of network splitting resulted in a serious disruption to the ABC program schedules, as well as further complicating the already complex operation of routing programs through the Telecom network to destinations in different time zones and often on different time standards.

Computer Firms

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 27 February 1979, Senator Melzer asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question, without notice:

As we are all aware of the interest of the Government and especially of the Prime Minister in computer firms. I would like to ask a question on the following facts: IBM Australia Ltd, Melbourne and Honeywell Pty Ltd, Melbourne, are both firms dealing in computer systems. It is now a fact that IBM has an unlisted telephone number on each side of Honeywell. The telephone numbers in use are IBM 6993287: Honeywell 6993288; and IBM 6993289. Will the Minister agree that it would be wrong for an outside influence to be used to obtain such a listing which many other firms have sought but have been denied because it constituted unfair competition? Will the Minister investigate the matter?

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

Telecom Australia has advised that in 1 973 Honeywell Pty Ltd were allotted their present number 6993288. It is the advertised number of a large group of telephone lines.

In 197S IBM Australia Ltd were provided with a similar large group facility with the advertised number 6993699 and included in this large group were the lines with numbers 6993287 and 6993289. Although in close proximity to Honeywell’s main number, 6993287 and 6993289 are in fact associated technically with the large group facility of IBM. A feature of the large group facility is that whilst the advertised number is dialled the equipment automatically searches across a number of lines until it finds a free line.

Lines suitable for inclusion in such groups are limited to a relatively small range of numbers from which selections are made to create groups of the required size, lt is inevitable that numbers allocated to one group will be adjacent to numbers allocated toothers.

In January 1979 Honeywell Pty Ltd became aware of the situation and requested that the two IBM lines with numbers adjacent to their own, be changed.

Although the probability of calls being misrouted by the automatic system of selection is very small, Telecom, with IBM’s agreement, arranged for the number change in order to reassure Honeywell of the integrity of their telephone service.

Telephone Charges

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 29 March 1979, Senator Colston asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question, without notice:

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications a question which refers to the economy rates for subscriber trunk dialling telephone calls which are made between 9 p.m. and 8 a.m. I point out that, when Queensland telephone subscribers wish to call telephone subscribers in southern States at times when daylight saving operates, the earliest a connection can be made at economy rates in the evening is 10 o’clock eastern summer time. This occurs because Queensland docs not adhere to a system of daylight saving. Will the Minister ask Telecom Australia to investigate whether it will be possible to vary appropriately the times for economy STD rates in Queensland when daylight saving time next operates in the southern States?

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

A limiting factor in the adjustment of times at which the varying rates can be applied is that the automatic time changeover equipment serves both interstate and intrastate calls.

As there are many more intrastate calls made in comparison with interstate calls, the proposal to provide for the economy rate to apply lo all calls originated in Queensland between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. eastern standard time during daylight saving periods would mean- the application of a low rate to calls originated in Queensland during a period of reasonably high traffic loading between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. eastern standard time with a resultant increase in traffic during that period; and the application of the maximum day rate on all calls made in Queensland between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. eastern standard time which isa period of low traffic volume.

In all the circumstances Telecom considers the arrangements applied during the daylight saving period are the most satisfactory.

Telephone Services

Senator Chaney:
LP

– On 3 April 1979, Senator Primmer asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question, without notice:

Is it a fact that government imposed staff ceilings are causing delays of up to one year in the extension of telephone cables and installation of telephone services to businesses and private users in the Prime Minister’s electorate of Wannon?

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

Telecom Australia has advised that within the Wannon Electorate a small area exists, in the Warrnambool District, where a delay of up to 9 to 10 months is occurring before telephone services can be provided.

This has been caused by:

Unexpected growth

A high demand for telephone services

Necessity to provide cable relief programmes.

The cable relief projects are being implemented progressively. The work required to cater for current deferred applicants is expected to be completed by the end of October.

The only other delays are isolated instances which occur in rural areas where connection of services is dependent upon the availability of mole plough equipment.

Telecom has indicated that in the Hamilton District 90 per cent of new connections in February were completed within IS working days of orders being issued while in March the percentage rose to 94 percent.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 June 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790604_senate_31_s81/>.