Senate
8 June 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

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

page 2915

PETITIONS

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 24 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 objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-On behalf of Senator Townley I present the following petition from 68 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilize whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 6 citizens of Australia:

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Metric Conversion Act be repealed to ensure that the people are free to utilise whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so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

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

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

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

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

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have beenlodged 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 utilise whichever system they prefer and so enable the return to imperial weights and measures wherever the people so desire;

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

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

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

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Archer and Davidson.

Petitions received.

Compensation: Commonwealth Government Employees

The Petition of the undersigned electors respectfully showeth:

That compensation benefits payable to injured Australian Government employees and Defence Forces personnel under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees ) Act 1971 should be increased as a matter of urgency in view of the financial plight of recipients, particularly those sufferinglong term incapacity and because of the significant increase in the cost of living which has occurred since compensation payments were last adjusted; and

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

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

Petition received.

page 2916

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2916

QUESTION

OIL INDUSTRY

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to Senator Durack in his dual capacity as AttorneyGeneral and Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. I refer to the awareness or otherwise of the Prime Minister and senior Ministers that underlying the problem in the Australian Workers Union with industrial relations in the oil industry, the unresolved implications of the decision in the Moore v. Doyle case remain like an industrial time bomb. What is the Government doing to grasp the nettle involved in this problem?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I recognise the great difficulty and the problems that are presented by the decision in the case to which Senator Mulvihill referred. The matter primarily is within the responsibility of the Minister for Industrial Relations. I have not had any recent discussion with or advice from him as to just what is the position. I will take the matter up with him and endeavour to reply to Senator Mulvihill at an early date, perhaps before the Senate meets again.

page 2916

QUESTION

AVIATION FUEL

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. A meeting of 34 commercial aircraft operators was held in Perth yesterday to discuss the shortage of fuel confronting these operators. I understand that the shortage has had the effect of reducing fuel supplies by 30 per cent in the southern part of Western Australia and by 55 per cent in the north. I ask the Minister: Firstly, is there any truth in the rumour that the one oil company in Australia which produces aviation fuel for piston-engined aircraft is planning to sell some of this fuel to New Zealand? Secondly, as there are two areas in which the Commonwealth uses substantial amounts of aviation fuel- namely, defence and coastal surveillance- are the cutbacks in supplies being experienced by the commercial operators being shared by defence and coastal surveillance operations? Thirdly, does the Government understand that some of these operators may be forced into liquidation because of fuel shortages?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– In the last couple of weeks I have answered a number of questions in relation to the shortage of Avgas or aviation fuel.

The Government is certainly most conscious of the problem and is giving it very close attention. I do not propose to repeat the answers that I have already given. I have not anything further to add to them at this stage. However, Senator Thomas asked two very specific questions. I will refer them respectively to the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Defence and I will endeavour to obtain early answers for the honourable senator.

page 2916

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Is it not apparent from today’s media observations that there is public disquiet about the personal financial dealings of the Minister for Primary Industry? Does the Government think it proper that in these circumstances a Minister of the Crown should be permitted to continue to act in that capacity, representing and speaking for the Government? If it does, does that mean that the standards of ministerial propriety laid down by the Prime Minister no longer apply, or that this Government is indifferent as to whether its Ministers observe the high standards allegedly demanded by the Prime Minister?

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

-Whether or not members of the public have disquiet on this matter obviously cannot be measured. They do not have the facts before them at the moment. They have only the series of allegations put by the Labor Opposition which in themselves at this moment are baseless. That is an answer to the first part of the question. As to the second part of the question, no definition of any breach by a Minister is before this Government or the people of Australia today. In New South Wales at this moment under State law an investigation is being conducted by a man named, I think, Mr Finnane. It was instigated by the New South Wales Attorney-General. I think it was several days ago that I was lectured by members of the Opposition who said that one should not intervene when a case was before an industrial commission. It would be much more proper if honourable senators opposite applied that principle to the civil liberties and rights of the individual. An investigation having been properly ordered by an Attorney-General- a Labor Attorney-General at that- they should not embark upon Moscow trials themselves but should wait to see what emerges. That would be the logical thing to do. If standards in terms of the ordinary rights of the citizen are being infringed, they are not being infringed by those on this side of the chamber.

page 2917

QUESTION

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN AUSTRALIA

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Did the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development examiners in 1974 draw attention to what they called the lack of a clear national science and technology policy in Australia? Does the report from the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment which was tabled this week say, in part, that at present there is no clear national policy for science and technology in Australia? Is the Minister aware of the disastrously declining levels of real research and development in Australia in all sectors and in ail disciplines? Does he agree that the co-ordination, measurement and integration of research and development in Australia are in a deplorable shambles and are in need of a total and thorough review and overhaul? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the feeling that perhaps the Australian Science and Technology Council would be well charged with the responsibility to look at this matter in the national interest, on the ground that nobody else appears to be doing so?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I believe Senator Puplick is correct in his assertion of the comment made by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. I believe it is correct to say that a number of statements have been made by people whose views ought to be respected that the co-ordination of science and technology in Australia is not good enough. The establishment of the Australian Science and Technology Council is in itself a recognition by the Government of the need for better coordination. The reform of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation also has been an expression of part of that need. I would not use the superlative adjectives that Senator Puplick used with regard to the matter. Nevertheless, I believe that the Government would acknowledge that there is a need for even better co-ordination and that ASTEC has a very significant role to play.

page 2917

QUESTION

STAFF CEILINGS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, refers to the report titled ‘Employment prospects by industry and occupation’ which he tabled yesterday and which was put out by the Manpower Programmes Section of the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. I think that most people, including the Minister, will agree that it is a very good report and that it illustrates the difficulties in obtaining employment. In view of the very pessimistic report, will the Minister consider the frequent requests from staff organisations and from the Opposition that now is the time to reconsider the staff ceilings in the various departments and statutory authorities which, it has been pointed out to the Minister many times, inhibit the recruitment of a number of people, including apprentices and trainees, who could fill the vacancies for skilled workers which presently exist in industry? Does the Minister contemplate any such action by the Department? What will be the result of the inquiries into the report? When will it be considered on the basis of the propositions I have put before the Minister?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– As I have said in the Senate on numerous occasions in answer to questions about staff ceilings- I acknowledge the particular interest that Senator Bishop has had in this matter- the Government’s policy to maintain staff ceilings is a very clear and firm one. The Government sees the maintaining of staff ceilings as being fundamental to its policy of restricting the growth of the public sector. The Public Service ceilings are important in that respect. They are important also from the point of view of encouraging efficiency in the Public Service. At the same time the Government is keeping constantly under review, both the overall level of staff ceilings and in particular the levels in areas where there are problems. I have already indicated that at the moment I am considering the advice of the Public Service Board on staff ceilings in the Family Court. We are looking at whether something can be done about problems that may exist in that area. I hope to be able to say more about that matter shortly.

That is the general situation in the area about which Senator Bishop asked. He has a particular interest in the recruiting of people for training. The Government has already taken some steps this year to make available more places for apprenticeships. Mr Viner, the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, has given some details of that initiative. I refer the Senate to the statements he has made. I do not have them with me at the moment so I am unable to quote them. The matter raised by Senator Bishop is certainly one which the Government is aware of and concerned about. I will refer his question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and ask him to give further and close consideration to it.

page 2918

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE: DEPARTMENTAL TRANSPORT

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. The Minister will agree that it is necessary for field officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service to make frequent visits to employers to learn about the possibilities of job vacancies and the sort of applicant that employers may be seeking. Is the Minister aware of claims by CES officers in Melbourne suburbs that they have difficulty in carrying out their tasks because of limited availability of departmental cars? Is it a fact that officers count themselves lucky if three or more of them in any one office get one Commonwealth car among them for two days a week? To overcome these difficulties, will the Government consider making hire cars available to allow these CES officers to get on with their jobs?

Senator DURACK:
LP

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

page 2918

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SCHOOL FEES

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. I refer to reports in today’s Courier-Mail which state that a recent survey showed that parents of students in Queensland government schools paid $8. 5m from their own pockets to keep their schools running last year. I also refer to a statement in the Schools Commission report for the 1979-81 triennium that target resource standards for the triennium should be such that there should be, amongst other things, sufficient cash resources to obviate the necessity for semi-compulsory fees in government schools for the purchase of needed equipment and consumable resources. Does the Minister expect this element of the configuration set out by the Commission to be achieved in government schools throughout Australia by 1981?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There are a number of aspects to Senator Colston’s question. There is nothing new in the contribution by parents to certain running costs of schools. Ever since government schools have existed parents- as I well know and most other parents who have had children at government schools well know- have had their hands in their pockets for certain expenses in schools. Those who have been members of parents and citizens associationsand I still have some lingering membership, but not a direct one-know that this is so. It may well be that there have been some increases in costs in recent times. It is a matter entirely for State governments. However, I do not hide behind that as any alibi. It is a matter entirely for the States as to what they do within their Budgets.

Senator Colston is correct in his interpretation of the comment made by the Schools Commission. Since in real money terms the recurrent funds for the Schools Commission next year will be the same as they were this year, there is no reason at all why that comment should apply not only to Queensland but also to other States. It is entirely a matter for the States how they allocate their resources. I know that in some StatesVictoria for instance- part of the recurrent funds go directly to payments to schools for specific purposes. That ought to be by way of alleviation. I stress that it is a phenomenon which has always existed. It is a great strain on the toffee apple and hoopla stalls with which we have all been involved and it ought to be one which can be mitigated.

page 2918

QUESTION

SEAWEED EXTRACT

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– The Minister for Science and the Environment will recall questions I asked last year relating to the manufacture and use of seaweed extracts. I now ask the Minister: Is he aware of recent sales and trials of the product Seasol in both Israel and Greece? If so, will he consider taking up with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation the carrying out of appropriate trials which may lead to an Australian authentication which would be desirable for Australian users and which would assist with the extension of what I believe could become an excellent export industry?

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

– I recall that Senator Archer raised this matter previously. My recollection is that it came up some three or four years ago in relation to a Tasmanian company which at that stage was harvesting kelp or seaweed off the Tasmanian coast. I have seen an article indicating that sales of that product are being made overseas. That is greatly to the credit of the company concerned. The honourable senator asked whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation might be encouraged to make trials on the product. My recollection is that previously the company concerned was anxious to have CSIRO endorse the general thrust of its argument relating to the quality of the product which was available for use as a fertiliser.

I remember that at that time my comment was that the evaluation of the commercial products of any manufacturer was not a role of CSIRO. I think that perhaps it is appropriate that from some quarter the Government might assist in, say, the preparation of trials on that product. If the honourable senator would care to arrange a meeting with the company in the near future I will attend. Perhaps I will arrange for a CSIRO officer to be present at that meeting to consider the proposal it puts.

page 2919

QUESTION

NABARLEK MINE

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. On 8 May this year I asked the Minister questions relating to radiation limits at the Nabarlek mine. I have not yet received an answer to those questions. As these matters must be in the forefront of the Government’s collective mind, can the Minister now inform me whether or not the Government intends to amend the code of practice to accommodate Queensland Mines Ltd? Is the Supervising Scientist to be given any special instructions on the matter? Will the mine be closed if the level of radiation exceeds the set limit? Will Queensland Mines be requested to check constantly the health of miners? Will Queensland Mines be responsible for any loss of wages arising from such closure of the mine?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I do not wish at Question Time to cope with the several questions which were posed. If the honourable senator has not received an answer to the questions she raised, she will recall that in the past few days those matters have been raised in the Senate. I have had incorporated in Hansard the advice received by me from the Supervising Scientist. I believe that his determination on the matter can be accepted. The general matter of supervising the mine is in the hands of the Northern Territory Government. The Commonwealth was responsible for appointing Mr Fry as the Supervising Scientist. If my memory is correct, within the past two or three days I presented a statement from him on the matter to the Senate. However, today I will look up the original questions asked by the honourable senator and see whether the answer I gave in reply is sufficient.

page 2919

QUESTION

CASEY UNIVERSITY-AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE ACADEMY

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and concerns the increasingly inadequate case being made out for the establishment of the Casey UniversityAustralian Defence Force Academy- for the training of defence personnel. In the light of the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, chaired by Professor

Williams, on the criteria forjudging the viability of establishing a tertiary education institution, is it now acknowledged by the Government that Casey University would not be viable? Moreover, does the Minister acknowledge the educational and personal advantages which would flow from defence trainees’ inter-mixing on an integrated campus with students from other professions in the course of their studies? What is the Government’s current position on Casey University?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen the report of the parliamentary Joint Committee on Public Works and its recommendations. The Government has had recommendations from the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee, and of course it will have for consideration the report of the Williams Committee. The Government’s policy to establish that tertiary institution remains. It has not been subject to any reconsideration in the light of later evidence that has emerged. For the moment, there has been some deferral in terms of financial priorities. Nevertheless, since it is a matter that concerns the Minister for Defence and the Government I will draw the honourable senator’s question to the attention of the Minister.

page 2919

QUESTION

EDUCATION: COMMONWEALTH CAPITAL FUNDS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. In view of the cuts of 32 per cent in Commonwealth capital funds for government schools and 19 per cent for nongovernment schools, has the Minister considered the need for new or upgraded facilities in both systems pointed out by the Schools Commission in its 1978 report? I further ask: Since the Commonwealth is virtually the sole provider of capital funds for non-government schools and has a great degree of control over the disbursement of those funds, will action be taken to ensure that limited funds go preferentially to schools of lowest resources, namely, the Level 6 schools?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that the Commonwealth Government provides the total source of capital funds for non-government schools. Some of the States provide interest rate subsidies, but South Australia, I think, does not. It is true that the Commonwealth’s contribution to capital funding in government schools amounts to one-third. It is equally true that over recent years the States have decreased their input, and they could reverse that. As I pointed out at a Press conference, if the States are looking for money to deflect to offset any capital cut, the savings they now make by the abandonment of teacher training scholarships and the transfer of the burden of maintenance of trainees to the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme are of the order of $40m a year. So the States have an obvious transfer payment, and that transfer payment is of considerable interest to the Labor Party. No doubt it will find that of considerable delight.

The difference in the percentages- 32 per cent and 19 per cent- is in recognition of the fact that, on the one hand, the States have a two-thirds responsibility and, on the other hand the Commonwealth has a total responsibility. Therefore, if anything, this weighs more heavily on the nongovernment schools. The recommendation to the Schools Commission, and through that Commission to me as Minister, comes from finance and planning committees in each of the States, which are community bodies and are widely representative. Their considerations rest heavily upon the needs principle. Of course, the money will go preferentially to those most in need. It is fair to say that the $26m odd capital made available to non-government schools will cover all works now in process and perhaps a little more. The advance planning device whereby schools can make plans and get approval from us against the fact that they will be in a slot in a year’s time or two years’ time, would enable those who wanted to go ahead to seek that planning and not suffer any real disruption.

page 2920

QUESTION

DEFENCE: UNITED STATES NAVAL BASES

Senator WATSON:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In view of the loss of overseas forward naval bases by the United States of America in recent times and the vulnerability of its island base in the north Indian Ocean, would the Government favourably support the establishment of a United States naval base in Australia? Would not such a base provide a needed economic boost to the Australian economy and to employment because of the high degree of local servicing that would be required? Finally, would not such a base strengthen Australia ‘s defences?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is of very considerable interest to Australia that the United States of America, which must be regarded as our major ally in any defensive situation, have throughout the world -

Senator Primmer:

– You said that about Great Britain once, Senator. We got caught. Just keep that in the back of your mind.

Senator CARRICK:

– One should keep this in mind because, as Senator Primmer has said, we used to say it about Great Britain and the sad fact is that the number of its naval bases has declined. As a schoolboy I was able to recite Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Mauritius, Singapore, Hong Kong and Wei-hai-wei as the great naval bases of the British Empire. We now do not measure its sea power in those terms. The fact of the matter is that we do have an interest in the deterrent role of the United States in keeping peace in the world by having effective defence installations throughout the world. The United States has never requested, to my knowledge, base facilities or installations of that kind from the Australian Government. If that were done it would be a policy decision for the Australian Government. I know of no such request at all. I will refer the question to the Minister concerned.

page 2920

QUESTION

HEALTH: JABIRU TOWN SITE

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that a Commonwealth Department of Health survey showed a high incidence of the Anopheles mosquito at the Jabiru town site? Is it a fact that the sight for the town was selected by the Federal Government? If these are facts, what action does the Government propose to take to overcome the problem of the possible introduction and spread of malaria, given the numbers of people who will work at Jabiru and reside in Darwin?

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

– I regret that I cannot give the honourable senator an answer to that question. I will have to refer it to the Minister for Health for a reply.

page 2920

QUESTION

YEAR OF THE AUSTRALIAN PIONEER

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security say which person or body promoted the idea of the International Year of the Child and at which forum was this suggestion adopted? As the Australian Government has recognised the importance of this project by providing, I understand, $64m towards its success, and in view of the success of the scheme in drawing attention to the needs of children in our modern society, will the Minister give favourable consideration to conducting a year of the Australian pioneer with the object of encouraging special projects for the aged in our community, a sector which is growing in number and creating great strain on organisations dedicated to providing facilities for these citizens who have done so much for the country during their lives?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I understand that the original idea of the Year of the Child cannot be attributed to any particular person or body. There was a Declaration of Rights of the Child in 1959 and since that time many members of the United Nations have been urging the setting aside of a special year during which particular attention could be given to the situation of children. The decision to have an International Year of the Child was taken at the Thirty-first Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 2 1 December 1976 and the year 1979 was chosen as it is the 20th anniversary of the Declaration of Rights of the Child.

Senator Jessop raises the very interesting suggestion that there should be a year of the pioneer. We have had a touch of that in my home State of Western Australia in the celebrations of our 1 50th Anniversary of the State but that in large part has involved people getting dressed up to look as though they are pioneers. I think the honourable senator is suggesting something which would involve the elderly directly. I will certainly refer that suggestion to Senator Guilfoyle for consideration.

page 2921

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Senator WRIEDT:

-I direct my question to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Does he recall on 3 April my asking him about the Government’s policy towards claiming sovereignty over the 200-mile off-shore zone of the Antarctic? Does he recall saying:

This policy has been spelt out in a paper put down in the Senate previously. It is surprising that the Leader of the Opposition does not recall it.

On Wednesday, 6 June, I again asked him the same question:

When will the Government put down a paper in the Senate on the 200-mile off-shore zone . . .

The Minister replied:

No public document has been put down on the 200-mile limit off the Antarctic continent.

Can he tell us which of his two answers is the correct one?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I do not recall the actual date on which the honourable senator asked his earlier question. I know the matter has been raised on several occasions and questions have been directed to me on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition will probably recognise that, so far as Australia is concerned, the declaration of any particular area basically does not have reference to me or my portfolio responsibilities. The Leader of the Opposition will know that the declaration of either a three mile, a 12-mile or a 200-mile limit off the Australian coast probably has reference to the Attorney-General. Where the honourable senator has asked me questions relating to the Antarctic and some particular aspect of it, I will need to look at the original questions that he asked. I do know by the study of recent questions that he has asked me that he has completely misled the Senate on a couple of occasions. If he likes, I will bring those particular questions and the statement he has made to the attention of the Senate. He may find time, when he thinks it appropriate, to apologise to me and to change his attitude.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question and ignore all that waffle to which we have just listened. Is the Minister not able to say whether this Government has in fact put down a paper in this Parliament on its policy towards the 200-mile Antarctic zone?

Senator WEBSTER:

-My recollection of the matter is that the assessment whether Australia declares its sovereignty over 200 miles off the Antarctic mainland is a matter still before Cabinet.

page 2921

QUESTION

BELMONT RIFLE RANGE

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. By way of explanation, I inform the Minister that the Belmont rifle range, the principal range for civilian operations in Brisbane, is owned by the Commonwealth Government. Its use by the Defence Forces is very slight as they use either Greenbank or Enoggera. In view of the fact that the organisations which comprise the Queensland Shooting Association have assets of $ 1 Vim invested on the range without any lease agreement with the Commonwealth will the Minister either draw up lease agreements with these approved organisations as a matter of urgency or transfer the land to the State of Queensland, which is prepared to set up a trust to administer the range with guarantees that it can revert to the Commonwealth in times of national emergency?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– My recollection is that arrangements relating to rifle ranges have been under reconsideration for quite a lengthy period. I have no knowledge that any firm decisions have been made as to what the future of the various rifle ranges around Australia ought to be. I will refer the question to Mr McLeay and seek a reply for the honourable senator.

page 2921

QUESTION

ETHNIC TELEVISION

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is he aware of the article in B & T Advertising Weekly of 29 March 1979 in which Mr Staley is reported to have told the Advertising Federation of Australia on 23 March: ‘The concept (of ethnic television) will be partially, if not significantly, funded by advertising’. Can the Minister reconcile that statement with the answer given to a question which I placed on notice on 4 April 1979 which sought information on the funding of ethnic television, and to which he replied:

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 consultation process with ethnic communities and other interested parties.

Would the Minister agree that that answer is misleading and that the Government policy outlined by the Minister in March and reiterated by Mr Frank Galbally, Chairman of the Ethnic Television Review Panel, in late May, is for a commercial service?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to Mr Staley for a reply.

page 2922

QUESTION

THE ARTS: COMMONWEALTH GRANTS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs say whether the Commonwealth grant to the State of Tasmania, through the Council for the Arts, is meant primarily to assist local arts, or is meant to assist arts companies in other States. I ask this because the Tasmanian Minister for Education, Recreation and the Arts, Mr Holgate, while making a grant to the Tasmanian Ballet Company of $35,000, has also made a grant to the New South Wales Dance Company, which is about to tour our State in competition with the Tasmanian Ballet Company. I might add that the New South Wales Dance Company is funded by its own State to the tune of $300,000, compared with the $35,000 that the Tasmanian Ballet Company is given, and that, as a result of its large budget, the New South Wales Dance Company’s advertising far outstrips that of the Tasmanian Ballet Company, to the latter’s disadvantage.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The honourable senator’s question concerns a very important matter to her State. I am unable to state the level of the grants that are administered by the Minister for Home Affairs. However, my understanding would be that funding would be made available to the various State governments which, in turn, would decide how it should be applied to assist the arts within their States. If the State of Tasmania has seen fit to grant funds to another organisation, perhaps its domestic politics would suggest whether that would be a correct procedure. I am unable to verify the figures that the honourable senator presents, but will refer them to the Minister for Home Affairs and endeavour to obtain an answer for her.

page 2922

QUESTION

FEDERAL NARCOTICS BUREAU: INVESTIGATION

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and refers to the investigation into alleged criminal activity within the Federal Narcotics Bureau. It follows a question asked yesterday by Senator Chipp on the same subject. Firstly, why did the Government not consult the head of the Narcotics Bureau, Mr Harvey Bates, before setting in train the multiforce inquiry in question? Secondly, if, as appears, it was because the Government lacked confidence in at least some aspects of Mr Bates’s administration of the Bureau, why did the Government take such elaborately obsequious pains to persuade Mr Bates to withdraw his resignation?

Senator DURACK:
LP

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

page 2922

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: APPRENTICESHIPS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, follows a question asked earlier by Senator Bishop concerning apprenticeships in the Public Service. Recognising the need for considerable restraint in the area of staff ceilings, I ask: Will the Government consider the reallocation of staff ceilings to areas of apprenticeship education and training?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– As I said in answer to the earlier question, and as I have said on many occasions in this Senate, the Government is always considering, in some form or other, reallocation of the staff ceilings. I will pass the specific question raised by Senator Messner to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, who also assists the Prime Minister in relation to these matters.

page 2922

QUESTION

RELIANCE GROUP OF COMPANIES: TAXATION INQUIRY

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he can assure the Senate that the result of the current inquiries by the Australian Taxation Office into the affairs of the Reliance group of companies will be made known to the Parliament.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not know the protocol or precedent in such matters and therefore cannot respond to the honourable senator at first hand. However, I will invite the Treasurer to consider his question and respond to it.

page 2923

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: In view of the mass forced exodus of many Vietnamese from their homeland, which it has been estimated may reach the figure of two million people, what action is being contemplated by Australia, and those other countries which are literally being swamped by this unfortunate mass of humanity, to endeavour to stem the flow of refugees which has been brought about by the acts of the inhuman Vietnamese Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think that all Australians, including the interjectors, would agree that this is one of the most sad and unfortunate situations, particularly in view of the fact that so many refugees, perhaps measured in tens or hundreds of thousands, are drowning in their attempts to escape.

Senator Wriedt:

– No sadder than burning them to death with a napalm bomb or slaughtering them with machine guns.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am not going into relative degrees of sadness in terms of bloody murder. I noticed that the only select selective morality lay with the Labor Party, which would always protest if the extreme left wing sector of the spectrum was being subjected to cruelty- and I would too- but never opened its mouth if noncommunists were being hurt. So do not let us have any talk in this place about morality. After all, there was a silence about Kampuchea which was resounding. I was asked a serious question by Senator Kilgariff. Australia has successfully sought to encourage an international approach to the whole question of Indo-Chinese refugees. Part of this approach has been to seek the cooperation of governments in the Association of South East Asian Nations in holding boat people while in transit. ASEAN countries have cooperated on this matter. On 15 May a meeting was held in Jakarta to examine the establishment of a refugee island processing centre. We have already offered $250,000 towards the cost of establishing the centre. We are prepared to work through well-established forums for the resettlement of refugees and to this end we have officials in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia processing refugees in an orderly way.

Inevitably some people will attempt to by-pass the selection process. They represent only a small proportion of the people from Indo-China who have come to Australia. The refugee problem hps posed a serious problem for Australia and the region. We, along with other countries, including ASEAN and the United States, have appealed to the Vietnamese Government to act to regularise the outflow of people.

page 2923

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES 1988

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, or to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, and concerns the Olympic Games. Nobody has been able to tell me which Minister should answer this question. Has the Minister seen a statement by the Premier of New South Wales that it would cost approximately $2,000m for Sydney to stage the 1988 Olympic Games and that the Federal Government had not indicated what financial support, if any, could be expected? If these costs are correct it would, therefore, be impossible for any Australian city to stage the Olympics in Australia’s bi-centenary year without substantial support from the Federal Government. Will the Government consider making a detailed statement on this matter as soon as possible?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The inter-city rivalry between Sydney and Melbourne seems to have commenced on this issue. I heard Mr Brian Dixon say in a radio broadcast this morning that Melbourne could do it for $500m, so he has just reduced the ante by 75 per cent. I would have thought that this decision lay within the province of the Government generally, and perhaps the Prime Minister in particular, and I will refer the question to him for consideration.

page 2923

QUESTION

MIGRANT EDUCATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question to the Minister for Education relates to migrant education and the substance of newspaper reports yesterday. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report pointing to the success of migrant children who achieve results in spite of language difficulties? Has he noticed incidentally that those same migrant children watch less television? Has his attention also been drawn to a second item calling for a greater diversity in English language courses? Is the Minister aware that there are many professional migrants whose skills are being denied to the Australian community because of a lack of training in English language at senior levels? Is this due to a lack of courses at these levels? Can arrangements be made for various language centres and other institutions to provide more opportunities for migrants to acquire English language skills at a level suitable for the professions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen the newspaper reports, but, more importantly, I have seen the report itself. It points to the success of migrant children in Sydney high schools and was prepared for my Department by Dr J. Martin and Dr P. Meade.

Senator Georges:

– Are you going to claim credit for it?

Senator CARRICK:

-If Senator Georges will wait I will give the credit to the migrant children and to the excellent stimuli of the migrant families and motivation of their children.

Senator Georges:

– That is right.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, as always I am grateful to Senator Georges who, as you know, always gives lectures to this chamber as to why interjections are disorderly. He will be aware of the injunction: ‘Physician, heal thyself.

The report is entitled ‘The Educational Experience of Sydney High School Students’. The Department has not yet analysed the report. It might be pointed out, however, that the authors emphasise that increasing efforts should be directed towards migrant and multicultural education. The question relating to a greater diversity in English language courses, professional migrants and further arrangements at language centres should be referred to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I will draw it to his attention. It might be of interest to all honourable senators if I incorporate in Hansard a brief statement put out by my Department when releasing the Martin-Meade report earlier this week. Of course, overall, the Galbally report is of enormous significance in all of its ramifications. I seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

MIGRANT CHILDREN ‘MORE DETERMINED’

7 June 1979

Migrant children are showing more determination than Australian students in staying on at school for good results despite a ‘hostile environment’, according to a Commonwealth Government report.

The report says that ‘a substantially greater proportion ‘ of those from non-English-speaking backgrounds study through to high or medium Higher School Certificate ( HSC) passes.

This is despite evidence of entrenched ‘narrow . . . and explicit anti-migrant attitudes’.

Students of non-English-speaking origin often face the kind of hostile environment that might be expected to make them leave school rather than stay on ‘, the report claims.

It quotes questionnaire answers from ‘at least pockets of Australian children with highly aggressive attitudes towards migrants’.

One Australian student wrote: ‘I hate the bastards! They pick fights and are annoying. I hate them, I hate them, I hate them! They even fight when there going to get done. They eat garlic and breath all over you ‘.

The report is the first to study over a period of years (1974-77) whether migrant children from nonEnglishspeaking backgrounds tend to complete a full secondary school course, and whether they do well in their final examinations.

Dr Jean Martin, of Canberra, and Dr Phil Meade, of Brisbane, examined the school experiences of 3,043 students in a sample of sixteen Sydney High Schools.

Dr Martin is a Senior Fellow in the Sociology Department of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University.

Dr Meade is head of the School of Education Studies at the Kelvin Grove College of Advanced Education.

They also interviewed the parents of about 690 of the students, and gained questionnaire answers from 637 teachers.

The work was funded first by the Commonwealth Immigration Department, and later the Commonwealth Education Department in co-operation with the Academy of Social Sciences.

The report, called ‘The Educational Experience of Sydney High School Students’, is being issued through the Australian Government Publishing Service.

It says that, in order to cope, the migrant children may need to show ‘remarkable insight (that is, grasping clues to rewarded and punished behaviour) and immense selfcontrol and hard work’.

In this sample, children with both parents born in a nonEnglishspeaking country are very heavily concentrated in: the lower intelligence quotient ( IQ ) scores (66 per cent, compared with 41 per cent of children of Australian-born parents); in the lower socio-economic stratum (SES) group (79 per cent, compared with 55 per cent); and in the group of combined lower IQ and SES (55 per cent, compared with 25 per cent). (IQ was measured by tests devised for English-speaking students, which tend to disadvantage nonEnglishspeaking students. )

In spite of those scores, the comparison for School Certificate and Higher School Certificate results between the total samples of children of non-English-speaking and of Australian origin is very much in favour of the migrant children.

Large numbers of children from non-English-speaking ethnic groups cling to higher aspirations and stay at school despite a low level of performance as their school assesses it.

In general, when similar IQ and SES groups are compared, children of non-English-speaking background did as well as or better than other students in School Certificate results.

However, with migrant children comprising the larger part of the group in the low SES and with low IQ scores, migrants of low SES overall gained much poorer results than did other students of low SES.

Again battling against this situation, educational aspirations in themselves played a bigger part in determining whether migrant children remained at school to the HSC than did their IQ, their SES, or their SC results.

As a result, a substantially greater proportion of these children continued through to the HSC than did Australian or other English-speaking students (41 per cent, compared with 30 and 35 percent respectively).

A greater proportion of the total number of migrant children gained medium or high HSC results than did the Australian or other English-speaking-children.

In a chapter on policy implications, the report claims that the Sydney inquiry ‘points unmistakeably to the need for resources (of talent and imagination as well as money) in three broad areas’.

Firstly, it wants to encourage the education system (not only the high schools themselves) to serve children characterised as of low IQ and low SES ‘whom it now does its best to throw off’.

Secondly, it claims that resources are needed ‘to dislodge the narrow . . . and explicit anti-migrant attitudes that appear to be entrenched in some schools, and to develop the capacity of all children to benefit from living in an ethnically plural society- which we take to be the rationale for multicultural education’.

Thirdly, it asks for resources to be allocated to monitoring and research on two lines.

One of these would test systematically in Australia recent radical overseas reviews of education, and the relation between educational qualification and the social structure.

The other would ‘bring into public awareness the reality of the school experience of teachers, students, and parents’.

page 2925

QUESTION

ABORIGINES: AWARD WAGES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he can inform the Parliament of the commencing date for the payment of award wages to Aborigines employed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities in Queensland. Will an additional grant of funds be made available by the Australian Government to the Queensland Government to meet the cost of the increased wage bill? What is the likely cost of such an increased wage bill in a full financial year?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– As I understand the decision of the Industrial Court in Queensland, there is no commencing date because the award wages should have been paid all along. I understand that the basis of the decision was that the award overrode the regulations under which the less-than-award wages were paid. I have not seen the actual judgment- I am relying on reports which have been given to me on it- but, if it is the case that the Court has found that award wages are payable on the reserves, that finding would be applicable immediately because that is the law. There has been talk of the additional cost to the State of Queensland. I think that the Queensland Government has put a figure of some $7m on it. It has made a request to the Commonwealth for additional grants to cover that sum. The Government has that request under consideration. I simply point out to the

Senate that the finding of the Court is that it is the operation of Queensland law which requires the payment of award wages on reserve communities.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the Minister’s reply mean, in effect, that the awards will operate for a back-dated period of at least one year?

Senator CHANEY:

– That is probably a request for an opinion. In any event, I cannot answer that question. My understanding is simply that the judge has said that that is the law which applies and therefore the award wages should be paid. I cannot say whether there is a right to claim retrospectively. 1 would have to seek advice on that matter.

page 2925

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES (REDEPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT) ACT

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a recent statement by the President of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Returned Services League and a resolution passed at a meeting of that branch expressing concern with respect to some provisions of the Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act as it relates to superannuation rights, invalid pensions and the possibility that any war compensation might be deducted from such pension rights. Can the Minister say whether the legislation will have any adverse effects on the quite proper entitlements of ex-service personnel and invalid pensioners?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My attention was drawn to the statement. As a result, I sought a brief on it. My advice is that the statement made at the weekend by the President of the Australian Capital Territory Branch of the Returned Services League contained three significant inaccuracies. The first one was his statement that:

As a new Act it will supersede previous Acts under which the Commonwealth employs its staff.

This is incorrect. The new Act does not change the Superannuation Act or repatriation legislation. It only substitutes new provisions for provisions that are already in the Public Service Act- for example, sections 20 and 67. The second inaccurate statement was:

Under the Bill ‘s invalidity provisions an employee could receive a lower rate of superannuation pension.

I am advised that this is incorrect. An officer or employee who was invalided out would receive exactly the same benefits under this Act as he would under the existing provisions. The

Superannuation Act is not altered. The third inaccurate statement was:

There is also the possibility that any war compensation received may be deducted from this lower pension.

Again, I am advised that this statement is incorrect. The Act does not allow a war pension to be taken into account in determining superannuation pension. The fact that a person is invalided out may be grounds to claim increased war compensation. The RSL resolution called on the Government to amend the Bill to preserve exservicemen’s preference for redeployment and to preserve superannuation entitlements. I am advised that there is no need to amend the Act. The only preference for ex-servicemen is related to recruitment. The skills of the individual and the requirements of any vacant positions determine whether redeployment is possible.

page 2926

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Would the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Treasurer agree that the report presented yesterday, entitled ‘Employment Prospects by Industry and Occupation’, makes depressing reading, accentuating, as it does, the decreasing job opportunities over the next few years for school leavers and for most graduates? As a kind of eleventh hour appeal, I ask: Will the Government now recognise the appalling economic and social costs of major unemployment to this country? Will it give a high priority in the Budget to a comprehensive and realistic program to encourage work-sharing, optional earlier retirement and other similar measures throughout the work force that might reduce unemployment in both the short and long term, and permit that program to be freely debated here?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government would have no hesitation in stating that chronic unemployment, particularly among juveniles, is a sad and very unfortunate occurrence. It is something which ought to be worked against strongly and which ought to be overcome with all the resources available. I do not say this to the honourable senator defensively, but I believe that we should take into account the record of previous governments- some two decades of full employment. In those decades and up until as late as 1 968, the community accepted that there was full employment when 59.5 per cent of all people over 1 5 years of age indicated that they wanted work and, in fact, got work. Today 6 1.5 per cent of the people have indicated that they want work and have got work but there are still more people unemployed. I think that the honourable senator recognised in his question that the problem is a complex one. We must create many more and different ways of overcoming this problem.

One of the sad difficulties is that employers- I suppose it is natural enough- are choosing to employ the mature person rather than the adolescent. This is an enormous problem in terms of the transition from school to work. I accept the general premise that this Government should examine all ways of overcoming what is sadly a new problem. It has many complications the like of which we have never seen before. It was as an earnest of this kind of thinking that the Government set up a special new Department of Employment and Youth Affairs.

page 2926

QUESTION

EDUCATION EXPENDITURE

Senator TEAGUE:

-Does the Minister for Education recall the claims by the Opposition spokesman on education, Senator Button, in the Senate on Monday and Tuesday this week regarding the level of Commonwealth outlays on education? He referred to a table that he had prepared. At the time, Senator Button’s claims were disputed by Senator Chaney who undertook to provide more accurate information. Is the Minister now in a position to provide this information? Can he confirm that the dramatic turnaround in Commonwealth expenditure on education occurred in the 1975-76 Hayden Budget brought down by the Whitlam Labor Government, while the policies of the present Government in contrast show relative stability in funding levels and efficiency in administration?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My attention was drawn to the incorporation of a table by Senator Button. I think it was shown to me when I came into the chamber later. My attention was also drawn to an interjection by Senator Chaney that the table had some defects. I have had prepared another table, which Senator Button should welcome because he asked that we might indicate the defects in his table. The table which Senator Button had incorporated in Hansard on 4 June, at page 2545, dealt with Australian Government outlays on education in current and constant dollars from 1970-71 to 1978-79. The table did not take account of the tertiary offsets; that is, of the adjustments made to general purpose grants to the States in association with the assumption by the Commonwealth of full financial responsibility for universities and colleges of advanced education from 1 January 1974. 1 should like to incorporate in Hansard a modification of that table to take account of that factor. The table that I will seek leave to incorporate in a moment was prepared by the Department of Education. I think Senator Button would acknowledge the objectivity of approach and the skills of the Department.

My table varies the figures in the last four columns of Senator Button’s table. The real significance of the table in either version is the dramatic turnaround of Commonwealth expenditure on education which occurred in 1975-76 under the influence of the Hayden Budget and of the Whitlam Government’s decisions about the programs of the education commissions for 1 976. 1 remind the Senate that decisions on funding levels for the education commissions’ programs, which represent 80 per cent of total Commonwealth expenditure on education, are made on a calendar year basis. Financial year actual expenditure figures are cash flows resulting from approved calendar year programs. If we make a true comparison- that is, a comparison between the effects of the decisions taken by the respective governments in issuing guidelines to the education commissions- we see the full picture clearly. Expressed in constant values, the Whitlam Government’s direction for the 1976 program represented a reduction of 7 per cent on the previous year and the decisions of the Fraser Government represented an increase of 3.2 per cent in 1 977, an increase of 0.6 per cent in 1 978, no change in 1 979 and a reduction of 2. 1 per cent in 1980. 1 seek leave to incorporate that table in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

  1. The adjusted outlays from 1973-74 represent the amounts adjusted for ‘tertiary offsets’ in respect of the States ‘ shares of University and CAE costs under the cost-sharing arrangements operating up to 3 1 December 1 973. Estimates of the amounts of expenditure of which the States were relieved from 1 January 1974 were offset against their general purpose funds in the two financial years immediately affected. The reductions in 1973-74 and 1974-75 were $ 1 43.6m and S295. 1 m respectively (See tables 3 and 9 ‘ Payments to or for the States, 1 973-74 ‘).

Estimates of offsets for later years have been made by the Department of Education, by applying to the 1974-75 offsets (revenue and capital separately) the annual percentage increases in general revenue and general capital funds allocated to the States as shown in Table 3, ‘Payments to or for the States, the Northern Territory and Local Government Authorities, 1978-79.’ The resulting amounts which have been deducted from actual Commonwealth education outlays are: 1975-76, $367m; 1976-77, $426m; 1977-78, $492m; 1978-79, $532m.

page 2927

QUESTION

GHANA: CHANGE OF REGIME

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of reports from Ghana, where it appears that a group of armed persons has seized power and has now described itself as the government of the country, and where the fate of members of the previous government seems at least uncertain. Although the persons who lead the new regime in Ghana apparently have announced that they will be holding some form of election, will the Government insist that the same criteria be applied to Ghana as are being insisted upon in the case of Rhodesia and that no recognition will be granted to the new government until such time as internationally supervised, free elections have been held in Ghana? If this is not the case and recognition is granted to Ghana during the period that the Parliament is in recess, for the benefit of those of us who find these events a little difficult to follow, will the Government prepare a list of those countries where a change of regime can be recognised only after the holding of internationally supervised, free elections and those countries where this is not necessary?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have, as Senator Wheeldon has, read the Press and heard the media comments on what appears to have been a military coup and the establishment of a de facto government in Ghana. On a casual perusal of my brief, I do not have more detailed information. I think that the world lacks a considerable amount of such information at this moment. So I cannot add to the storehouse of knowledge on the matter. I would have to acknowledge that the whole world has had some difficulties in recent years in understanding what principles were adopted worldwide in deciding the difference between de facto and de jure recognition of various nations following a coup or non-legal change of government. I take aboard the question in its sense. Whether or not it lends itself to a precise answer, as unhappily so many questions on the international level do not, I will try to answer the question.

page 2928

QUESTION

HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS: ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT

Senator PUPLICK:

-Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall that in the last week of the last sessional period I asked him a question as to whether it would be possible during this sessional period to provide time for parliamentary debate on the report of the Royal Commission on Human Relationships and that he undertook to see what could be done during the course of this sessional period to permit debate on that important report? I now ask him whether he is prepared to give an undertaking that he will look into providing some opportunity to debate this report in the next sessional period.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think that is a very fair request. Senator Puplick has asked me to bring about a debate on this subject and one other subject that has been on my mind. I regret that time has not permitted this. We have had competing demands on time and we have had to try to balance the demands of both sides of the chamber. I will take aboard the request and see what can be done in the early stages of the Budget session.

page 2928

QUESTION

INDEXATION OF PENSIONS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Social Security whether he will consider the many petitions lodged in both Houses of Parliament seeking, firstly, that twice-yearly pension adjustments be restored and, secondly, that pensions and the unemployment benefit be raised to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings. Will the Minister also consider raising the allowable income levels of all pensioners as these have not been increased for many years?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Social Security.

page 2928

QUESTION

AVIATION FUEL

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Earlier in Question Time today, Senator Thomas asked me a general question in relation to the shortage of aviation gasolene which I answered in general terms. I referred to other answers which I had given. Senator Thomas asked his question in three parts. He asked whether there was any truth in the rumour that the one oil company which produces aviation fuel is planning to sell some of this fuel to New Zealand. The answer to that question is that the Mobil company, which of course is the only producer in Australia, has contracts or obligations to supply New Zealand and Pacific islands which are part of its international network. It has a policy of allocating to each customer 70 per cent of the previous year’s demand.

These contracts are of long standing. Some of Mobil’s crude oil is supplied only on the understanding that customers will be supplied. Another part of the question related to supplies for defence operations. I am advised that the general shortage of Avgas is not presently affecting Defence Force operations as defence stock holdings are sufficient to meet current operational requirements. The third part of the question, which related to commercial aviation, asked:

Does the Government understand that some of these operators may be forced into liquidation because of fuel shortages?

The Department of National Development has informed me that it is not aware of anyone being forced into liquidation but, of course, there is always that danger. As I have said, the Department recognises that the problem exists. The major problem is how to solve it.

page 2928

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA: 200-MILE OFF-SHORE ZONE

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Earlier today Senator Wriedt asked me a question relating to the 200-mile economic zone. I advise the honourable senator that the 200-mile economic zone is within the policy and carriage of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 2928

QUESTION

NABARLEK MINE

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Earlier today Senator Melzer asked me a question relating to the Nabarlek uranium mine. I direct her attention to answers given by me on page 2515 of Senate Hansard of 4 June 1979 and pages 2722 and 2723 of Senate Hansard of 6 June 1979.

page 2928

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– Earlier in the week Senator Elstob asked me a question relating to publicity through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I add to the answer as follows: On the matter of media publicity for information pamphlets on energy and other matters, CSIRO through its Canberrabased media group directs the attention of the media to a wide range of new publications as they become available, as well as facilitating the covering by the electronic and print media of research work not published in pamphlet form. CSIRO believes, and I agree, that it is more valuable to the media to highlight the content and worth of information material as it becomes available rather than simply provide long lists of CSIRO publications. A complete publications list and the pamphlets themselves are readily available through CSIRO ‘s central information service in Melbourne. I have urged CSIRO to continue to encourage the media to make Australians aware of the useful information that is available through the Organisation.

page 2929

QUESTION

LEAD LEVELS IN PETROL

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Senator Mason asked me a question relating to reducing the level of lead in petrol and to the effect of lead on children, as reported by Professor Smythe. The Minister of National Development has advised me as follows:

The senator has raised the specific point of the cost of reducing the level of lead in petrol, suggesting that there is a big discrepancy between industry claims and those of Professor Smythe. Firstly let me say there is no great difference between the two claims. I understand the industry has said that the removal of lead would cost about Se per gallon, not Se per litre as indicated by Senator Mason, and this is of the same order of cost that Professor Smythe has indicated.

Studies are under way by the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions to assess the cost benefits of lead-free petrol. The result of these studies will be presented to the Australian Transport Advisory Council and will take into account the capital investment costs and the overall fuel and energy costs. At this stage any estimate of the final cost to the motorist is pure guesswork.

page 2929

QUESTION

RADIO STATION 3CR

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On Wednesday Senator Lewis asked a question about the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal’s inquiry into radio station 3CR and reports of a breakdown in discussions between the Board of Management of radio station 3CR and the Jewish Board of Deputies, Victorian Division. He suggested that the Government give consideration to the suspension of 3CR’s licence as a means of reopening discussions between the parties. Before advising the honourable senator of the current position in this matter I remind all honourable senators that Senator Lewis’s suggestion that the Government suspend 3CR’s licence is of course impossible to implement. Amendments to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal Act in 1977 removed any government involvement in the broadcasting licensing process by referring this function to and placing full authority for its decisions in an independent statutory authority, namely the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Concerning the current state of negotiations, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications has informed me that at the Tribunal’s last sitting on 7 May 1979 the Board of Management of the station requested the Tribunal to adjourn its hearings into this matter because of substantial changes to the composition of the Board of Management and the fact that the station’s counsel was no longer available and new counsel would need to be briefed.

The Tribunal agreed to the adjournment and set Tuesday, 31 July 1979, as the date for resumption of the inquiry. The extended delay in resuming the inquiry was unavoidable in view of the Tribunal’s commitments to other licence inquiries, notably those in respect of the Melbourne television stations. The discussions between the parties have received considerable Press coverage and of course took place at the initiative of the parties themselves and were not part of or conditional on the adjournment of the inquiry. The Tribunal is unaware of the nature of the discussions and the reasons for the reported breakdown. All parties to the inquiry have indicated a desire for the terms of reference to be clarified and narrowed in the interests of expediting its completion. The Jewish Board of Deputies, for its part, has indicated it is not averse to having references to possible suspension or revocation of 3CR ‘s licence removed from the terms of reference. I am sure all honourable senators hope that this matter will be settled quickly through co-operative discussions between the parties.

page 2929

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE

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

– Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972, I present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 3 1 December 1978.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

At this stage I have not had the opportunity of perusing this report in detail. It relates to the Commonwealth Teaching Service and involves an important item of Commonwealth expenditure on education. I refer to the general question of Commonwealth expenditure on education which was raised in Question Time today, when the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) gave some figures prepared by his Department. He assured me of their impartiality. I do not disagree with that for a moment. The figures which I had incorporated in Hansard ‘last Monday were prepared by the Parliamentary Library, an organisation for which I claim the same degree of impartiality. I do not question the impartiality of either set of figures; I question their accuracy.

Whilst I appreciate the Minister’s explanation of specific purpose and general purpose payments to the States, I draw the attention of the Senate to the actual Commonwealth outlays on education in specific years taken form the Budget Papers. In 1973-74 Commonwealth outlays on education were $858. 7m. In 1974-75 the outlays were almost double that figure at $1,67 1.6m. In 1975- 76, which is the relevant year in terms of the Minister’s answer this morning, the outlays were $ 1,846.5m, an increase of over $170m. In 1976- 77 they were $2, 160.1m. In 1977-78 they were $2, 354. 8m. In 1978-79 they were $2,497.6m. Of course, any subsequent figure would be an estimate. The Minister gave the percentage increase for the calendar year 1977 as 3.2 per cent and for 1978 as 0.6 per cent. For 1979 the figure was nil and for 1980 he gave a decrease of 2. 1 percent.

Its interesting to compare the figures of nil in 1979 and minus 2.1 per cent in 1980 with the figure for 1975-76, when the actual increase was in excess of $ 170m. In fairness Commonwealth outlays in 1975-76 could not be described as a decrease. The figure for that year of the Hayden Budget contracts sharply with the figures given by the Minister for 1979 and 1980. I also draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that prior to the Australian Labor Party’s coming to power in December 1972, Commonwealth outlays on education were abysmally low compared with Commonwealth outlays on education since. When I say ‘since’ I include the regimes of all parties. The enormous increase in education expenditure occurred in 1974-75. The first relevant decline, of course, appears, as the Minister pointed out, in 1 979.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2930

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the comments of the Australian Science and Technology Council on Australia’s Antarctic Program.

page 2930

FOREIGN ANTI-TRUST JUDGMENTS (RESTRICTION OF ENFORCEMENT) ACT 1979

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 as applied by section 3 of the Foreign Anti-Trust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979,I present an order made by me under section 3 of the Foreign Anti-Trust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-When the Bill for the Foreign Anti-Trust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979 was before the Parliament it was indicated that the Attorney-General intended to make an order in respect of an antitrust judgment obtained by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. An order in respect of that judgment, and another judgment related to it, have now been made. Both judgments were entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. One was entered on 3 January 1979; the other was entered on 24 January 1 979. The proceedings in which the judgments were entered were brought by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation against 29 uranium producers including the following Australian companies: Conzinc Rio Tinto of Australia Limited; Mary Kathleen Uranium Ltd; Pancontinental Mining Ltd; and Queensland Mines Ltd. The proceedings relate to arrangements for the marketing of uranium alleged to have been made in 1972 in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States of America. The claim in the proceedings is for treble damages approximating $US7 billion.

The judgment of 3 January 1979 is a final judgment on issues of liability. The judgment was entered against nine non- United States defendants- including the Australian companies mentioned above- which have declined to enter appearances. They so declined because they considered there were jurisdictional objections to the proceedings against them and that they might be taken to have waived those objections if they were to enter appearances. By the judgment the Court ordered and adjudged those nine defendants to be jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff in an amount which as yet remains to be determined by the Court. The judgment of 24 January 1979 is an interim injunction restraining those nine defendants until further order of the Court from dealing with their assets in the

United States except as provided in the injunction. The purpose of the injunction is to have those assests kept available to satisfy the judgment of 3 January 1979 when the amount of that judgment has been determined.

The order in respect of both judgments has been made pursuant to section 3 of the Foreign Anti-trust Judgments (Restriction of Enforcement) Act 1979. Under sub-section (2) of that section before making an order the AttorneyGeneral is required to be satisfied of the existence of one or more prescribed grounds. The prescribed ground on which the order is based is the Attorney-General’s satisfaction that it is desirable for the purpose of protecting the national interest in relation to the trading operations of trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth that the judgment should not be recognised or enforceable in whole or in part in Australia. If the before mentioned judgments were permitted to be enforced in Australia against the corporations referred to, the consequence could be of such an order that the very ability of those corporations to maintain their Australian operations would be endangered. Moreover, the position which the corporations collectively occupy in the Australian economy, particularly in relation to the marketing of Australian resources, is such that it is in the national interest that their ability to continue those operations be protected from such a liability under a law of a foreign state. This is particularly so where, as here, that law is being applied to conduct of Australian corporations outside that foreign state contrary to the expressed views of the Australian Government as to what is appropriate in that regard.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

I have had only a moment’s glance at the document just provided by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), but in principle the Opposition thoroughly agrees with the intended use of this legislation. This order, and the legislation from which it flows, are really part of the support given by the Government to our commodity producers when they seek markets abroad. What has happened is that there has been a conflict of interest between United States consumers of our energy resources on the one hand and Australian producers of certain energy primary products on the other. Whereas the United States legal system has been manipulated by United States consumers in order to achieve benefits for those consuming these energy resources within the United States, that manipulation is now being confronted by an Australian government which at last, somewhat belatedly, has recognised its obligation to ensure that Australian producers, whether of energy resources, iron ore, bauxite or alumina, et cetera, can themselves present a united front to the united buying power of groups abroad, of which United States utility companies and Japanese steel companies are perhaps the best known examples. So in principle, the Opposition certainly agrees with the order that has been placed before the Senate today by the Attorney-General.

With regard to the actual details of this particular judgment, whilst the quantum of the liability has not yet been determined, given the fact that a $7 billion liability is possible against 29 companies spread throughout the world, four of which are Australian, it is quite clear that the effect of enforcement of that order within Australia would be to cripple enterprises which are extremely important to the economic and commercial well-being of this community. As I said, the Opposition has not had the opportunity to look at the matter in detail, but for the reasons I have mentioned, we support the order placed before the Senate.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– Whilst certainly not dissenting from anything that either the Attorney-General, Senator Durack, or Senator Tate has said about this matter, a number of unanswered questions still exist in relation to the conduct by the Government of this whole matter of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation uranium litigation. Those questions are raised very cogently and forcefully in a letter to the Australian Financial Review of 3 1 May 1979 by Mr Laurence W. Maher, a Melbourne solicitor, who knows what he is talking about in this area because he has previously had a substantial period of government service. Mr Maher makes the point that the real reason for the Government’s legislative and political behaviour in relation to this matter so far has less to do with abstract questions of international law and protection of domestic sovereignty and rather more to do with worries by the Government about the avoidance of political embarrassment that might be thought to flow from an acknowledgement that Australia was indeed involved up to its neck in the cartel of uranium producers in this particular area and an anxiety on the part of the Government to avoid putting on the public record anything about the inner workings of that cartel.

A policy of silence has been maintained by the Government in this respect, and not only in the context of this particular legislation, which may be justifiable on other grounds. It is a policy of silence that raises some concern, which I think needs to be allayed. I quote from the last two paragraphs of Mr Maher’s letter which I think make a point that needs to be answered by the Government. Mr Maher said:

Australia’s reaction contrasts with that of other parties in the cartel, including Canada and the United Kingdom, which have each permitted their own courts to pass on Westinghouse ‘s search for evidence. The Canadian Government has gone further by candidly admitting its participation in the cartel.

Contrary to its oft proclaimed commitment to its openness in government the present Australian Government refuses to reveal any information regarding its participation in the cartel. A detailed public statement by the Government in line with that made by the Canadians in 1976 is long overdue and would do much to clear the air.

I endorse those sentiments and accordingly I request the Government to consider the making of such a statement and to bring it forward at the earliest opportunity. I do not dissent from the terms of the legislation which has been enacted. I simply make the point that there are many aspects of this whole affair which need to be put on the public record, in the interests of openness of government and information acquisition by the Australian community. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2932

AUSTRALIA’S ANTARCTIC PROGRAM

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement on Australia ‘s Antarctic program.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

In speaking very briefly to the motion, I take the opportunity to raise again in this chamber the apparent inability of the Government to make a decision on its policy concerning sovereign rights and the 200-mile off-shore area of the Antarctic. One would have thought that this document might have given some indication that the Government had decided to come down with a policy statement. But, as we know, the Government is badly divided as to the policy decision it should take. That has been the reason for the delay. If we go back to 20 October 1 977, the then Minister for Construction (Mr McLeay) said in the House of Representatives:

The provision of laboratory facilities for the Antarctic Division will be re-examined in the light of a Government White Paper relating to the Antarctic policy and programs which is now being prepared.

It was that matter to which I referred at Question Time today. We have never seen that White Paper. The Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) seemed to be confused as to whether it has ever been presented. It is quite apparent now that it has not been presented. The reason that the paper has not been presented is because the Government cannot decide on what to do. That is also the reason why the Committee referred to in that statement, the Antarctic Research Policy Advisory Committee, ARPAC as it is commonly known, was formedbecause the Government could not declare a position and bring down a White Paper. This statement has been designed simply as a cover-up position for the fact that the Government has not been able to make up its mind.

The only other matter which I find difficult to understand is the reference to the provision of finance in 1 979-80 for a feasibility study of intercontinental air transport, including . the possibility of an ice runway near Casey station, a permanent runway on rock near Davis station, and some other associated facilities. On 10 April 1978 I asked, upon notice, a series of questions concerning the building of transport facilities in the Antarctic. Without going through all the details, the Minister, in reply, itemised the estimated costs of various facilities necessary for particular types of aircraft. During the course of his answer he said:

The above costs - which amounted to very many millions of dollars- are provided in a detailed report by the Department of Transport in December 1977.

I am at a complete loss as to whether it is now intended that additional appropriations will be required in the financial year 1979-80 over and above those which were referred to in the Minister’s answer which appeared in Hansard on 5 May 1978. This is our last day of sitting but I would ask that the Minister clarify that answer at some stage, by way of a public statement, so that we know exactly what we are committing ourselves for in respect of these programs. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted: debate adjourned.

page 2932

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-I present the sixty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances relating to the disallowance of a repealing instrument, the onus of proof in criminal cases, and legislation considered by the Committee since June 1978.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– by leave- I move:

In so doing, I express the Committee ‘s wish that the report receives the earliest consideration of the Senate and by senators during the recess. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2933

ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave- I table further additional information which has been received by Estimates Committee A and I seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee ‘s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 2933

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Motion (by Senator Rae) agreed to:

1 ) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed-

its Report on the Advance to the Minister for Finance; and

its Second Report on Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth, the Committee may send either or both Reports to the President of the Senate, or, if the President is unavailable, to the Deputy President, who is authorised to give directions for their printing and circulation, and in such event the President or Deputy President shall lay each Report received upon the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.

That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 2933

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 21 August 1979, at half-past two p.m., or such other day and/or hour as may be fixed by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the day and/or hour of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.

page 2933

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion ( by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2933

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2933

ALBURY-WODONGA DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill now before the House is to amend the Albury-Wodonga Development Act 1973 in order to approve the AlburyWodonga Development Agreement Amendment Agreement No. 1 and to implement its provisions in so far as they relate to the structure of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. The Amendment Agreement, which was signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Premiers of New South Wales and Victoria on 4 September 1 978, provides for an expansion in the membership of the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation from five to eight members; common membership of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation, the Albury-Wodonga (New South Wales) Corporation and the Albury-Wodonga (Victoria) Corporation; and the abolition of the Consultative Council. At present the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation is made up of three full time and two part time members. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian Ministers on the ministerial council responsible for oversight and development of Albury-Wodonga were of the unanimous view that there was a need for greater local government involvement in the decision-making process and a more effective link between the councils and the Corporation.

It was agreed that these objectives could best be achieved if the Mayors of Albury and Wodonga were to become ex officio part time members of the Corporation. The ministerial council agreed that provision should also be made for a prominent businessman to serve on the Corporation to ensure that its membership reflects the nature of the partnership between the three levels of government and the private sector in the development of the growth centre. The responsibility for the development of AlburyWodonga is vested in three corporations established under legislation of the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian parliaments. In practice, the three corporations act as one, and it is therefore important that they have common membership. The Amendment Agreement provides for the part time members to take their places on all three corporations. The Amendment Agreement also abolishes the 16-person Consultative Council which has tended to create friction between the Corporation and local governments.

Apart from the provisions now incorporated in the Agreement to include the Mayors of Albury and Wodonga and a businessman of national standing on the corporations, the ministerial council has also decided that the role of the range of community advisory committees that have been established to support the Corporation should be strengthened and enhanced. The ministerial council believes that these measures will ensure that the relationship between the Corporation and councils is strengthened without in any way affecting the access of interested community groups on the advisory committees to the Corporation. I understand that the measures that I have outlined were announced in the growth centre some time ago and that they have received general community support. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2934

MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The Migration Amendment Bill is a timely initiative of the Government to provide responsible and effective regulation of the entry to and stay in Australia of people from overseas. In the 2 1 years since the Migration Act was passed, the character of the Australian community has markedly changed, with radical amendment to immigration policies and in the volume and nature of movements into and out of Australia. Changing conditions in other countries tend to increase the attractions of Australia for many people, making the task of control more difficult. The Act itself is a 1958 measure being tested by 1979 circumstances, and being found wanting.

The basic mechanisms for controlling entry and residence must reflect the attitudes a.id interests of the community. They must operate to protect the community from the entry and residence of people the community does not wish to enter Australia or remain here as residents. The legislation must provide the powers to enable these mechanisms to be used effectively- to prevent entry, to enforce departure when necessary and to impose adequate penalties to deter would-be offenders. Most travellers respect Australia’s immigration laws. Unfortunately, there are some who enter or remain illegally in Australia, regarding breaches of immigration laws and policies as offences of small significance. Indeed, there are those in the community who actively encourage people to break the law and evade controls and who find prohibited immigrants a lucrative source of income.

Clearly, people who try to evade immigration controls should gain no advantage over those many others who, being also ineligible to migrate to Australia, are prepared to abide by the rules. The limits which must be set to the migrant intake are easily met through the regular processes of interview, medical examination and selection in offices around the world- criteria which are not applied to people entering temporarily or illegally. Individuals cannot be allowed to make their own rules about staying on and taking employment. Indeed, it is a fundamental and internationally accepted principle that every country has the right to determine who may enter and who may remain within its boundaries. Australia is no exception and the Government reserves to itself the right to set the conditions under which people may enter Australia and remain in Australia. It believes that immigration laws and procedures should be observed and followed just as any other Australian law should be observed.

The purpose of this Bill is to make essential amendments to the Migration Act without changing the basic concepts in the existing legislation. In 1958 when the Migration Act was passed, there were an estimated 1.57 million overseas-born members of the Australian population. Perhaps almost half of these were pre-war settlers of long standing. The remainder were relatively new post-war arrivals. In total, people born overseas other than in Europe, including Britain, were of the order of only 160,000. By 1978 the overseas-born component had almost doubled to an estimated 2.8 million and it included settlers from every continent. This diversified expansion of the overseas-born component of the population reflects itself in the changed demographic and ethnic composition of Australia.

In 1958 Australia was strongly seeking migrants. Immigration restrictions applied mainly to people of non-European origin. The occupational categories actively sought by Australia almost covered the spectrum, including unskilled. Earlier policies based on an intake of migrants predominantly British had been abandoned but British migration was still seen as the dominant element in the migrant intake. The intake from the relatively few other main source countries, all of which were in Europe, was nevertheless, by 1 958, quite high. Nor was it subject to restraint. There was little need or incentive for people who wanted to settle here to resort to subterfuge if they were of European origin.

By 1 973 discrimination on grounds of race had disappeared from immigration selection policy. That was a policy evolved by several governments of both political colours. The present level of immigration for settlement is relatively low, with an emphasis on encouraging only those skills in short supply. In 1977-78 it was about 80 per cent of the level of the 1 958-59 intake despite the wider range of source countries from which settlers came. In this regard, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the Minister’s statement on immigration policies and Australia’s population of 7 June 1978 which emphasised the Government’s recognition of immigration as a necessary element in economic growth. The Government’s program acknowledges the case for caution in current conditions but is sensitive to family reunion and to humanitarian and international responsibilities. We are pursuing a long term approach to population building in which immigration is the only directable factor. The fact that the Australian community is now barely reproducing itself must recommend immigration policy to all persons who genuinely have the future welfare of this nation in mind. While the volume of intake of migrants for settlement is at a relatively low level, the level of people entering as tourist or business visitors, to undertake approved temporary employment and in other non-migrant categories has increased enormously, rising at the rate of about 5 per cent per year. The changes that have taken place in total movement are illustrated by the figures of 395,000 in 1958 and 3.4 million in 1977-78, an increase of more than 800 per cent.

I invite attention to the increase in the volume of air movement. More than 98 per cent of arrivals are by air, and have increased from 86,300 in 1958 to almost 1.7 million in 1977-78. In the same period, the arrivals by sea declined from 144,000 to 33,000. The relatively low volume of admission for settlement in more recent years inevitably prompts attempts to circumvent immigration policies and procedures either by malpractice or by entering for allegedly temporary purposes but then staying on without authority. It is estimated that there are approximately 57,000 prohibited immigrants in the country at this time. The Government is determined to stem the flow and to reduce the numbers already here competing with citizens for employment and other benefits. No government can abdicate its responsibilities in this area. In this I am sure it has the support of the Opposition as well as the community.

The first of the principal changes is the introduction of a statutory visa system. This is provided for by clause 9 of the Bill. A visa is a document or notation specifically in the form of a stamped impression in a passport, which informs the carrier company and immigration officer at the port of arrival in Australia that the holder, prima facie, may enter Australia. However, a visa is not, in itself, an authority to enter. Under the existing Migration Act the legal entry authority is an entry permit issued at the point of arrival. In general, however, a visa holder may expect to receive an entry permit on arrival. Thus Australia’s entry control is based on the issue of a visa overseas and the grant of an entry permit on arrival in Australia. The visa system is almost universally used as a travel facilitation and control mechanism. A visa system for intending travellers to Australia has been in force administratively for many years. It has lacked statutory backing. Given the changes in the nature and volume of entry of people into Australia and the need in the light of recent review legislation for every major procedure to have its foundation in law, it has become necessary for it to be given a statutory basis in the Migration Act. The Bill provides therefore in clause 9 that a visa or return endorsement may be granted to a person by an authorised officer and that that person may seek an entry permit upon arrival in Australia. I emphasise for the information of honourable senators that Australian citizens travelling on Australian passports will not require visas or return endorsements.

It will be an offence under clause 9 for a carrier to bring a person, other than an Australian citizen or an exempt person, to Australia without a visa or return endorsement. The offence will be punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000. The Bill provides for the classes of persons who are excempt from visa requirements to be notified in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and, in addition, individual carriers will be notified as in the past, of any change in visa requirements. The section will also provide carriers with a defence to a prosecution if the vessel was forced into Australia due to stress or weather or in circumstances of emergency, or where the carrier reasonably believed that when a person last boarded a vessel for travel to Australia, the person was an Australian citizen, a visa holder or an exempt person. The persons to be exempted from holding a visa will generally be New Zealand citizens or international travellers in transit through Australia to another destination.

Under the amendments to be made by clauses 20 and 2 1 of the Bill it will also be possible to require carriers to remove from Australia passengers who, on arrival in Australia, have sought and been refused an entry permit. This requirement will be applicable to persons arriving by ship or by aircraft. It is not an unusual requirement. There is ample international precedent. The search for persons who breach the immigration law is an expensive and an unwanted burden on the Australian taxpayer. Thus the second major innovation included in the Bill is the introduction in clause 12 of a requirement that deportees meet the cost of their detention awaiting deportation and of their removal from Australia where they are in a position to do so. There have been numerous cases where the Commonwealth has been required to pay the fares of deportees who have by acting contrary to their conditions of temporary entry, accumulated substantial assets in this country. There are others who see it as a laudable achievement when they cash their return ticket and are sent home at cost to the Australian taxpayer. Under the present legislation deportees cannot be required to pay costs associated with their detention or removal even though they have accumulated a considerable amount of money in Australia by engaging in unauthorised employment or have valid tickets for travel out of Australia. In the period 1 July 1976 to 31

December 1978, 2,157 deportations were effected. It is estimated that the requirement for deportees to pay costs of deportation will result in savings to the Commonwealth of over $200 per deportee for fares. In addition, I believe that the deterrent effect of the provision will be significant. Legislation in respect of deportation costs is already in force in a number of countries. New Zealand has legislation to cover this, as does Great Britain.

The third significant measure dealt with by the Bill is the introduction of offences for temporary entrants and prohibited immigrants who engage in employment in Australia without authority. At present, visitors to Australia give an undertaking at the time of visa issue that they will not work in Australia, but it is not an offence for them to engage subsequently in employment. Similarly, it is not an offence for a prohibited immigrant to work in Australia. Most prohibited immigrants apprehended by departmental officials in the course of their investigations are either working or have been in employment in Australia. In addition, there is little doubt that many of the approximately 57,000 prohibited immigrants in Australia are working partly in order to sustain themselves. Some of what they earn is sent abroad to maintain families and relatives overseas. That is perhaps understandable but it represents a notable capital outflow instigated by people who are filling jobs which should otherwise be available to unemployed Australian residents. There must be limits to our community tolerance of such matters.

Clause 4 of the Bill will provide for the grant of a temporary entry permit subject to conditions relating to work. Clause 19 will provide for an offence where a person contravenes a condition in respect of work or where a prohibited immigrant performs any work in Australia without the written permission of an authorised officer of the Department. The penalty for this offence will be a fine not exceeding $1,000. The Bill also provides in clause 19 for new offences where a person makes a false statement in connection with an application for work or uses a forged authority for work. These offences will attract a maximum penalty of $1,000. The introduction of these offences is indicative of the gravity with which the Government views this growing problem. I do point out that the Government’s attitude is consistent with that in many other countries, including New Zealand and Canada where it is also an offence for unauthorised persons to engage in employment.

The fourth significant change picks up the fact that the existing penalties in the Migration Act have remained unchanged since the legislation was passed in 1958. The Bill increases the penalties specified in the Act to bring them into line with current levels of penalties for equally serious offences in other Commonwealth legislation. The Bill also introduces three new penalties, two of which I have already referred tonamely, when carriers convey people to Australia without proper documentation and when temporary entrants and prohibited immigrants work without authority. The other penalty relates to deportees who return to Australia without authority.

Honourable senators will recall that on 10 August 1978 the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) announced that from that date prohibited immigrants who had been deported from Australia for any reason would be barred from re-entering Australia for a period of five years, except in the most compelling circumstances. If deportees gain re-entry to Australia by subterfuge, it is only proper that they should be liable to a penalty as well as second deportation at their expense if possible. The Government cannot, in the public interest, tolerate breaches of our entry requirements and controls. I consider the penalty of $1,000 or six months imprisonment to be reasonable punishment and a prospective deterrent. Other provisions in the Bill are of a technical nature, designed to improve control mechanisms and to correct deficiencies. They do not introduce major changes in policy or vary the basic concepts currently embodied in the legislation.

The dominance of international travel by fast jet aircraft and the large increase in the number of arrivals since the present Act was introduced have revealed a number of deficiencies in control procedures that were unknown or not exploitable in the more leisurely days of sea-travel or early international air travel. The demands on control procedures are aggravated in Australia because, due to our geographical position and airport curfews, arrivals and departures are not evenly spaced throughout the day, taking place within relatively short peak periods with necessarily brief tum-around periods.

A number of these provisions arose out of the recommendations of a management review which reported on its investigation of immigration policies and procedures in July of last year. The review conducted by a consultant, the Public Service Board and the Department, examined problems confronting the Department and their causes, and evaluated options for changes to the Migration Act. The Government believes that the Bill will provide for a considerable increase in control capacity while new immigration legislation is being developed. These are measures which deserve, and I believe will enjoy, bipartisan support. The impact will not be discriminatory and nor is that the intent. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 2937

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 7 June.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?

Senator Chaney:

– The Opposition has given notice of a series of amendments which obviously will preclude dealing with the Bill as a whole. The only comment I wish to make at this stage of the Committee is that, having been through those amendments, it is clear that although they are many in number, they cover broad subject matters. For example, the twocomponent force proposition encompasses quite a number of the amendments. As with other debates and a debate yesterday, although it will not be possible to group all those amendments together on each occasion, because they do not lie necessarily in sequence, we might be able to deal with the matters of principle involved in such amendments, indicating perhaps as we arrive at each that subsequent amendments are encompassed by the current debate. I make that suggestion in the interests of getting both a coherent and reasonably-timed debate.

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

Clause 6 (Establishment).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-If it is agreeable to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) I suggest that in pursuance of what he said a minute ago I might speak to clause 6 and the amendment to clause 7, which is Opposition amendment No. 2, together.

Senator Chaney:

– Yes.

Senator BUTTON:

-The amendment to clause 6 seeks to leave out paragraph (d) which contains a reference to commissioned and noncommissioned protective service officers. The amendment to clause 7 deals with the components of the proposed Australian Federal Police. These clauses related to the dual nature of the proposed police force as the Minister stated a minute ago. Let me briefly retrace some of the history of this matter. The Senate will recall that the Labor Government first proposed an amalgamation of Commonwealth police forces in 1975 on the grounds that it would increase operational efficiency. When the Australia Police Bill was brought in in 1975 it met strong opposition from the Liberal Party. It was eventually blocked. It was after the report by Sir Robert Mark consequent upon the Sydney Hilton bombing that the idea of amalgamation was again recommended.

The Opposition still supports the notion of amalgamation but does not support the concept of a two-component police force. We regard it as being totally inconsistent with the aim of amalgamation. We say that the creation of what is effectively a two-class system within the police force will have a detrimental effect on morale and efficiency within the proposed Australian Federal Police. In support of that viewsometimes these things can be overstated but we do not think so in this case- the Opposition has had extensive consultations with officers of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association. I am sure the government parties have also. Views have been put very strongly to us on this issue. The Association is particularly opposed to the notion of a two-component system. It is opposed because it sees the proposed new Federal Police offering a career for police officers. We are concerned that people who choose the career of a police officer receive identical training but will have to face the prospect of being relegated to what is in effect a sub-level of police force activity. As we understand the Government’s intention, the protective service component will carry out duties such as guarding embassies and buildings and will not, for example, be involved in anti-terrorist operations should that question arise. These will be carried out by the ordinary members of the police force as distinct from the protective service component.

We cannot over-emphasise the notion of people entering the police force as a career and then being stratified, as it were, in mid-stream by the provisions of this Bill which, if carried into effect will not in any way offer an incentive to the career aspect of promotion and so on which we would see as logically flowing in a force which has a single purpose and identity. The old saying that ‘a policeman’s lot is not a happy one’ would apply to the ordinary members of the force. It is our impression that those who are on protective duties will take the view that they are not really policemen at all in the true sense of the term.

In regard to the recommendations of Sir Robert Mark, I just mention that he suggested that a whole range of second-level protective functions could be carried out by civilian employees. First of all, we are critical of that notion because the development of civilian protective police forces is proliferating in most Western countries now. That really lays the ground for a whole new collection of mini-para-fascists who enjoy the same view of themselves as do parking attendants and everybody else in that category. We think that that is generally undesirable. What the Commonwealth Police Officers Association is concerned about particularly is that the Bill seems to embody a government resolve to effect that precise purpose. That is a criticism which the Government really has failed to answer in any discussion of the Bill at this stage.

Senator Chaney:

– I am just not following you there, senator. Which precise purpose?

Senator BUTTON:

– The precise purpose of dividing the force into two categories and so on. We suggest that it would be much better to have a quite unified force. When I say that I mean -

Senator Chaney:

– You had moved away from the civil question. You were addressing yourself to the civil question and the para-fascists, or whomever, about whom you are worried.

Senator BUTTON:

-What I was seeking to say was that there was perhaps an interpretation of the two functions which the Government seeks to embody within the proposed Australian Federal Police, one of which Sir Robert Mark referred to as a civilian capacity, and that the protective services will be seen in that light as distinct from the light of ordinary policemen in the service who are career policemen in the true sense. We say quite categorically that, in the Opposition ‘s view, if would be better to have a unified force in which, according to age, qualification, expertise and matters of that kind which normally lead to promotion, people would perform different functions rather than our building into the force those two separate components right from the beginning. It is for that reason that I move:

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I support Senator Button in this very important and central question on the operation of the Australian Federal Police Bill. The matter has been canvassed extensively, not only now by Senator Button but also in the second reading debates both here and in the other place. I merely succinctly repeat the point which I made last night in the second reading debate, that is, that the provisions for a twocomponent force contained in this Bill in reality will create a two-class force, one of Brahmins and the other of Untouchables. That result is not in accordance with the recommendations of Sir Robert Mark. It certainly is not in accordance with the wishes of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association and to the extent that it will militate against both the morale and the effectiveness of the new force, it is not in the interests of the Australian people.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) to a submission which was made by the South Australian branch of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association. I think that that Branch has prepared an interesting document relating to several clauses of the Bill, and expressing some concern about certain aspects of it. I do not think that the points raised are of major concern. I believe that the Minister has given due consideration to them. I understand that a lot of complaints which that branch might have will revolve around regulations. I understand also that those regulations have not been fully determined as yet, so I guess that a certain amount of flexibility exists already for resolving some of the problems which it might have simply by introducing appropriate regulations. But I suggest to the Minister that he might care to refer to these matters as they arise, clause by clause. If he can respond to them briefly I will be satisfied with that.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– I draw the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) to a circular which was put out by the Commonwealth Police Officers Association of Western Australia. In particular, I draw the Minister’s attention to one pf.ragraph of that circular which states that the police officers claim:

Sir Robert Mark’s recommendation in this area was that there should be a civilian-type guard for areas classified ‘low security’.

Sir Robert Mark’s reason for this concept, as quoted by the Association, was as follows:

The effect of such a change would be to release Police Officers for duties on which they could be better employed.

Clearly, he envisaged that the policemen currently performing these functions would be replaced by non-police civilians.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

-The amendments which we are now considering overlap with other amendments we will be dealing with later and centre on the objection which the Opposition has mentioned in the motion which it moved last night as an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. The Opposition sought the creation of a single component force. I will try to cover the matters which have been raised in a way which might enable us to simply refer to the debate we have had on subsequent amendments.

There is no disagreement between the Government and the Opposition on one of the fundamental points made by Senator Button, namely, that it is important that people should be able to enter the police force as a career. I will be explaining why the Government believes that that is achieved by this legislation. It is quite clear that the morale of the force and, indeed, the sorts of people who are attracted into the force, are affected by the sort of considerations mentioned by Senator Button. I assure him and, indeed other honourable senators and the existing police forces that these are matters of concern to the Government.

I noted too, Senator Button’s comments about not liking the idea of civil guards. I do no more than note it. It may assist his Western Australian colleague, Senator Mcintosh, to respond to the views which have been put to him by the Western Australian branch of the Commonwealth Police Officers Association. The Government’s reason for not picking up what was not a recommendation of Sir Robert Mark, but something which he suggested might be given consideration, has already been explained, I think, both in this chamber and in the other place. But it is basic to government policy for the Bill that it should be what is called a two-component force. We have modified the suggestion, after giving it consideration as requested by Sir Robert Mark, that civil guards do protective service functions for a number of reasons. The Government would not be able to retain the thousand or so Commonwealth policemen who broadly could be said to be engaged in the sorts of duties which are described and then to employ an additional 1,000 civil guards. That would not be a sensible approach to the matter and certainly would be most costly. If we had faced the prospect of turning over such work to civil guards and if we thought that was an acceptable solution, of necessity it would have put at risk a very large number of jobs which obviously, would not be the wish of the Government. More importantly, the Government required a police protective security function to continue for such areas as defence, munitions and other security risk government installations, embassies and official residences. It is very easy to downgrade the importance and the sensitivity of that sort of work but if honourable senators reflect on it a little, they will see that there are aspects which might be called the ‘guarding’ function which go to the very serious and important responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is responsible for the security of foreign diplomatic personnel. Honourable senators will know that that is not a token matter any more. We are mercifully free from many incidents taking place but there have been incidents involving foreign diplomats. That tends to underline the significance and importance of that work and why it ought to be done by people who are responsible to government rather than a body of some private nature.

Senator Button:

– Isn’t the point more that people would not wish to be locked in on that activity if, for example, it is guarding a Commonwealth factory?

Senator CHANEY:

– I think there are important career questions which arise in the point raised by Senator Button. Some people might be quite happy to be in that position but others obviously would want more job mobility, and I will come to that in a moment. In fact the Government decided to provide general mobility between the two components. I do not wish to discuss in detail provisions of the Bill which are not before us. However, clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill provide for mobility between the two components subject to the usual principles of competence and qualifications. Of course, those principles would apply internally anyway in the manner in which people would be transferred into other sorts of work. But I direct the Committee ‘s attention to those two clauses.

I also direct the Committee’s attention to clause 73 which relates to the Government’s decision to provide preferential opportunity of mobility between components for present police as against recruits. If someone who is already in one of the components wishes to apply for a job in another he will receive preference against an outside applicant. This provision underlies the Government’s wish to meet the sorts of needs that were raised by Senator Button. Training opportunities will also be provided, as was indicated in the second reading speech, to enable people to achieve competence and qualifications to enable transfer to various jobs that they might wish to undertake.

These are the fundamental reasons why the Government resists the Opposition’s amendments of this sort. Ministerial assurances were given that job career prospects and terms and conditions of service would not be at risk. The Government believes that this objective is achieved by the provisions to which I have referred. The Government does not intend a lower status for one component but a different function and the allocation of detailed functions and personnel to components will be a matter to be determined by the Commissioner. For that reason the Government will be opposing the amendment to clause 6, which is the clause before the Committee at the moment.

Senator Jessop suggested a course of action which I think is very sensible. I have before me the matters which he has raised on behalf of the South Australian Police Officers Association. I will respond to the matter he raised but I will not necessarily advert to the points he made because they are fundamental points which have already been raised in debate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8 (Functions).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

The effect of the amendment is at the end of subclause (2) to leave out the words ‘Commissioner and the Commissioner of Police (however designated) of that State’ and to insert the words Minister and the appropriate Minister of that State’. Clause 8 (2) deals with the question of arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States in relation to the investigations of offences applying to Commonwealth places as they are denned under the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. This Bill allows arrangements to be made in relation to the question of investigations of offences in and around Commonwealth places; it enables arrangements to be made between the Federal Commissioner of Police and a State commissioner of police as to how those investigations are carried out. This could be quite a substantial matter because important questions of the use of manpower and resources are involved in the decisions which have to be made regarding the investigations of those offences. That is the first concern of the Opposition.

The second concern is that questions not only of the use of manpower and resources but also of Federal and State relations are involved in these decisions. I would have thought that the questions of Federal and State relations and that the allocation of perhaps quite significant resources should be made at ministerial level rather than at the level of consultation between the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and

State Commissioners of Police, would have been a matter of concern to this Government. It is for those reasons that we suggest the change, which is quite clear on the face of it, proposed in amendment No. 3.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment to this clause. Clause 8 deals with the provision of police services. In the view of the Government this is an operational matter between commissioners rather than a matter to be dealt with between politicians. It relates to the provision of services in relation to a Commonwealth place in a State, being services by way of the investigation of offences against the laws of that State. We believe these sorts of arrangements are most suitably made by commissioners.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 (Powers and duties of members referred to in paragraph 6(d) ).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition is opposed to this clause. It goes to the question of the component parts of the proposed Australian Federal Police. This matter has been dealt with in previous argument in the second reading stage and in observations made about clauses 1 and 2.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I do not think I need to canvass the amendment. Basically it goes to the two component question.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 1 1 and 12- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 13 (General administration and control).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I move:

Clause 13 concerns the general administration and control of the Australian Federal Police. The Opposition’s particular quarrel is with sub-clause (2) of that clause which relates to the specific question of the nature and extent of the directions which can be given by the Minister or the government of the day to the Chief Commissioner. The crucial element, perhaps above all others in the establishment, operation and maintenance of any police force, is the matter of the definition of the relationship between the commissioner on the one hand and the government on the other hand. The Senate need hardly be reminded just how sensitive a question this has been in recent Australian history. It has arisen in such contexts as the resignation of Commissioner Whitrod in Queensland, the very recent retirement of Commissioner Wood in New South Wales and the spectacularly controversial dismissal of Commissioner Salisbury in South Australia.

It is also a question which has arisen again very recently in the context of relations between the Government and the head of its Federal Narcotics Bureau, Mr Harvey Bates. The Opposition believes that the basic principles which should govern the relationship between the Government and the head of the police agency in question are these: Firstly, the Government should certainly never in any circumstances give any direction to the commissioner, to the force, which is motivated in any way by party political bias. Secondly, the Government should not interfere with day-to-day administration and operational requirements in matters affecting the force. Thirdly, the notion of operational autonomy, which looms very large, of course, in the Mark report, and presumably in the Government’s thinking in writing this Bill in the way it has, ought not in the Opposition’s view to be attained at the cost of removing or weakening the principle of the accountability of police to the elected government of the day. The Opposition believes that in order to ensure that accountability there must be a general power, not only to hire and fire the commissioner and other police officers, but to give directions. Such a power, to give directions of all kinds, must be vested in the government of the day.

We notice, of course, that clause 13, as written, does to a certain extent vest in the Minister power to give directions. Clause 13(2) provides that the Minister may, after taking the advice of the Commissioner, give written directions to him with respect to ‘the general policy to be pursued in relation to the performance of the functions of the Australian Federal Police’. So the power vested and acknowledged in the Bill relates only to general policy matters, whatever that means. I make the point that the very expression ‘general policy’ is one of the most uncertain connotation and is likely, in itself, quite apart from any other consideration, to give rise in practice to a degree of difficulty in working out the extent of its proper application in any particular case. The Opposition believes that it is inappropriate to seek to distinguish in this way between different kinds of directions. Accordingly, the amendment does not seek to make any such distinction, but simply states:

The commissioner shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with the written directions (if any) given to him by the Minister.

It is a general power that we propose to vest in the Minister- one of simply giving written directions. It is important to appreciate that putting matters in this way is not a Labor Party plot, not something which we have invented for scurrilous reasons of our own. We are referring here to something that is not at all unusual in Australian police legislation. In fact, to demonstrate how usual a provision of this kind is, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which summarises the main statutory provisions which apply in respect of State police commissioners in Australia.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator EVANS:

– A reading of that table shows that in five of the six States of Australia a general power to give directions is vested in the political arm of the Government. Only in Western Australia is there no such explicit statutory power at all. In three States, namely New South Wales, Queensland and Tasmania, the power to give directions is vested, without reservation or qualification, in the Minister in charge of police. In Victoria the same general power is vested, again without reservation, in the GovernorinCouncil. In South Australia, the fifth State in question, under statutory provisions which have applied since at least 1972, the power is vested in the Governor-in-Council, but with certain reservations. Those reservations are that any such direction, whatever its nature, be it of a general police kind or much more specific, shall be given

by the Governor-in-Council, subject to a requirement by legislation that copies be immediately laid on the table of Parliament, if Parliament is sitting, and certainly immediately published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. As a result, there is no question of any secret directions, perhaps motivated by some form of party political bias, being given. What the Government directs the Commissioner to do is entirely a matter of public record. Obviously that acts in practice as a disincentive to any tendency to misuse the power of direction.

The Opposition believes the South Australian formula is a sensible and appropriate one, and one which best embodies the combination of the basic principles of accountability on the one hand and on the other hand the requirement that there be appropriate checks and balances ensuring that that accountability principle is not abused in practice. It is for those reasons that the Opposition moves the amendment in the terms in which it has been circulated and I hope that the Government will appreciate the force of the Opposition view on this and accept the amendment accordingly.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– This is the second area where there is a substantial difference of viewpoint between the Government and the Opposition with respect to the shape of this Bill. In this area of the relationship between the Minister and the Commissioner, the Government has accepted the recommendation of Sir Robert Mark that administratively a police force should be seen to be accountable to government, and operationally it should be seen to be as free as possible from political influence. It is provided in the Bill that the Commissioner should be operationally independent and administratively accountable to the Minister and the elected Government. Because of that difference of approach, the Government does not accept the amendment put forward by the Opposition. Clause 13(1) provides: the Commissioner has the general administration of and control of the operations to the Australian Federal Police.

Sub-section (2) provides:

The Minister may, after obtaining and considering the advice of the Commissioner and of the Secretary, give written directions to the Commissioner with respect to the general policy to be pursued in relation to the performance of the functions of the Australian Federal Police.

As I said in the second reading debate last night, in my view, that difference accords with the general public view in Australia as to how the police force should operate; namely, that the police should be responsible for the actual operation of the force and that the Government should simply determine the policy and not get involved in particular cases.

A number of other matters were raised, not in Committee, but in the second reading debate. Senator Messner addressed himself to matters that were dealt with in the House of Representatives also, and in particular, the question of the privacy of individuals. The Minister representing the Attorney-General in the other place clarified the position in respect of privacy of individuals by informing the House of Representatives that he proposed to give written direction on general policy relating to dissemination of information which will protect the privacy of individuals, and that he would table that direction. He said further that the direction would be revised in the light of Government consideration of the Law Reform Commission report on privacy. In my view, the Minister’s statement is helpful in alleviating at least some of the concern which has been expressed about this clause. The amendment generally is opposed by the Government.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (General Orders and General Instructions).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

I have moved this amendment for the impeccable reasons which I advanced in respect of proposed amendments to clauses 6, 7 and 10.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I formally oppose this amendment for the reasons which carried much more persuasive sway a little earlier.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 15 and 16- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 17 (Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-by leave -I move:

In moving these amendments, might I note that the arguments applicable to these amendments are equally applicable to the amendments proposed to clauses 22 and 25, which appear as amendments ( 1 1 ), ( 1 2 ), ( 1 3 ) and ( 1 4).

What the Opposition seeks to do with respect to these various provisions, which relate to the appointment and dismissal of the Commissioner and other officers, is to change all the references to ‘Governor-General’ which appear in the clause to ‘Governor-General in Council’. The reason why we want to do that is to make it absolutely clear that this clause does not refer to any personal discretion vested in the GovernorGeneral, but rather of an essentially political decision which is made in accordance with the advice rendered to the Governor-General by his elected Ministers.

This matter was the subject of some discussion and some comment by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) in the course of the second reading debate last night. The Opposition is of course aware of section 16A of the Acts Interpretation Act which reads in relevant part:

Where, in an Act, the Governor-General is referred to, the reference shall, unless the contrary intention appears … be read as referring to the GovernorGeneral, . . . acting with the advice of the Executive Council.

We still, however, press the amendment. We do so not just because of any lingering sensitivity we might have- which obviously we do- arising out of the events of 1975 in respect of all matters connected with the Governor-General. It is because we believe that there are some quite genuine grounds for concern about the effects of the possible interpretation of these references in the police Bill to the Governor-General rather than the Governor-General in Council. There is quite a long line of common law cases, the best known of which in Australia is the case of Enever v. R in 1 905 in which the courts enunciated the principle that constables or police officers- peace officers as common law terminology tends to have it- are not public servants in the ordinary way, but exercise an independent authority which is derived from the very nature of their office. A variety of things flows from that common law characterisation, including the question of vicarious liability which we will come to later in this debate.

A number of statutory inroads have been made in the common law doctrine but the situation is that unless the statutory provision in question is unequivocally clear, the common law characterisation prevails; that is, police officers are regarded as independent and not servants of the Crown or the government of the day in the ordinary way. It does not take much in the nature of a further extension of that common law reasoning to find oneself confronted with the kind of claim that was asserted by Commissioner Salisbury in South Australia that his allegiance as a commissioner was owed not to the government of the day as his employer, but owed directly to the Crown. He asserted that that allegiance was not in any sense qualified by any loyalty or subjection to the direction of the elected government of the day. Although this notion of Commissioner Salisbury was, of course, promptly and effectively quashed by Justice Roma Mitchell in her royal commission report on the Salisbury dismissal, it is apparent that it is a view-I put it, respectfully, in this way- that has some considerable currency in conservative establishments around Australia. The Opposition just makes the point that it is not beyond the realm of possiblity that a court comprised of judges, who might be taken by some people to be by and large fairly well locked into their conservative establishments, might be confronted with having to resolve this particular question. Such a court might take the view that the references to ‘Governor-General’ in this Act should be looked at in the context of a police Bill creating a police force with all the common law baggage that is carried with it. The Opposition thus makes the point that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a court might construe this as being one of those situations where in fact the Bill does reveal a contrary intention, that this is one of those situations where the Acts Interpretation Act does not apply and that the reference to the Governor-General should be read literally to refer to the the Governor-General exercising a personal discretion. The Opposition simply wants to put the matter beyond doubt. As we understand it, the Government seems not to disagree with us about what the section ought to mean.

I take it that as far as the Government is concerned there is no resiling from the notion that this section is to be read as a reference to the Governor-General in Council. I notice that the Minister is nodding his head so I take it that there is that degree of agreement between us. I seek now to invite the Minister to demonstrate some of that grace and charm, for which he is justly well known and to accept the Opposition’s amendment accordingly.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I had no doubt about the sincerity of Senator Evans’s arguments until his last sentence. Having been assured in an earlier statement by Senator Evans that nothing he was putting forward was a Labor Party plot- a thought which had not crossed my mind- the rather flowery compliment has left me with very considerable doubts about everything he has put forward. However, he is correct in saying that this is not an area where the Government and the Opposition are saying that the effect should be different. The Government takes the view that the reference to the GovernorGeneral in these clauses is to the GovernorGeneral acting with the advice of the Executive Council, in accordance with section 16A of the Acts Interpretation Act, which was quoted by Senator Evans. I must say that until I heard that argument I had never thought of Senator Evans as a belt and braces man. It seems to me that not only is he seeking here both a belt and a set of braces, he is also trying to sew his trousers to his shirt. The Government simply does not believe that these amendments are necessary and for that reason opposes them.

Amendments negatived.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

The terminology of the proposed amendment to clause 17 of the Bill is self-explanatory. There is no mechanism in this Bill whereby a Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner may resign his office. The Opposition regards that as an omission. We take the view that this provision should be inserted in the Bill.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The Government does not read this clause in the same way as does the Opposition. The Government regards this amendment as placing a limitation on the freedom of the Commissioner to resign. We believe that the clause as it stands, that is, without the provision, permits a Commissioner to resign without the limitation that the Opposition is seeking which would restrict the effectiveness of his resignation to one that is accepted by the Minister.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 18 to 21- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Clause 22 (Termination of Appointment).

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) whether he can give any reason as to why the word ‘suspension’ does not appear. Also, why is there no right of appeal? Clause 22 states: (I.) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner by reason of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.

I question why there is no opportunity for temporary suspension and I also ask why the Commissioner does not have any right of appeal with regard to his dismissal. I mention this to the Minister because there was criticism and concern expressed in South Australia over the Salisbury affair, as it was called. Police Commissioner Salisbury was dismissed by the State Government. Many people argued then that there should have been the opportunity for suspension and, more particularly, that the Commissioner should have had the right of appeal before he was dismissed. Can the Minister give reasons why this is not in the proposed legislation?

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– My understanding is that this is a fairly standard provision for this level of appointment. In fact, if one did not have this provision the Commissioner would be dismissable at pleasure. The Bill provides that he can be dismissed only for specified grounds, which are misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. There are then prohibitions about him engaging in paid employment outside the duties of his office and so on. It is a provision which essentially restricts rather than enlarges the Government’s ability to take action against the Commissioner.

Senator Young:

– There is no need for any right of appeal?

Senator CHANEY:

– I understand there is no precedent for right of appeal in these sorts of circumstances. The Government does not believe it should be inserted.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

This matter has already been canvassed. I do not argue further for these amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 25 (Commissioned Officers).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– by leave -I move:

I do so for the same reasons as I have previously expressed.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

These amendments are opposed for the same reasons.

Amendments negatived.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

I do so for the reasons already stated.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Again, the reasons for opposing those amendments have already been stated.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26 (Non-commissioned officers).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27 (Special members).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I have stated already the reasons for these amendments. I move:

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (Undertakings and oaths or affirmations).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 31- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 32 (Minister to obtain advice).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

Clause 32 in its present form provides that the Minister shall not make a determination except after obtaining the views of the Public Service Board, the Secretary to the Department of Industrial Relations and the Secretary to the Department administered by the Minister. It is conceded that those bodies which are referred to in the clause as it stands have some relevance to the making of a determination. Perhaps in the case of the Department of Industrial Relations it may be of only marginal relevance. It is considered by the Opposition that the more relevant persons concerned are the Commissioner himself and the secretaries of those associations representing the members whose terms or conditions are to be affected by the determination or agreement, namely, such a body as the Commonwealth Police Officers Association, as it now is. The reasons are simply stated in that this is a clause which deals with essentially an industrial relations matter. The making of a determination is a matter which, it would be hoped, would be arrived at by conciliation between the parties. To go ahead with this clause ignoring the association of the people directly concerned and ignoring the Commissioner who is also directly concerned is, in our view, an error. It is an error which characterises, if I may say so, the somewhat spastic activities of this Government in relation to industrial relations. We feel that it would be appropriate to include that provision in order that the most appropriate bodies and relevant persons are recognised for the purpose of this clause.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The Government does not accept this amendment. Clause 32 is intended only to specify the coordinating regulatory agencies of government which are involved in determining the government employment position for negotiation with the police associations and for arbitration proceedings. I hasten to add that, as Senator Button surmised, it is envisaged that the usual process of negotiation of agreements will proceed. The associations will be intimately involved in that process. The associations do not fit into this provision, which is meant to indicate which agencies of government are involved in determining the Government ‘s position.

There is no way, of course, that the role of the associations could be removed by their not being mentioned in this clause. The appeal provisions ensure that if the Government proceeded in a unilateral manner there would be a recourse and that obviously would not be a sensible way for the Government to proceed. In practice, what Senator Button referred to will occur. It is not necessary to amend this clause to achieve it. The Commissioner is always free and able to advise on any matter affecting the police. In the light of this amendment we sought advice from the Commonwealth Police Officers Association. Its advice was that it was better not to have the Commissioner sharing statutory responsibility for the pay of the members of the police so as not to affect his major responsibility for command and discipline of them.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I think that the point that the Minister made in relation to government agencies is a new point not in terms of this legislation but in terms of legislation of the Parliament generally. I do not dissent from it in any way.I understand what the Minister is saying. It probably is desirable to have a degree of consistency about that in legislation of this kind.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 33 to 35- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 36 (Selection of members for promotion).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Clause 36 is a very lengthy provision. In view of the time available I do not wish to read it to the Minister for his enlightenment. It provides a promotion system. The Opposition, in some ways, regards the lack of an appeals system as a serious omission from the Bill. The 1 975 legislation provided specifically for a member of the force to appeal to a promotions appeals board ifhe felt that he should have been promoted in preference to another member. This is fairly usual practice in Public Service legislation. It is considered that the right of appeal against promotions is basic to anybody working in any area of the Public Service. The present Bill provides only the criteria to be considered in promotion. Those criteria are contained in clauses 36 and 40 (c). They enable the Government to do virtually what it likes, one suspects, in relation to promotion appeals by making regulations.

It is our understanding that the Commonwealth Police Officers Association is concerned about this matter having, I think, been used to a promotion appeals system. It is for those reasons that we will move an amendment to replace clause 36 in order to provide a system of promotion appeals. If I may refer to clause 43, there is little understanding- or undertaking- so far as we know, about what regulations could be made and whether there would be prior consultation with the Commonwealth Police Officers Association under the provisions of that clause before regulations were made. I move:

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The Government opposes the amendment. The appeal provisions are provided under clause 40 and I will be speaking perhaps at slightly greater length to that clause, lt is the object of this legislation not to vary the appeal rights which at present exist for the Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Capital Territory Police Force. I will explain that further under clause 40.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Proposed new clause 36A (Establishment of Promotions Appeal Boards).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

Proposed clause 36A provides for the establishment of the Promotions Appeal Board. I rely essentially on the comments which I made to the previously proposed amendment to clause 36.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I also rely on the comments which I made to the previously proposed amendment to clause 36.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 37 (Resignation).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-by leave- I move:

These amendments are consequential upon discussions we have already had.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 38 (Retirement).

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

That amendment is again consequential upon previous discussions.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39 (Retrenchment).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-by leave -I move:

These amendments arise consequentially out of the two component force arrangement. The arguments have been canvassed.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40 (Regulations may be provided for certain other terms and conditions).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-by leave -I move:

The first proposed amendment seeks to omit paragraph (c) and is a consequential matter relating to the issue of promotion appeals which has been canvassed and need not be further explained.

The second proposed amendment deals with the question of retirement. It is a proposal to add in line 14 the word ‘voluntary’, to make it clear that in this clause which deals with the regulation making power, the Government is empowered to legislate not as is presently provided simply for the early retirement from the Australian Federal Police of members who have attained the age of 55 years, but rather to ensure that the power of the Government is confined to making regulations with respect to the voluntary early retirement from the police force of members 55 years of age and above. The Opposition is particularly anxious to ensure that there does not sneak in here, through the aegis simply of the regulationmaking power, something akin to the Commonwealth employees legislation which we have recently debated in this Parliament, but which is not, of course, legislation dealing only with the subject of voluntary retirement. It deals very specifically with compulsory, or, as the euphemism has it, ‘management initiated retirement’.

It may or may not be the intention of the Government to have this provision applicable only to voluntary retirement situations. It is the belief of the Opposition that the regulation power, however, is wide enough to encompass situations of involuntary retirement. If that is what the Government has in mind, or what this provision is capable of achieving, we believe that the Government ought to come out and say so explicitly, and not just do it by the back door, which can be done under this regulation as it is now put together. So for that reason and in order, we hope, to clarify the matter and to confine the scope of this clause, we argue for the insertion of the word ‘voluntary’ in paragraph (d) of clause 40.

The third matter dealt with in respect of clause 40 is the omission of paragraph (f), which provides for a power to make regulations in respect of disciplinary offences and disciplinary procedures. The reason for our seeking omission of paragraph (f) is simply that we provide for it in a much more elaborate and, we would argue, an effective and satisfactory way in amendments which are to be moved later in the context of complaints against police. It is for those reasons that I have moved the three amendments relating to this clause.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Clause 40 deals generally with the question of regulations which may make provision for various things. It also covers appeals. My advice is and the Government’s view is that as the Bill is not creating or extending new police powers, it preserves the status quo of the present two police forces in this matter, and that is the way it should be. In other words, there is no proposition in this Bill to change the appelate rights of policemen as they exist at present. As far as promotions are concerned, the question of appeals will be dealt with by regulation, including the establishment of a promotions appeal board as provided for in paragraph (c) of this clause. These regulations are, of course, subject to review and disallowance by this chamber.

In the area of discipline, the appeal provisions will be in regulations, including the establishment of a Disciplinary Board provided for in paragraph (f). That provision is the same as that laid down in respect of the present two forces. All the appeals in respect of transfer, retirement and retrenchment are provided for in clauses 38 and 39. The provisions in the Bill are the same as those in respect of the present two forces, and it is not proposed by the Government that that situation should be changed. With respect of those areas, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr McLeay) advised the House of Representatives that the Government will give serious consideration to the possibility of the provision of an appeal to an appropriate tribunal, not necessarily the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 41 to 43- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 44 (Continuation of hearing of matters).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-I move:

This is a small but important amendment. There is a reference in clause 44 to the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal having a discretion to have regard to the evidence given in earlier matters. We argue, for reasons that should be apparent on the very face of the amendment, that that discretion should not exist and that the word ‘may’ should be replaced by the word ‘shall ‘.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The Parliamentary Counsel advises me that the word shall’ was changed to ‘may’ in this clause so as to give a new judge of the Tribunal a discretion to take new evidence and argument as well as the existing evidence and argument before the judge who is unable to continue because of, say, ill health. The Government regards the section in its present form as an improvement on the provisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act on which it is modelled.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 (Determinations by Tribunals). Senator EVANS (Victoria) (2.42)-I move:

The first amendment relates to questions concerning rights of appeal. The Opposition believes that not only an association as here provided should have rights of appeal, but also a member aggrieved by a decision under clause 38 or clause 39. That is a reference to persons caught up by the retirement and the retrenchment provisions of the Bill.

The second amendment relating to clause 46 is one that is consequential upon amendments which have been moved previously. It relates to the identification of the Governor-General as distinct from the Governor-General in Council. In the amendment to clause 46 (3) (a) it is also sought to remove t’ie reference to the Commissioner. The clause would then make it possible for in fact appeals to be heard by the proposed Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal in respect of transfers which have been made by the Commissioner.

The third matter in clause 46- again a very important one, not in terms of the length of the language but in terms of the effect it would have- is the amendment to clause 46 (3) (b). This amendment would have the effect of giving appeal rights to the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of retirements and dismissals, which is not presently the case. I think the reason why there should be appeal rights in these areas has been sufficiently canvassed in earlier debate.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– In my comments to clause 40 I canvassed the points which have been raised in respect of this clause. The amendment numbered 46 is not acceptable. It proposes that there should be appeals to the Tribunal in respect of decisions made under clauses 38 and 39. The right of appeal exists already in the same form in the present legislation governing the police force. If there were a wrongful retirement or dismissal under clauses 38 and 39, a member could test it out in ordinary court. The Government will, as I have previously indicated, give serious consideration to the possibility of the provision of an appeal to an appropriate tribunal, not necessarily the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal, to which clause 46 refers. The principles relating to the amendment numbered 47 have been dealt with earlier in argument. The Government opposes the proposed amendment to clause 48. It has not agreed to the previous amendment seeking appeal to the Federal Police Arbitral Tribunal under clauses 38 and 39. It is therefore necessary for the words that the amendment proposes to leave out to remain.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 47 to 55- by leave- taken together.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-by leave -I move:

Each of these amendments incorporate various changes to the arbitration procedure to embody the substance of procedures suggested previously by the Opposition in respect of other members of the force. The object of these amendments is to make it possible clearly in a way that is not possible perhaps at the moment for an employee of the association in question to have representative rights before the Arbitrary Tribunal. At the moment the legislation is expressed simply as the right of a member or an officer of an association of employees. There is a situation which could arise whereby an advocate of such an association does not formally have either status but is rather an employee of the association. We have moved these amendments to cover that situation.

Amendments negatived.

Clauses agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 80- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new Part VIII.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-I move:

  1. After clause 80, page 27, add the following new Part (comprising clauses 81 to 146):

“PART VIII-COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE

Division1- Preliminary “81. (1) In this Part unless the contrary intention appears- breach of discipline’ includes a disciplinary offence under the regulations;

Commissioner’ means the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office of Commissioner of Police under the Public Service Act 1 922

Commonwealth Police Force’ means the Commonwealth Police Force established by section 4;

Deputy Ombudsman’ means a Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman;

Deputy President’ means a Deputy President of the Police Tribunal;

Internal Discipline Section’ or ‘Section’ means the Internal Discipline Section established by section 85; law’ means a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; legal practitioner’ means a barrister or solicitor of the High Court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory: offence’ means an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory;

Ombudsman’ means the Commonwealth Ombudsman;

Police Force’ means the Australian Federal Police: police officer’ means-

  1. the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner:
  2. a member of the Australian Federal Police referred to in paragraph 6 (c); and
  3. a special member of the Australian Federal Police appointed under section 27;

President’ means the President of the Tribunal;

Registrar’ means the Registrar of the Tribunal; and

Tribunal’ means the Police Tribunal established by Division IV. “82. For the purposes of this Part a reference to action taken by a police officer is a reference to action that the police officer has taken, or purports to have taken-

  1. by virtue of his being a police officer, whether the taking of the action was within, or was incidental to the performance of, his duties as a police officer;
  2. b) in the exercise of powers, or the performance of functions, conferred on him by this Act or by some other law; or
  3. in the capacity of a constable, under whatever authority he was appointed as such.

“DIVISION II-COMPLAINTS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

“Sub-Division 1- Interpretation “83. (1) In this Division, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to action taken includes a reference to-

  1. a decision or recommendation made; and
  2. a failure or refusal to take action or to make a decision or recommendation. “(2) For the purposes of this Division, a person shall be taken to have complained to a police officer concerning action taken by that police officer or by another police officer if the person, in a document delivered to, or in a statement made orally to, the first-mentioned police officer, whether expressly or by implication, seeks, or seeks assistance in obtaining, redress (including action by way of punishing a police officer for an offence or a breach of discipline) in respect of that action taken by the police officer. “(3) For the purposes of this Division, where the Ombudsman or the Tribunal has referred a matter to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section, that matter shall, upon being referred by the Commissioner to the Section, be taken to have been so referred at the request of the Ombudsman or of the Tribunal, respectively. “84. ( 1 ) Where a person complains to a police officer concerning action taken by that police officer, or by another police officer, this Division applies to and in relation to the complaint, whether-
  3. ) the complaint is made orally or in writing;
  4. the police officer whose action is complained of is identified in the complaint; or
  5. the identity of the complainant is known by, or disclosed to, the police officer to whom the complaint is made. “(2) This Division does not apply to or in relation to a complaint made to a police officer concerning action taken in relation to the terms or conditions of employment of police officers generally or to the employment of a particular police officer. “(3) The provisions of this Division, in so far as they confer rights on persons with respect to action taken by a police officer-
  6. are in addition to the provisions of, and do not affect the operation of, any other law, in respect of that action; and
  7. in particular, do not prevent or affect the taking of legal proceedings in respect of that action under some other law or the operation of any other law in respect of that action. “Sub-Division 2- The Internal Discipline Section “85. ( 1 ) There shall be a Section of the Police Force to be known as the Internal Discipline Section. “(2) The Commissioner shall create such number of positions (not being less than 2) in the Section as are necessary for the effective performance by the Section of the functions referred to in this Sub-Division and may abolish a position so created that is no longer necessary but so that the number of positions remaining after the position has been abolished is not less than 2. “(3) The number of positions shall not be taken to be less than 2 in consequence of the abolition of a position if another position is immediately created in its place. “(4) The Commissioner shall determine the rank to be held by a police officer occupying a position in the Section. “(5) The Commissioner shall not exercise the powers conferred on him by sub-sections (2) and (4) otherwise than with the concurrence of the Public Service Board or of a person authorised by the Board to act under this sub-section. “(6) The Commissioner shall, from time to time as occasion requires, designate a police officer who occupies a position in the Section to be the officer in charge of the Section. “86. ( 1 ) The functions of the Internal Discipline Section arc-
  8. to investigate matters concerning action taken by a police officer that are referred to it by the Commissioner, including matters referred to it by the Commissioner at the request of the Ombudsman or of the Tribunal;
  9. to investigate complaints concerning action taken by a police officer that are referred to it under section 89;
  10. to report to the Commissioner with respect to investigations carried out by it; and
  11. such other functions as are conferred on it by or under this or another Act. “(2) Where a member of the Section is able to do so without unduly interfering with the performance of the functions conferred on the Section by sub-section (1), the member shall perform such duties as a police officer as the Commissioner determines, but not including the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed by persons other than police officers. “87. (1) The Commissioner shall, in selecting a police officer for transfer or promotion to a vacant position in the Internal Discipline Section or to a position in the Section that is expected to become vacant, take into account, in addition to any other matters that he considers to be relevant-
  12. a ) the nature of the functions of the Section; and
  13. the need to ensure that, at all times, the membership of the Section includes a police officer with experience of criminal investigations and a police officer with experience of the general duties of police officers in uniform. “(2) In an appeal against the promotion or transfer of a police officer to a vacant position, or to a position that is expected to become vacant, in the Section, there shall be taken into account, in addition to other relevant matters, the matters referred to in paragraphs ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( 1 ) ( b ). “88. ( 1 ) Where the Commissioner transfers or promotes a police officer from a position that is not in the Internal Discipline Section to a position that is in the Section, the Commissioner shall, by instrument under his hand, determine the period during which the police officer is to continue to be a member of the Section. “(2) Where the Commissioner is of the opinion that there are special reasons for doing so, he may vary an instrument under sub-section ( I ) relating to a police officer by substituting another period for the period specified in the instrument. “(3) Where a police officer has held a position in the Section for the period specified in the instrument under subsection ( 1 ) that relates to him, or has held 2 or more positions in the Section for periods that are continuous with each other and aggregate the period so specified, the Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable, transfer or promote the officer to a position that is not in the Section. “(4) An instrument that has been varied in accordance with sub-section (2 ) may be again varied as provided by that sub-section. “(5) In sub-section (3), a reference to an instrument under sub-section ( 1 ) includes a reference to an instrument under sub-section ( 1 ) that has been varied under sub-section (2) or (4). “(6) The Commissioner shall so exercise his powers under this section as to ensure, so far as is practicable that a member of the Section will continue to serve as such a member for a period not exceeding 3 years unless, in the opinion of the Commissioner, special circumstances exist that make it desirable that the person serve for a longer period. “89. ( 1 ) Where a person complains to a police officer concerning action taken by that police officer or by another police officer, the police officer to whom the complaint is made shall refer the complaint to the Internal Discipline Section for investigation. “(2) The police officer shall so refer the complaint by the most expeditious means available to him and, where he refers the complaint orally, shall, as soon as practicable, furnish particulars of the complaint, in writing, to the Section. “(3) As soon as practicable after particulars in writing of a complaint have been received, the Section shall notify the Commissioner of the complaint and furnish to him a copy of the particulars. “(4) As soon as practicable after the Commissioner has been notified the Commissioner shall notify the Ombudsman of the complaint and furnish to him a copy of the particulars. “(5) A police officer to whom a complaint is made may, if he considers it necessary to do so, take reasonable action to prevent-
  14. injury to persons or damage to property;
  15. b ) the escape of a person liable to arrest; or
  16. the loss, destruction or fabrication of evidence relating to the complaint or an offence, but not so as to contravene, or fail to comply with, a law. “(6) A police officer who takes action in accordance with sub-section ( 5 ) in connection with a complaint-
  17. shall, notwithstanding that he takes the action, comply with sub-section ( 1 ) in respect of the complaint; and
  18. shall furnish to the Section, as soon as practicable, particulars in writing, of the action that he has taken. “(7) This section does not apply to a complaint made by a person who is known to the police officer to whom the complaint is made to be, or discloses to that police officer that he is, another police officer. “90. ( 1 ) Where a complaint or matter is referred to the International Discipline Section for investigation, whether under this Part or under some other Part, the officer in charge of the Section shall cause the complaint or matter to be investigated by a member of the Section and a report concerning the investigation to be prepared. “(2) The investigation shall be conducted, subject to this Part, in such manner as the officer in charge of the Section thinks fit. “(3 ) Subject to this Part, a member of the Section may, for the purposes of the investigation, obtain information from such persons, and make such inquiries, as he think fit. “(4) A member of the Section may, for the purposes of the investigation-
  19. enter premises occupied by the Police Force and carry on the investigation at those premises;
  20. inspect any documents or records kept at premises occupied by the Police Force and take extracts from, or a copy of, such a document or record; and
  21. examine any property used by the Police Force. “(5) A member of the Section may, for the purposes of the investigation-
  22. direct a police officer to furnish information, answer a question or produce a document or other record, being information, a question, a document or a record that is relevant to the investigation;
  23. b ) may make a record, by means of sound recording apparatus or otherwise, of any information furnished, or answer given, in compliance with the direction; and
  24. may take extracts from, or a copy of, a document or record produced in compliance with the direction. “(6) A police officer is not excused from complying with a direction under sub-section (5) on the ground that compliance with the direction would be contrary to the public interest or might tend to incriminate him or make him liable to a penalty, or any other ground, but information so furnished by him, or his answer to such a question, is not admissible in evidence against him in any civil or criminal proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against sub-section (7) or for a breach of discipline. “(7) A police officer shall not furnish information or make a statement to a member of the Internal Discipline Section knowing that it is false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(8) Sub-sections (2) and (3) do not authorize a police officer to contravene or fail to comply with a law that would, if those sub-sections had not been enacted, apply in relation to the investigation of a complaint or other matter referred to the Section but nothing in this sub-section affects the operation of any other provision of this section. “91. (1) The officer in charge of the Internal Discipline Section may-

  1. if he is of the opinion that the whole or a pan of the investigation of a complaint should be carried out by a person possessing special qualifications and if the Commissioner so approves, authorize a police officer who is not a member of the Section, or some other person who is not a police officer, being a police officer or person who possesses those qualifications, to make that investigation, or that part of the investigation, on behalf of the Section; or
  2. if he is of the opinion that the complaint is not such as to require investigation by a member of the Section and if the Commissioner so approves, authorize a police officer who is not a member of the Section to make the investigation on behalf of the Section. “(2) Where the officer in charge of the Section gives such an authority, references in section 90 to a member of the Section shall, in the application of those sub-sections in relation to the investigation or part of the investigation, be read as references to the police officer or other person authorized. “92. ( 1 ) At any time before the Internal Discipline Section has furnished to the Commissioner a report of the results of its investigation of a complaint that has been referred to it under section 89 or by the Commissioner at the request of the Ombudsman, the Commissioner shall, if the Ombudsman so requests, direct the officer in charge of the Section to furnish to him, in writing, a report of the progress of the investigation of the complaint. “(2) The Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after receipt of the report, furnish a copy of the report to the Ombudsman. “(3) This section applies in relation to a police officer or other person authorized under sub-section 91(1) as it applies to the Section. “93. (1) When the Internal Discipline Section has completed its investigation of a complaint or other matter referred to it under this Act, the officer in charge of the Section shall cause a report, in writing, of the result of the investigation to be furnished to the Commissioner. “(2) The Commissioner shall, as soon as practicable after the report is furnished to him-
  3. if the investigation relates to a complaint that was referred to the Section under section 89 or by the Commissioner at the request of the Ombudsman- furnish to the Ombudsman a copy of the report; or
  4. if the investigation relates to a matter referred to the Section by the Commissioner at the request of the Tribunal- furnish to the Registrar a copy of the report. together with any comments relating to the report that he wishes to make. “(3) Where a report of the results of an investigation into a complaint that was referred to the Section under section 89 is furnished to the Commissioner under sub-section ( 1 ), the Commissioner shall advise the complainant of the result of the investigation and shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, furnish a report of the investigation to the complainant at the same time as he complies with paragraph (2) (a) in respect of the investigation. “94. ( 1 ) Where the Commissioner receives a report of the results of an investigation of a complaint by the Internal Discipline Section, the Commissioner shall consider the report and if, as a result of his consideration, he is of the opinion that a police officer may have committed an offence or a breach of discipline and that, in the circumstances, he would be justified in doing so, he shall cause the police officer to be charged with that offence or breach of discipline or with some other offence or breach of discipline the Commissioner considers to be appropriate. “(2) Without limiting the application of sub-section ( 1 ), where the Ombudsman brings information to the notice of the Commissioner in accordance with section 103 the Commissioner shall-
  5. if the Ombudsman recommends that a police officer be charged with an offence or a breach of disciplinecause the police officer to be charged with that offence or breach of discipline or with some other offence or breach of discipline that the Commissioner considers to be appropriate; or
  6. if the Ombudsman does not so recommendconsiders the information and all other relevant circumstances and, if he considers that he would be justified in doing so, cause the police officer concerned to be charged with an offence or breach of discipline that the Commissioner considers to be appropriate. “(3) This section does not prevent a police officer from being charged with an offence or breach of discipline otherwise than in accordance with this section but a police officer shall not be charged with the same offence or breach of discipline-
  7. both in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) and in accordance with sub-section (2 ); or
  8. both in accordance with this section and otherwise than in accordance with this section. “(4) Where the Commissioner, after considering in accordance with paragraph (2) (b) information that has been brought to his notice by the Ombudsman, decides that a police officer should not be charged with an offence or breach of discipline, the Commissioner shall furnish to the Ombudsman, in writing, his reasons for so deciding. “(5) Where a police officer is charged with an offence or with a breach of discipline in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) or (2), the Commissioner shall notify the Ombudsman, in writing, that the police officer has been so charged and furnish to the Ombudsman any comments that he wishes to make in relation to the charge. “(6) Where a police officer is charged with an offence or breach of discipline as a result of the investigation of a complaint referred to the Section under section 89, the Commissioner shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, at the same time as he complies with sub-section (S), notify the complainant, in writing, that the police officer has been so charged and furnish to the complainant any comments he wishes to make in relation to the charge. “(7) Where a police officer is charged with an offence or breach of discipline as the result of an investigation of a matter referred to the Section at the request of the Tribunal, the Commissioner shall notify the Registrar that the police officer has been so charged and furnish to the Registrar any comments that he wishes to make in relation to the charge. “95.(1) The officer in charge of the Internal Discipline Section shall maintain a register containing the prescribed particulars with respect to each complaint or other matter that is referred to the Section for investigation. “(2) The Minister shall include in each annual report prepared by him in accordance with section 145 the prescribed particulars with respect to complaints and other matters so referred, during the year to which the report relates. “96.(1) Subject to this section, a person who is, or has been, a member of the Internal Discipline Section shall not, either directly or indirectly, and either while he is, or after he has ceased to be, such a member, except in the performance of his duty as such a member or with the consent, in writing, of the Minister, make a record of, or divulge or communicate to a person, information acquired by him in the course of, or for the purposes of, an investigation of a complaint or other matter referred to the Section for investigation.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) Where a person who has been authorized under paragraph 91 ( 1 ) (a) to make an investigation on behalf of the Section acquires information in the course of, or for the purposes of, that investigation, sub-section ( I ) applies to him in relation to that information as if he had been a member of the Section when he acquired the information. “(3) Subject to sub-section (6), a person who is, or has been, a police officer shall not, either directly or indirectly and either while he is, or after he has ceased to be, a police officer-

  1. divulge or communicate to a person the fact that, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the investigation of a complaint or matter by the Section-

    1. he made a statement to, gave information to or answered a question by a member of the Section; or
    2. made a document or record available by a member of the Section; or

  2. make a record of, or divulge or communicate to a person-

    1. information that he gave to a member of the Section in the course of or for the purposes of the investigation of a complaint or matter by the Section; or
    2. the contents of a document or record that he made available to the Section for the purposes of such an investigation, except with the consent, in writing, of the Minister or in connection with proceedings (including proceedings in respect of a breach of discipline) against a person (including himself).

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ ( 4 ) Sub-section ( I ) or ( 3 ) does not-

  1. prevent a person who is, or has been, a member of the Section from disclosing, in a report made under this Division, such matters as, in his opinion, ought to be disclosed in the course of setting out the grounds for the conclusions contained in the report; or
  2. prevent a person who is, or has been, such a member or a police officer from producing a record referred to in sub-section ( I ) to, or giving information so referred to in evidence before, a court, the Tribunal, or a person who is authorized to hear and determine a charge in respect of a breach of discipline. “(5) The references in sub-section (3) to a member of the Section include references to a police officer or person authorized under section 91 and the reference in that sub-section to an investigation include a reference to an investigation made by such a person under that section on behalf of the Section. “(6) Sub-section (1) or (3) does not prevent a police officer from making a communication for the purposes of, or in connection with, the making of a complaint to the Ombudsman or to the Commissioner in respect of action taken by a police officer in the course of, or for the purposes of, an investigation by a member of the Section or by a police officer or person authorized under section 91 to make an investigation on behalf of the Section. “(7) This section does not affect the operation of section 9 of the Ombudsman Act 1 976 in relation to a police officer.

“DIVISION III-INVESTIGATIONS BY THE OMBUDSMAN OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS

“97. ( 1 ) This Division shall be incorporated and read as one with the Ombudsman Act 1976. “(2) Subject to this Division a reference to the Ombudsman Act 1976 in a provision of that Act that is specified in Schedule 2 shall be read without taking into account the effect of sub-section ( 1 ). “(3) Section 11 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 does not apply to a complaint under this Division. “98.(1) In this Division, unless the contrary intention appears, ‘complaint’ means a complaint that has been notified to the Ombudsman under section 89 or made to the Ombudsman under section 100. “(2) Sub-sections 83 ( I ) and 83 (2) apply in relation to this Division as they apply in relation to Division II. “99. ( 1 ) Where the Ombudsman becomes of the opinion, either while he is investigating, or upon completing his investigation of, a complaint that appears to him to be a complaint in respect of action taken by the Police Force, that it would be more appropriate to deal with the complaint under this Part as if it were a complaint in respect of action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman may determine that this Division applies, and shall be deemed always to have applied, to that complaint and, upon the making of the determination, Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1976 does not apply, and shall be deemed never to have applied, to that complaint. “(2) Where the Ombudsman becomes of the the opinion, either while he is investigating, or upon completing his investigation of, a complaint that appears to him to be a complaint concerning action taken by a police officer, that it would be more appropriate to deal with the complaint under Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1 976 as if it were a complaint in respect of action taken by the Police Force, the Ombudsman may determine that that Part applies, and shall be deemed always to have applied, to the complaint, and, upon the making of the determination, this Division does not apply, and shall be deemed never to have applied, to that complaint. “(3) Where a determination is made under sub-section ( 1 ) or (2) in respect of a complaint, any action taken by the Ombudsman in relation to the complaint before the making of the determination shall be deemed to have been taken under this Division or under Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1 976, respectively. “(4) In this Division a reference to a complaint includes a reference to a complaint determined by the Ombudsman under sub-section ( 1 ) to be a complaint to which this Division applies and does not include a reference to a complaint determined by the Ombudsman under sub-section (2) to be a complaint to which Part II of the Ombudsman Act 1976 applies. “ 100. ( I ) A person (including a police officer) may complain to the Ombudsman concerning action taken by a police officer, whether before or after the commencement of this section, not being action with respect to the employment of police officers generally or to the employment of a particular police officer. “(2) Sub-section ( 1 ) applies whether-

  1. the identity of the police officer is known by, or disclosed to, the Ombudsman; or
  2. the action relates to a matter of administration or to some other matter. “(3) In sub-section ( 1 )-
  3. the reference to action taken with respect to the employment of police officers generally includes a reference to action taken with respect to the promotion, termination of appointment or discipline of, or the payment of remuneration to, police officers generally; and
  4. the reference to action taken with respect to the employment of a particular police officer includes a reference to action taken with respect to the promotion of, or the payment of remuneration to, the particular police officer but does not include a reference to action taken with respect to a breach of discipline committed, or alleged to have been committed, by the particular police officer. “(4) Section 7 of the Ombudsman Aci 1976 applies to a complaint under sub-section ( I ) as if references in that section to a complaint under that Act were references to a complaint under sub-section ( 1 ). “ 101. (1 ) Where a complaint is made to the Ombudsman under section 100 with respect to action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman may, , if he considers that it would be in the public interests to do so, refer the complaint, or a matter relating to the complaint, to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section. “(2) The Ombudsman may, after considering a report of the investigation, refer the complaint, or a matter relating to the complaint, to the Commissioner for further investigation by the Section. “(3) The Ombudsman may, after considering a report of the investigation or of the further investigation-
  5. make any further investigation into the action taken by the police officer that he thinks appropriate; or
  6. treat the investigation, or the investigation and further investigation, by the Section, for the purposes of this Division, as constituting, or as constituting part of, his investigation of the action taken by the police officer or as concluding his investigation of that action. “ 102. ( 1 ) Subject to this Division, the Ombudsman-
  7. shall investigate action taken by a police officer in respect of which a complaint has been made to him under section 100; or
  8. may investigate action taken by a police officer in respect of which a complaint has been notified to him under section 89. “(2 ) The Ombudsman may, in his discretion, decide not to investigate action taken by a police officer to which a complaint relates or, if he has commenced to investigate the action, decide not to investigate the action further-
  9. if the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complainant became aware of the action more than 12 months before the complaint was made and that his declining to investigate the action, or to investigate the action further, would not cause undue hardship te the complainant;

  10. b) if the Ombudsman is satisfied that-

    1. the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith; or
    2. the complainant does not have a real concern in the subject matter of the complaint and there are no special reasons justifying the investigation, or further investigation, of the action; or
  11. if, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, the investigation, or further investigation, of the action is unnecessary having regard to all the circumstances of the case. “(3)Where-
  12. a complainant has exercised a right to cause action to which his complaint relates to be reviewed by a court or by a tribunal constituted by or under an Act; or
  13. a person has been prosecuted in relation to the complaint, the Ombudsman shall not investigate, or continue to investigate, as the case may be, the action unless the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to do so. “(4) Where the Ombudsman is of the opinion that a complainant has or had a right to cause the action to which his complaint relates to be reviewed by a court or by a tribunal constituted by or under a law but has not exercised that right, the Ombudsman shall not investigate, or continue to investigate, as the case may be, the action unless the Ombudsman is of the opinion that-
  14. ) it is in the public interest to do so; or
  15. in all the circumstances, the failure to exercise the right is not or was not unreasonable. “(5) Subject to sub-section (6), the Ombudsman shall not investigate, or continue to investigate, action to which a complaint relates while the action is being investigated, or while a matter relating to the action is being investigated, by the Internal Discipline Section. “(6)Where-
  16. the action to which a complaint relates-

  17. i) concerns a police officer who is equal or senior in rank to the officer in charge of the Section:

    1. concerns a member of the Section; or
    2. is related to other action that the Ombudsman is investigating under the Ombudsman Act 1976; or
  18. the Ombudsman is of the opinion that it is in the public interest that he should investigate the action to which a complaint relates, he may investigate the action notwithstanding that the action is being investigated by the Section. “ 103. The provisions of sub-sections 8 (2) to 8 (9) (inclusive) and sections 9, 13 and 14 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 apply to and in relation to an investigation by the Ombudsman of action taken by a police officer as if references in those provisions to that Act were references to this Division. “ 104. ( 1 ) The Ombudsman may, whether before or after completing his investigation of action to which a complaint relates, bring to the notice of the Commissioner any information acquired by him in connection with the investigation which he thinks should be brought to the notice of the Commissioner. “(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (I), where the Ombudsman becomes of the opinion, whether before or after completing an investigation referred to in that sub-section, that information acquired by him in connection with the investigation shows that a police officer may have committed an offence or a breach of discipline and that the information is, in all the circumstances, such as to justify his doing so, the Ombudsman shall bring the information to the notice of the Commissioner and may recommend to the Commissioner that the officer be charged with that offence or breach of discipline. “ 105. ( 1 ) Where the Ombudsman becomes of the opinion, whether before or after completing his investigation of action to which a complaint relates, that, having regard to all the circumstances, the complaint may properly be dealt with by attempting to reconcile the complainant and the police officer concerned, the Ombudsman may make such suggestions, and do such things, as appear to him to be appropriate for effecting a reconciliation between the complainant and the police officer. “(2) Without limiting the generality of sub-section (I), the Ombudsman may make either or both of the following suggestions:
  19. a suggestion to the complainant that he take such reasonable action specified by the Ombudsman as would, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, assist in effecting a reconciliation;
  20. a suggestion to the Commissioner that the Commissioner, or the police officer concerned, take such reasonable action specified by the Ombudsman, or that the Commissioner and the police officer concerned each take such reasonable action specified by the Ombudsman, as would, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, assist in effecting a reconciliation. “(3) Sub-section ( 1 ) does not apply to a complaint concerning action taken by a police officer if the Ombudsman is of the opinion that information acquired by him in connection with the investigation of the action shows that a police officer may have committed an offence or a breach of discipline and that the information is, in all the circumstances, sufficient to justify his bringing the information to the notice of the Commissioner. “(4) Without limiting the powers of the Ombudsman in investigating action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman may, for the purpose of attempting to reconcile a complainant and the police officer concerned-
  21. obtain from the Commissioner an explanation with respect to the policies, practices and procedures of the Police Force that the Ombudsman considers to be relevant; or
  22. request the complainant to do any or all of the following:

  23. to attend before him;

    1. to provide further information concerning the complaint; or
    2. to verify on oath or affirmation information furnished in connection with the complaint. “(5) Neither the complainant, the Commissioner nor the police officer concerned is bound to comply with a suggestion made under sub-section ( I ) or (2 ). “(6) Where, after dealing with a complaint in accordance with sub-section ( I ), the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complainant does not wish the action to which his complaint relates to be investigated further or any action, or further action, to be taken in respect of his complaint-
  24. the Ombudsman shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Division, to have effected a reconciliation between the complainant and the police officer concerned with respect to the matters to which the complaint relates;
  25. the Ombudsman shall notify the Commissioner in writing that he has effected the reconciliation:
  26. the Ombudsman is not required to investigate the action taken by the police officer further under this Division or to make any report (other than a report required under section 19 of the Ombudsman Act 1 976 ) or do any other thing under this Division in relation to his investigation of that action; and
  27. if the Internal Discipline Section is dealing with the complainant, the Section shall cease to deal with it. “ 106. ( 1 ) Where a complaint is made to the Ombudsman under section 100 concerning action taken by a police officer and the Ombudsman does not, for any reason, investigate, or complete an investigation of, the action, the Ombudsman shall inform the complainant and the Commissioner accordingly in writing and furnish to the complainant and the Commissioner particulars of his reasons for not investigating, or completing the investigation of, the action. “(2) If the Ombudsman completes his investigation of the action, he shall furnish to the complainant and to the Commissioner particulars of the results of his investigation. “(3) For the purposes of sub-section (1), where the Ombudsman refers a complaint made to him under section 100, or a matter relating to such a complaint, to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section, he shall be deemed to be investigating the action to which the complaint relates. “ 107. ( I ) Where, after the Ombudsman has completed his investigation of action taken by a police officer, the Ombudsman is of the opinion-
  28. that the police officer took action that, in all the circumstances, he should not have taken; and
  29. that the police officer did not, in taking that action, commit an offence or a breach of discipline, the Ombudsman shall report accordingly to the Commissioner and to the Minister. “(2) The Ombudsman-
  30. shall include in the report his reasons for the opinions specified in the report; and
  31. may also include in the report any recommendations he thinks fit to make. “(3) The Ombudsman may request the Commissioner to furnish to him, within a specified time, particulars of any action that the Commissioner proposes to take in consequence of the report. “(4) The Commissioner may furnish to the Ombudsman comments concerning the report. “(5) Where, within a reasonable time after the Ombudsman furnished the report to the Commissioner, action that is, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, adequate and appropriate in the circumstances has not been taken by the Commissioner in consequence of the report, the Ombudsman may inform the Prime Minister accordingly in writing and, if he does so, shall furnish to the Prime Minister a copy of the report and, if the Commissioner has furnished comments concerning the report of the Ombudsman under sub-section (4), a copy of those comments. “(6) In considering whether to furnish information in relation to the report to the Prime Minister in accordance with sub-section (5), the Ombudsman shall have regard to any comments furnished to him under sub-section (4) concerning the report. “(7) Where the Ombudsman has, in accordance with subsection (S), furnished information to the Prime Minister in relation to a report, the Ombudsman may also forward to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for presentation to the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, copies of a statement prepared by him concerning the investigation and setting out a copy of any comments furnished to him under sub-section (4) concerning the report. “(8) Where the Ombudsman takes action as provided by sub-section (7), he shall send a copy of the statement and comments (if any) to the complainant to whom the report relates. “ 108. ( 1 ) The Ombudsman shall establish and maintain a register containing the prescribed particulars of, or relating to, complaints. “(2) The Ombudsman shall include in each report referred to in paragraph 19(1) (a) of the Ombudsman Act 1976 the prescribed particulars with respect to complaints that were notified or made to him, or were investigated by him, during the year to which the report relates.

“DIVISION IV-THE POLICE TRIBUNAL

“Sub-Division 1 -Preliminary “109. (1) In this Division, unless the contrary intention appears-judicial office ‘ means-

  1. an office of judge of a Federal Court or of the Supreme Court of a Territory; or
  2. an office the holder of which has, by virtue of an Act, the same status as a judge referred to in paragraph (a); member’ means the President, a Deputy President or other member of the Tribunal. “(2) For the purposes of this Division, an office of Justice of the Peace shall be taken not to be an office of Magistrate. “(3) In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to a proceeding before the Tribunal is a reference to-
  3. a proceeding in respect of a charge referred to the Tribunal under section 122;
  4. an appeal to the Tribunal under section 123: or
  5. an inquiry by the Tribunal into a matter referred by the Minister to the Tribunal under section 125. “Sub-Division 2- Establishment of Police Tribunal “ 1 10. There is hereby established a Tribunal to be known as the Police Tribunal. “III. ( I ) The Tribunal shall consist of a President and such Deputy Presidents and other members as are appointed in accordance with this section. “(2) A member shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral in Council. “(3) The Deputy Presidents and other members have seniority as Deputy Presidents or other members, respectively, according to the dates of their appointments. “(4) A member is not required by this Division to devote the whole of his time to his duties as a member. “112. (1) A person is not qualified to be appointed as President unless he is the holder of a judicial office. “(2) A person is not qualified to be appointed as a Deputy President unless-
  6. he is the holder of a judicial office; or
  7. he is a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. “(3) A person is not qualified to bc appointed as a member other than President or a Deputy President unless-
  8. he is a magistrate of a Territory; or
  9. he has been, for a period of not less than 5 years, a legal practitioner. “ 1 13. ( I ) The appointment of a person as a member, or the service of a person as a member, does not affect his tenure of a judicial office or office under an Act or his rank, title, status, precedence, salary, annual or other allowances or other rights or privileges as the holder of a judicial office or office under an Act and, for all purposes, his service as a member of the Tribunal shall be taken to be service as the holder of his judicial office or other office. “(2) In this section, ‘judicial office’ includes an office of magistrate in a Territory. “114. Subject to this Division, a member holds office for such period, not exceeding 7 years, and on such terms and conditions, as are specified in the instrument of his appointment but is eligible for re-appointment. “115. ( 1 ) A member, not being the holder of a judicial office, shall be paid such remuneration as the Remuneration Tribunal determines but, if no determination of that remuneration by that Tribunal is in operation, he shall be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. “(2) A member shall be paid such allowances as are prescribed. “(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973. “(4) In this section, ‘judicial office’ includes an office of magistrate in a Territory. “116. ( 1 ) The Minister may appoint the holder of a judicial office to act as President during any period, or during all periods, when the President is unavailable to perform the duties of his office or during a vacancy in the office of President. “(2) Where a member other than the President is, or is expected to be, unavailable to perform the duties of his office, the Governor-General in Council may appoint a person qualified to be appointed to that office to act as the holder of that office during the period for which the member is so unavailable. “(3) Where a person has been appointed under subsection ( 1 ) or (2), the Governor-General in Council may, by reason of a pending proceeding or other special circumstances, direct, before the unavailable member ceases to be unavailable, that the person so appointed shall continue to act under the appointment after the member ceases to be unavailable and until the Governor-General in Council terminates the appointment but a person shall not continue to act by virtue of this sub-section for more than 12 months after the member ceases to be unavailable. “(4) Where a person has been appointed under this section to act as a member during the unavailability of a member and the member ceases to hold office without having become available to perform the duties of his office, the period of appointment of the person so appointed continues, subject to this Division, until it is terminated by the Governor-General in Council or until the expiration of 12 months from the day on which the unavailable member ceases to hold office, whichever first happens. “(5) A person acting as the President, as a Deputy President or as another member shall act in that capacity on such terms and conditions as the Governor-General in Council determines. “(6) A person acting as the President, as a Deputy President or as another member has all the powers and duties, and shall perform all the functions, conferred or imposed by this Division on the President, on a Deputy President or on another member, respectively, and, for the purpose of the exercise of those powers or duties, or the performance of those functions, this Division has effect as if a reference to the President, a Deputy President or other member included a reference to a person acting as the President, as a Deputy President or as another member, respectively. “(7) Where-
  10. the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of a proceeding consists of a person acting or purporting to be appointed under this section; or
  11. a person so acting or purporting to be appointed has done any act, the validity of any decision of, or of any direction given or other act done by, the Tribunal as so constituted, or of the act done by the person so acting or purporting to be appointed, shall not be called in question in any proceeding on the ground that the occasion for the person to act or for the appointment of the person had not arisen, that the occasion for his appointment had ceased or that his appointment had ceased to have effect. “117. (1) Where the President no longer holds judicial office, the Governor-General in Council may terminate his appointment. “(2) The termination of the appointment of a President under sub-section ( I ) does not prevent his reappointment as a Deputy President. “(3) The President shall not be removed from office except as provided by this section. “118. ( I ) Where a Deputy President no longer holds a judicial office or the office of Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Governor-General in Council may terminate his appointment. “(2) A Deputy President shall not be removed from office except as provided by this section. “ 1 1 9. ( 1 ) This section applies to a member other than the President or a Deputy President. “(2) The Governor-General in Council may remove from office a member to whom this section applies on an address praying for his removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity being presented to the Governor-General in Council by each House of the Parliament in the same session of the Parliament. “(3) The Governor-General in Council may suspend such a member from office on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. “(4) Where the Governor-General in Council suspends a member from office under sub-section (3), the Minister shall cause a statement of the grounds of the suspension to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the suspension. “(5) Where such a statement has been laid before a House of the Parliament, that House may, within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the statement has been laid before it, by resolution, declare that the member should be removed from office and, if each House so passes such a resolution, the Governor-General in Council shall remove the member from office. “(6) If, at the expiration of 15 sitting days of a House of the Parliament after the day on which the statement has been laid before that House, that House has not passed such a resolution, the suspension terminates. “(7) The suspension of a member from office under this section does not affect any entitlement of the member to be paid remuneration and allowances. “(8) If a member to whom this section applies becomes bankrupt, or if the affairs of such a member are being dealt with under Part X of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Governor-General in Council shall terminate his appointment. “(9) If a member to whom this section applies ceases to possess the qualifications necessary for his appointment, the Governor-General in Council shall terminate his appointment. “( 10) A member to whom this section applies shall not be removed or suspended from office except as provided by this section. “ 1 20. A member may resign his office by writing under his hand delivered to the Governor-General in Council but the resignation does not have effect until it is accepted by the Governor-General in Council. “Sub-Division 3- Staff of Tribunal “121.(1) There shall be a Registrar of the Tribunal and such Deputy Registrars of the Tribunal as are appointed in accordance with this section. “(2) The Registrar and the Deputy Registrars shall be appointed by the Minister and have such duties and functions as are provided by this Division and by the regulations and such other duties and functions as the President directs. “(3) The Registrar and the Deputy Registrars, and the staff necessary to assist them, shall be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1 922. “Sub- Division 4- Constitution and Powers of Tribunal “ 122. ( 1 ) The President may give directions as to the arrangement of the business of the Tribunal and as to the person who is to constitute the Tribunal for the purposes of a particular proceeding. “(2) The President may, either generally or as otherwise provided by the instrument of delegation, by writing signed by him, delegate all or any of his powers under sub-section ( 1 ) to a Deputy President. “(3) A delegation under sub-section (2) is revocable at will and does not prevent the exercise of a power by the President. “(4) Sittings of the Tribunal for the purposes of a particular proceeding shall be held at such places and times as are determined by the member who constitutes the Tribunal for the purposes of the proceeding. “ 123. ( 1 ) The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of the exercise of its powers in relation to a matter, be constituted by one member. “(2 ) The Tribunal constituted by one member may sit and exercise the powers of the Tribunal notwithstanding that the Tribunal constituted by another member is at the same time sitting and exercising the powers of the Tribunal. “ 1 24. ( 1 ) Where a police officer is charged with a breach of discipline-
  12. in pursuance of a recommendation of the Ombudsman; or
  13. as a result of an investigation made by the Internal Discipline Section into a complaint referred to the Section under Division II, the Commissioner shall refer the charge to the Tribunal for hearing and determination by causing a copy of the charge to be forwarded to the Registrar. “(2) Where a police officer who is charged with a breach of discipline, otherwise than as mentioned in sub-section ( 1 ), does not admit the truth of the matters alleged to constitute the breach, the Commissioner shall-
  14. ) if the police officer requests him to do so; or
  15. if the Commissioner considers that it would be desirable in the circumstances to do so, refer the charge to the Tribunal for hearing and determination by causing a copy of the charge to be forwarded to the Registrar. “(3) The Tribunal shall hear and determine the charge and, if the Tribunal determines that the charge has been proved, the Tribunal may direct that the Commissioner-
  16. caution or reprimand the police officer
  17. fine the police officer an amount not exceeding S200:
  18. change the place at which the police officer is to perform his duties;
  19. ) reduce the police officer to a lower rank: or
  20. reduce the rate of salary of the police officer to a lower rate of salary within the limits of salary fixed for the rank held by the police officer, or may recommend to the Minister that the police officer be dismissed from the Police Force. “(4) The Commissioner shall give effect to a direction of the Tribunal under sub-section (3). “(5) Paragraph 3 (c) does not affect the power of the Commissioner to determine the place at which a police officer is to perform his duties. “ 125. ( 1 ) Where a police officer is charged with a breach of discipline and the Commissioner decides to take action of a kind referred to in sub-section 122 (3) or to recommend to the Minister that the police officer be dismissed from the Police Force-
  21. the Commissioner shall cause the police officer to be notified accordingly and to be furnished, with his reasons for his decisions, his findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings are based; and
  22. the police officer may appeal to the Tribunal against the decision. “(2) An appeal to the Tribunal under paragraph 1(b)-
  23. shall be in writing;
  24. shall set out the grounds upon which it is made; and
  25. shall be lodged with the Registrar of the Tribunal within 28 days after the day on which the notification referred to in paragraph ( 1 ) (a) is furnished to the police officer. “(3) The appeal may be made on one or more of the following grounds-
  26. a ) that the charge should have been dismissed;
  27. that the action taken in respect of the charge is unduly severe; or
  28. that the action taken in respect of the charge is not authorized by law. “(4) The tribunal constituted by the President or by a Deputy President shall hear and determine the appeal and may-
  29. affirm the decision under appeal;
  30. vary the decision under appeal; or
  31. set aside the decision under appeal and substitute for it a decision, including a decision dismissing the charge, that could have been made by the Commissioner in dealing with the charge. “(5) Where the Tribunal varies the decision under appeal, or substitutes its decision for the decision under appeal, the Commissioner shall give effect to the determination of the Tribunal as if it were his decision. “ 126. ( 1 ) The Tribunal may, at any time during the hearing by it of a charge under section 124, or of an appeal under section 125, recommend to the Commissioner that the police officer concerned, if he is not at that time suspended from duty, be so suspended pending the determination of the charge or of the appeal and, where the Tribunal so recommends, the Commissioner shall suspend the police officer from duty accordingly. “(2) The officer is entitled to be paid salary during the period of his suspension. “(3) The Tribunal may, at any time during or after the hearing, recommend to the Commissioner that the suspension be removed and, where the Tribunal so recommends, the Commissioner shall remove the suspension. “ 127. ( 1 ) The Tribunal may inquire into a matter relating to the Police Force that is referred to it by the Minister. “(2) If the Minister so directs, the Tribunal shall be constituted, for the purposes of the inquiry, by the President or by a Deputy President. “(3) The Minister may arrange for counsel to be engaged to assist the Tribunal in connection with the inquiry. “(4) Where the Tribunal is not assisted by counsel, the Commissioner shall, if he is requested by the Tribunal to do so, arrange for a member of the Internal Discipline Section, or for an appropriate police officer other than such a member, to assist the Tribunal in connection with the inquiry. “(5) Upon completing its inquiry, the Tribunal shall report to the Minister the results of the inquiry. “ 128. The Tribunal may, at any time during the hearing of a proceeding, refer a matter relevant to the proceeding to the Commissioner for investigation by the Internal Discipline Section and, where it does so, the Commissioner shall cause the Section to investigate the matter. “ 129. ( 1 ) Where, after a complaint has been made or referred to the Ombudsman concerning action taken by a police officer, a charge of breach of discipline is referred to the Tribunal for hearing and determination, the complainant may, by leave of the Tribunal, appear before the Tribunal on the hearing of the charge. “(2) The Registrar shall, unless it is impracticable to do so, notify the complainant of the time and place at which the Tribunal will sit to hear the charge and that he is entitled to seek leave of the Tribunal to appear upon the hearing of the charge. “(3) The complainant may, if the Tribunal grants him leave to appear-
  32. appear in person, by a legal practitioner or by some other person; and
  33. take such part only in the proceeding as the Tribunal permits. “(4) Where-
  34. the complainant complained to a police officer- the Commissioner; or
  35. the complainant complained to the Ombudsmanthe Ombudsman, shall, as soon as practicable after the Tribunal has given its decision with respect to the charge, and subject to any direction of the Tribunal prohibiting or restricting the disclosure of the decision, cause particulars of the decision to be furnished to the complainant, in writing, unless the complainant or his representative was present before the Tribunal when it gave its decision. “(5) The fact that a police officer has been charged, in connection with action taken by him, with an offence against a law does not prevent the institution, or the continuance, of proceedings before the Tribunal relating to that action. “( 6) A complainant who-
  36. has appeared, by leave of a Tribunal, on the hearing of a charge by the Tribunal; and
  37. has paid, or has become liable to pay, costs or expenses in connection with the proceedings before the Tribunal, may apply to the Attorney-General for financial assistance by the Commonwealth in respect of those costs or expenses. “(7) The Attorney-General may, if he is satisfied that it would involve hardship to the complainant to refuse the application and that, in all the circumstances, it is reasonable that the application should be granted, authorise payment by the Commonwealth to or on behalf of the complainant in respect of those costs and expenses of such amount as he determines or of such amounts as he, from time to time, determines. “(8) Sub-section (6) or (7) does not authorise a payment in respect of fees of more than 1 counsel unless 2 or more counsel appeared for the police officer. “(9) Where the Attorney-General authorises a payment as provided by sub-section (7), he may, upon application being made to him by the police officer concerned, authorise payment by the Commonwealth to or on behalf of the police officer of such amount as the Attorney-General from time to time determines in respect of the costs and expenses of the police officer in connection with the proceedings before the Tribunal. “ 1 30. ( 1 ) For the purpose of this Division the Tribunal-
  38. may take evidence on oath or affirmation;
  39. may proceed in the absence of a person entitled to be present if the person has had reasonable notice of the proceeding; and
  40. may adjourn a proceeding before the Tribunal from time to time. “(2) Where a person who is, under the regulations, a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal requests a member to do so, the member may summon a person to appear before the Tribunal at the hearing of the proceeding to give evidence and to produce such documents (if any) as are referred to in the summons. “131.(1) Where a person who has been summoned to attend before the Tribunal as a witness in an inquiry under section 126 fails to attend as required by the summons, the member constituting the Tribunal may, upon being satisfied that the summons has been duly served and that reasonable expenses have been paid or tendered to the person, issue a warrant for the apprehension of the person. “(2) The warrant authorises any member of the Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory or a Commonwealth officer named in the warrant to apprehend the person and bring him before the Tribunal and, for that purpose, to detain him in custody until he is released by order of the Tribunal. “(3) i The apprehension of a person under this section does not relieve him from any liability incurred by him by reason of his failure to attend before the Tribunal. “132. (1) Subject to sub-section (2), the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal shall be in public. “(2) Where the Tribunal is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the public interest or by reason of the confidential nature of any evidence or matter, the Tribunal may-
  41. direct that the hearing, or a part of the hearing, shall take place in private and give directions as to the persons who may be present; and

  42. give directions restricting or prohibiting the publication or disclosure-

    1. of evidence given before the Tribunal, whether in public or in private;
    2. of any matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence by the Tribunal; or
    3. of any finding or decision of the Tribunal in relation to the proceeding. “(3) A person shall not contravene or fail to comply with a direction under this section that is applicable to him.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “133. At the hearing of a proceeding before the Tribunal, a person who is, under the regulations, a party to the proceeding may appear in person or may be represented by a legal practitioner or by some other person. “134. (1) In a proceeding before the Tribunal, the procedure of the Tribunal is, subject to this Division and to the regulations, within the discretion of the Tribunal. “(2) A proceeding before the Tribunal shall be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expenditure as the requirements of this Division and a proper consideration of the matter before the Tribunal permit. “(3) The Tribunal is not bound by any rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate. “(4) The regulations may make provision, not inconsistent with this Division, for or in relation to-

  1. the practice and procedure of the Tribunal;
  2. the persons who are to be regarded as parties to a proceeding before the Tribunal, not being a proceeding by way of inquiry into a matter referred to the Tribunal under section 127;
  3. the appointment of the Commissioner, or of another police officer nominated by the Commissioner, to assist the Tribunal in connection with a proceeding before the Tribunal by furnishing advice to the Tribunal with respect to the nature of the action that it would be appropriate to take in respect of a police officer found by the Tribunal to have committed a breach of discipline;
  4. d ) the stay of proceedings before, or of a decision of, the Tribunal; and
  5. subject to sub-section (3), the payment of costs and expenses in respect of proceedings before the Tribunal and the assessment of those costs and expenses. “(3) Paragraph (2) (c) does not authorize the making of a regulation empowering the Tribunal to order a complainant who has been given leave to appear before the Tribunal to pay any costs or expenses of any other party to that proceeding. “(4) Subject to section 132, the Tribunal shall, in a proceeding before it by way of the hearing and determination of a charge referred to it under section 124 or an appeal made to it under section 125, give reasons in writing for its decision and those reasons shall include its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. “(5) The Tribunal shall cause a copy of its decision and reasons to be furnished to each person who is, under the regulations, a party to the proceeding. “ 1 35. ( 1 ) A member has, in the performance of his duty as a member, the same protection and immunity as a Justice of the High Court. “(2) A legal practitioner or other person appearing before the Tribunal has the same protection and immunity as a barrister has in appearing for a party in proceedings in the High Court. “(3) Subject to this Division, a person summoned to attend or appearing before the Tribunal as a witness has the same protection, and is, in addition to the penalties provided by this Division, subject to the same liabilities, as a witness in proceedings in the High Court. “Sub-Division 5- Appeals to Federal Court of Australia “ 136. In this Sub-Division, unless the contrary intention appears-
  6. a reference to a proceeding before the Tribunal does not include a reference to a proceeding by way of inquiry into a matter referred to the Tribunal under section! 27;
  7. a reference to a question of law does not include a reference to the question whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a finding of fact by the Tribunal; and
  8. a reference to the Court is a reference to the Federal Court of Australia. “ 137. ( 1 ) A person who was a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal may appeal to the Court, on a question of law, from a decision of the Tribunal in that proceeding. “(2) The appeal shall be instituted-
  9. within 28 days after the day on which a document setting out the terms of the decision of the Tribunal was furnished to the person or within such further time as the Court, whether before or after the expiration of that period allows; and
  10. in accordance with any applicable Rules of Court in force under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1 976. “(3) The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal and that jurisdiction shall be exercised by the Court constituted as a Full Court. “(4) The Court shall, in determining the appeal, make such order as it thinks appropriate. “(5) Without limiting by implication the generality of subsection (4), the orders that may be made by the Court on the appeal include an order affirming or setting aside the decision of the Tribunal and an order remitting the proceeding to be heard and determined again, either with or without the hearing of further evidence, by the Tribunal and in accordance with any directions of the Court. “(6) The institution of the appeal does not affect the operation of the decision of the Tribunal or prevent the taking of action to implement the decision but the Court may, on such conditions (if any) as it thinks fit-
  11. suspend the operation of the decision; or
  12. b ) stay all or any action under the decision. “(7) For the purposes of sub-section (6), the Court may be constituted by a single Judge. “138. (1) The Tribunal may, of its own motion or, if it thinks fit, on the application of a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal, refer a question of law arising in that proceeding for determination by the Court but, in the case of a proceeding before the Tribunal constituted by a member other than the President, a question shall not be so referred without the concurrence of the President. “(2) The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of law and that jurisdiction shall be exercised by the Court constituted as a Full Court. “(3) Where a question of law arising in a proceeding before the Tribunal has been referred to the Court under subsection ( I ), the Tribunal shall not, in that proceeding-
  13. ) give a decision to which the question is relevant while the reference is pending; or
  14. b) proceed in a manner, or give a decision, that is inconsistent with the determination of the Court on the question. “ 1 39. ( 1 ) Where an appeal is instituted in the Court under section 1 37 or a question of law is referred to the Court under section 138-
  15. the Tribunal shall, notwithstanding any direction under section 132, cause to be sent to the Court all documents that were before the Tribunal in connection with the proceedings to which the appeal or reference relates; and
  16. at the conclusion of the appeal, the Court shall cause the documents to be returned to the Tribunal. “(2) If there is in force in respect of any of the documents a direction under section 132 restricting or prohibiting the disclosure of any matter contained in a document, the Court shall, subject to any order of the Court to the contrary, ensure that that matter is not disclosed to a person other than a member of the Court as constituted for the purposes of the appeal. “Sub-Division 6- General “140. A person served with a summons to appear as a witness before the Tribunal shall not, without reasonable excuse-
  17. a ) fail to attend as required by the summons; or
  18. b ) fail to appear and report himself from day to day unless excused, or released from further attendance, by the Tribunal.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ 141. ( 1 ) A person appearing as a witness before the Tribunal shall not, without reasonable excuse, refuse or fail-

  1. to be sworn or to make an affirmation;
  2. to answer a question that he is required to answer by the Tribunal; or
  3. to produce a document that he was required to produce by a summons under this Act served on him as prescribed.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) Subject to sub-section (3), it is a reasonable excuse for such a person to refuse or fail to answer a question or to produce a document if the answer to the question, or the document, may tend to prove that he has committed an offence against a law or, in the case of a police officer, that he has been guilty of a breach of discipline. “(3) Where the Tribunal is inquiring into a matter that has been referred to it by the Minister under section 127, a person appearing before the Tribunal to give evidence or produce documents is not excused from answering a question or producing a document on the ground that the answer to the question, or the document, may tend to prove that he has committed an offence against a law or, in the case of a police officer, that he has been guilty of a breach of discipline. “(4) Evidence given or a document produced by a person upon an inquiry referred to in sub-section (3) is not admissible against him in any civil or criminal proceedings other than proceedings for an offence against this section or against section 35 or 36 of the Crimes Act 1914. “ 142. A person shall not-

  1. insult or disturb a member of the Tribunal in the exercise of his powers or functions as a member;
  2. interrupt the proceedings of the Tribunal;
  3. create a disturbance in or near a place where the Tribunal is sitting; or
  4. do any other act or thing that would, if the Tribunal were a court of record, constitute a contempt of that court.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ 143. ( 1 ) The President shall, as soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, submit to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report of the operations of the Tribunal during that year. “(2) The Minister shall cause the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 1 5 sitting days of that House after its receipt by him. “(3 ) The first report under this section shall be submitted as soon as practicable after 30 June first occurring after the date of commencement of this Division and shall relate to the operations of the Tribunal during the period that commenced on that date and ended on that 30 June.

“DIVISION V-MISCELLANEOUS”

” 144. ( 1 ) A police officer who holds a rank declared by the regulations to be a rank to which this section applies shall, at all times when he is wearing his police uniform, wear on, or attached to, the front of his uniform-

  1. the badge of the Police Force; and
  2. his identification number.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) A reference to a police officer who holds a rank includes a reference to a police officer who temporarily holds that rank. “(3) The Commissioner shall take such steps as are necessary to enable police officers to whom sub-section ( 1 ) applies to comply with that sub-section. “ 145. A police officer who is requested by a person to furnish to the person his name or the address of his place of duty; or both, and is informed by the person; or is otherwise aware, that the person is complaining, or proposes to complain, concerning action taken by that police officer-

  1. shall not refuse or fail to comply with the request;
  2. b ) shall not furnish to the person a false name; and
  3. shall not furnish to the person as the address of his place of duty an address other than the full and correct address of his ordinary place of duty.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “ 146. ( 1) A person shall not, in or in connection with a complaint made to a police officer concerning action taken by a police officer or by the Police Force, furnish information, or make a statement, to the first-mentioned police officer that he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular.

Penalty: $500 or imprisonment for 6 months. “(2) A person shall not be convicted of an offence against sub-section ( 1 ) unless the evidence that he knew the information or statement to be false or misleading in a material particular is corroborated by a peson other than a police officer.

This amendment seeks to add after clause 80 a new whole Part to the Bill comprising proposed new clauses 81 to 146, which Part deals with the subject matter of complaints against police. As a further amendment, after this one is dealt with, I propose to move the Opposition’s amendment No. 53 which relates to vicarious liability or torts committed by police officers but I do not propose to deal with that now. I will deal with that separately. The question of complaints against the police is an extremely important one. The amendment now before the Committee is quite possibly one of the longest single amendments ever moved in this Parliament occupying as it does some 43 pages of typescript. Again I do not detain the Committee by reading it. I would hope that although we are obviously pressed for time we could give this proposed new Part slightly less cursory attention than it received during the Committee stage in the other place when in fact the whole of this amendment was dealt with by that chamber in three and a half minutes. The subject matter is extremely important and although I will not trespass on the time of the Committee for very long I think this amendment needs just a little less cursory treatment than that.

The amendment is taken directly from the draft Bill appended to the ninth report of the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled Complaints Against the Police: Supplementary Report’. The circumstances which gave rise to the production of that report and the relationship it bears to the earlier report of the Commission on this same subject have been dealt with in my speech in the second reading debate and I do not propose to go over that ground again. What I do propose is very briefly to summarise the substance of this amendment and explain to the Committee and the Government why it is that we of the Opposition think it ought to be adopted. The main thing that this amendment is seeking to do is to introduce new machinery for the resolution of complaints, whether internally or more importantly externally, generated against the police. The machinery proposed involves the use of three distinct instruments to infuse elements of independence into the complaint determination process. Those three elements are respectively: The Ombudsman; a special unit of the police force; and a police tribunal. It is proposed that the Ombudsman would have the position, for a start, of neutral territory for the receipt of complaints and further to have the role of investigator of last resort. He also will have the role of public guardian, as the Law Reform Commission put it in its report, to require certain public complaints to be scrutinised in a public forum.

The second instrument in the machinery is a special unit of the police force which in the draft amendments is entitled ‘the internal discipline section’ and which is modelled on the famous A- 10 unit of Scotland Yard. It is proposed that this unit be separate and distinct from the main body of the police operations and, for that reason, it will have a greater degree of efficiency and accumulated experience and independence in dealing with complaints. The third element is the proposed new police tribunal to deal with matters that go to the stage of a charge being laid, which tribunal is to be constituted by a single member and the president of which, it proposed, will be a judge.

Briefly the machinery which is proposed to deal with complaints, however initiated, is as follows: First of all, as to the receipt of complaints, it is proposed in our amendments that complaints be received either orally or in writing and that they be made either to the police, as is the case at the moment, or as well to the neutral territory constituted by the Ombudsman. So members of the public who presently might be deterred at the prospect of complaining to a policeman about another policeman’s behaviour are given the opportunity by this Bill to complain directly to the Ombudsman. Secondly, as to the investigations of complaint so received, it is proposed that normally such investigations be conducted by the proposed internal discipline section of the new force. However, by our amendment the Ombudsman would be given a special discretion in four specifically described cases to undertake an independent investigation of his own. These cases include circumstances where, firstly, the complaint involves a member of the police force who is senior to all members of the internal discipline section; secondly, the complaint involves a member of the section itself; thirdly, the complaint is related to a matter that the Ombudsman has already investigated; and, fourthly, the Ombudsman is simply of the opinion that it is in the public interest that the complaint should be investigated by him. Those are the proposals relating to the investigation of complaints.

The next machinery matter is the question of actually bringing charges that arise out of such an investigation. It is proposed in this amendment that if a criminal charge suggests itself, that should be brought and dealt with in the ordinary way- through the courts. If it is thought more appropriate that something in the nature of a disciplinary charge be brought against the alleged offending officer, such disciplinary charges are to be dealt with by the police tribunal. The decision as to how to handle a matter and whether to bring a charge is left normally within the discretion of the police force itself by this legislation. But there is provision for the Ombudsman, where a difference arises in respect of the proper way of dealing with an externally initiated complaint, to ensure unilaterally that that charge is laid and proceeds to be determined by the tribunal.

Fourthly, and lastly, I refer to provisions relating to the operation of the tribunal itself. In the amendments there are a very large number of provisions dealing with this. Let me simply deal with the more important of them as quickly as I can. The composition of the tribunal, as I have already mentioned, is proposed to be a single member judicial-type tribunal presided over by a judge. The proceedings of the tribunal are proposed normally to be conducted in public. Further, it is proposed that the penalties should be decided by the tribunal itself but acting in this case with the assistance of a senior police officer as an assessor. Further, it is provided that important decisions of the tribunal be published with due consideration nonetheless of orders that might be made concerning confidentiality. Finally, it is provided that there be a right of appeal to the Australian Federal Court on matters of law.

A very elaborate network of provisions is proposed by the Opposition in this very lengthy amendment. I take it that it is unnecessary to labour the point to the Committee as to the crucial importance of having a proper and balanced complaint resolution system in which the public can have full confidence. Events in Queensland, as demonstrated by the findings of the Lucas committee, in Victoria, as demonstrated by the findings of the Beach inquiry, in New South Wales and in most other parts of Australia have demonstrated just how grave can be both the allegations and the findings that can be made in respect of those allegations and how unsatisfactory the existing complaint resolution process is.

It would be fair to say that in the Commonwealth arena- the operations of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Australian Capital Territory Police Force, which are to be amalgamated into the new Australian Federal Police- there has been a lesser incidence of complaints and a greater degree of public trust. Nonetheless, the Opposition believes that there can be no reason whatsoever for failing to implement, indeed right from the outset of the operation of this new force, as Sir Robert Mark himself recommended, a proper systematic set of machinery for dealing with the determination of complaints, particularly complaints laid by members of the public.

We have had an undertaking from the Government that something in the nature of legislation on this subject will be introduced at some unspecified time in the future. It is the view of the Opposition that the Australian Law Reform Commission’s recommendations, themselves the subject of enormously wide consultation and lengthy deliberation, represent a model balanced statutory formula for which there is no excuse whatsoever for the Government not accepting as a package as written and incorporating into this legislation now. The Oppositions moves accordingly.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The matters which have been raised by Senator Evans are not matters on which, in principle, there is any conflict between the Government and the Opposition. It was made clear in the second reading speech that the Government anticipates being able to introduce legislation on complaints procedure later in the year. That legislation is to be based on the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on complaints procedure. It will also cover vicarious liability, which I think is the subject of the next amendment the honourable senator wishes to move. Without wishing to quibble, but merely to indicate that one cannot necessarily just pick up what is proposed by the Opposition and dob it into the Bill -

Senator Georges:

– Why not?

Senator CHANEY:

– I was about to explain why, the proposition having been put to me by Senator Evans. The amendment provides:

Commissioner’ means the person holding, or performing the duties of, the office of Commissioner of Police under the Public Service Act 1922.

I do not raise that point to quibble, but merely to point out that that provision is not a piece of drafting which fits into the structure at all. With the passage of this legislation, we will not have a commissioner under the Public Service Act 1922. The Government has indicated clearly that it does propose to legislate in this area, and legislation will be introduced later this year. I anticipate that a more complete statement will be made by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in the very near future. It is for that reason we do not accept the Opposition’s proposal which is before us now.

Proposed new Part negatived.

Proposed new Part IX.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-Finally, in this saga of unhappily received amendments, I move:

As I mentioned with respect to an earlier amendment, the common law position, as has been established in the Enever case and other cases, is that police officers are not regarded as either employees or as agents of the Crown which employs them. The result is that police officers are treated by the common law as being personally liable for any injury which may be wrongfully caused by them in the execution of their duty. Whilst it has been argued that this concentrates wonderfully the minds of police officers and acts as a disincentive to misbehaviour on their part, for a long time it has been apparent that that particular rule indeed is capable of causing very great injustice.

In the first place, in situations in which an injured party can identify the police offender in question and actually can win a case against that officer, that victory might well prove quite hollow and meaningless if the police officer in question is of limited means. In those circumstances it is a matter of simply waiting upon the Commonwealth to make some ex gratia or grace and favour payment, which it is not obliged to do and which it may or may not be of a mind to make in the particular case to satisfy the damages award. Furthermore, in a situation in which the injured person cannot identify the offending police officer- that is not an unknown situation; for example, when a scuffle develops and the officer in question is in plainclothes or is wearing insufficient identification, or there is a possibility of confusion between that officer and another officer- under the present rules the injured party effectively is denied any form of legal redress.

It is apparent that that situation, which presently is the law with respect to police officers, is quite out of line with that which now prevails everywhere in other areas of government service and, indeed, everywhere else in the economy, where general statutory provisions relating to the implementation of vicarious liability are now in fact universal and have been long established. Accordingly, the Opposition agrees with the Australian Law Reform Commission, whose recommendations again we adopt, this time without any drafting modifications of our own, so I think that in this case the drafting will prove to be entirely satisfactory. The amendment I moved is to the effect that there should be an explicit statutory provision which makes the Commonwealth Government vicariously liable for the torts of its police officers. The recommendations of the Commission which we have incorporated in our amendment again have been the subject of extensive inquiry and consultation. They seem to have universal support from the Government; certainly they have it from the police officers; and they have it from the community at large. Again, there would appear to be no reason whatsoever for the opportunity not to be taken to incorporate in this legislation this long overdue reform.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– As I have indicated already, the Government proposes to bring down legislation to cover the problem raised by Senator Evans. Honourable senators will be aware that in fact there is a very good reason for one being unable to pick up on the run an amendment of the sort moved by Senator Evans. The matter does need government consideration. Legislation will be brought down and consideration will be given to it. For that reason, the amendment moved by the Opposition is opposed.

Proposed new Part negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2966

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

-by leave- Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation. I feel I was misrepresented this morning by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) in his reply at the end of Question Time to a question I asked on Wednesday last. In the course of that reply the Minister also misled the Senate. I raise this matter today because our proceedings are being broadcast and the issue in question is of great importance to the listening audience and, indeed, to the public at large. Furthermore, my veracity has been questioned. The question I asked is in Hansard of 6 June and states:

My question, like that asked by Senator Gietzelt, relates to the serious effects that lead levels in petrol appear to be having on thehealth of Australian children. In view of recent statements in the media attributed to the petroleum industry that it would cost more than5c a litre to reduce existing lead levels and a counter claim by Professor Lloyd Smythe, Professor of Analytical Chemistry at the University of New South Wales, that it would cost less than1c a litre, will the Minister for Science and the Environment ask his Department to research this matter, inform the Senate of the result and issue an informed public statement as soon as possible?

This question was taken on notice and I stress to honourable senators that the reference in my question was to ‘recent statements in the media’. This morning the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) stated in his reply that the actual figure referred to by the industry was5c a gallon, not 5c a litre, hence there was no cause for disagreement, 5c a gallon being roughly1c a litre. This clearly imputed that I had misled the Senate in the terms of my question, either deliberately or through carelessness. As a result, I will quote from an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 5 June and which referred to a report concerning Professor Lloyd Smythe and Dr Freeman of the

Department of Pediatrics, Prince of Wales Hospital. The article states:

The two disputed a claim by a petroleum industry spokesman on Friday that removing lead from petrol could raise petrol costs by5c a litre because more refining would be needed.

I stress the word litre. The article continues:

Professor Smythe said a chemical engineer from Union Carbide had said the cost could be less than1ca litre.

Since this morning both I and the Sydney Morning Herald have carefully checked this matter. In fact, the statement made, as stated last Friday, referred to 5c a litre, not 5c a gallon as stated by the Minister this morning. I may say that I have checked that statement back to its highly reputable source. This matter is very important because of the effect on the health of children. It seems to me strange that the Department of Science and the Environment should presumably have advised the Minister to answer the question in the way he did. I have been here all week and I also feel it was less than fair to me that the Minister did not check this matter with me before he delivered the answer he did this morning knowing full well that his answer was being broadcast. This imputed quite baldly that I was careless or inaccurate and that the Sydney Morning Herald, from which I obtained the information, was also one or both of those things.

Finally, accuracy in this matter is vital. It is obviously very important to the public whether they will have to pay 5c a litre more or lc a litre more for petrol that does not harm the health of as many as 20 per cent of all children in our cities. I quote again from the result of Professor Smythe ‘s survey. It states:

At Gardeners Road Primary School, Mascot -

In my State- about 20 per cent of the children were above this level.

Dr Freeman’s statement said that 1 1.5 per cent of the children tested had lead levels above the maximum recommended levels set. I personally believe it to be wrong that this matter should be judged on economic grounds at all. I do not think that health hazards -

The PRESIDENT:

– Well, do not debate the matter, just make your explanation.

Senator MASON:

– This bears on my point. I suppose that to many people this economic factor has to be taken into account and it was for that reason that I asked the question. I ask the Minister to set this matter straight and, when he has done so, issue an informed public statement through his Department on the costs.

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

– by leave- I realise the time and I do not think this is a point for debate. I acknowledge that the honourable senator has made some comment in this regard. I can assure the honourable senator that when he asked me a question, I think two days ago, I attempted immediately to get a response, not from within the area of science but from the appropriate authority within government which has the responsibility for lead content in petrol. My understanding was that that was the Department of National Development. That Department gave me an answer to the honourable senator’s question. It is impossible for me at Question Time to give on alert that I am going to give an answer or additional answer to the question which is raised. I did give an additional answer at the end of the Question Time today. The honourable senator raised the question of the importance and cost of lead content. Certainly I will seek that information. I think it is unfair to say that I misled anyone or that I misled the honourable senator.

Senator Chipp:

– I rise on a point of order. I ask the Minister to table the document from which he was quoting this morning when making the statement to which Senator Mason objects.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not required to table a document from which I am not quoting.

Senator Chipp:

– This morning you were.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The honourable senator has enough sense to know that if I am not quoting from a document now I do not have it with me to table it. This morning I read from an answer which was supplied to me by the Department of National Development. I handed that document to Hansard and it will appear in today’s edition of Hansard.

Senator Chipp:

– That does not -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The point of order is not sustained.

page 2967

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition is not opposing this legislation.

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

page 2967

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1979

First Readings

Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I take the opportunity afforded me under Standing Orders to raise a matter on the first reading of these Bills. This is not the first time that I have raised this matter in the Senate. I wish to refer to the plight that is being experienced at present by kindergartens in South Australia and the concern that is being expressed by the Kindergarten Union of South Australia. This is not the first time that I have had to raise this matter in the Senate. On 4 May last year, I asked the Minister responsible, Senator Guilfoyle, a question in relation to the way in which the Government had altered its funding for kindergartens. I pointed out to her the plight being experienced at that time by the Oakbank Kindergarten in the Adelaide Hills. On 10 May, I again raised the same matter with the Minister. I was not satisfied with the answer that I was given on either of those occasions. On 1 1 May, I again raised this question with the Minister. Again, not being satisfied with the answer I received to my request for the Government to spell out its policy in this area, I made a rather lengthy speech in this place on 29 May 1978 giving chapter and verse to the Senate the way in which kindergartens in South Australia were suffering under the changed policy of this Government as compared with the situation under the Whitlam Government.

I will be as brief as I can. However, this is the last occasion on which I can again make a plea on behalf of the Kindergarten Union of South Australia before the Government brings down its Budget on 21 August. Of course, between now and then the Government will be considering what finance is available. On behalf of the Kindergarten Union of South Australia, and no doubt on behalf of all kindergarten unions in Australia which are suffering the same plight, I make the plea to the Government to reconsider its attitude and to make more money available for this very wonderful cause, that is, for preschools in Australia.

I point out briefly that in December 1972 the Whitlam Government announced in a preelection speech that pre-school education would be made available within six years to every child. That was a promise we made and a promise we endeavoured to keep. In December 1975 the present Government came to office, although there had been an election in the meantime. The Liberal-National Country party’s election policy of that time stated:

We believe that pre-school education has important social and educational functions . . .

In February 1976 the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, issued a Press statement which stated: . . I would like to point out that the former Government’s policy of providing 75 per cent cost of salaries of agreed staff in pre-schools, provided they confirm that they extend and integrate their activities to cover other areas of family need, will continue.

On 29 May the Minister said to me that there had been no change in the Government’s policy in relation to pre-schools. But then the Government changed its policy from direct funding of the State governments for pre-schools to what it termed block funding. If we look at the 1975-76 Budget Speech of Mr Hayden we find under the heading of education and the sub-heading of pre-schools and child care in the States that in 1973-74 the actual expenditure on pre-schools and child care in the States was $6.8m, that in the next year the actual expenditure was $45. 6m and that for the year of that Budget- that is, 1975-76- the Labor Government estimated that it would expend $74m, which represented an increase of $28.4m over its previous Budget. Honourable senators know that due to many happenings at that time, particularly in the Senate, the Labor Government was not able to put its Budget into operation. The 1977-78 Budget Speech of Mr Howard shows that there has been a complete turn around in the funding arrangements for kindergartens. Page 87 of that Budget Speech, under the heading ‘Children’s Services’ reads:

The Commonwealth provides capital and recurrent assistance for pre-school and child care projects including home care, vacation and after-school care projects. Assistance is provided through the State Governments and directly to organisations concerned with pre-school and child care activities.

Since I January 1 977, assistance to the States for the recurrent costs of pre-school services has been provided in the form of a block grant, subject to certain broad requirements concerning priority of access. An amount of $39m was provided to the States by way of block grants in 1 977-78.

This amount was nearly half of what was promised in the Hayden Budget. The Budget Speech continues:

The Government has decided that $32. 75m will be paid to the States by way of block grants in 1978-79 and that this will represent the total Commonwealth contribution to preschools in the States, for both capital and recurrent purposes.

Let us examine the present situation. I cannot speak for the other States, but I can speak for South Australia. The legislation and the Budget of the Labor Government, insofar as it was able to go, provided that the Commonwealth would fund approximately 70 per cent of the cost of pre-schools and the State Government would provide 30 per cent. Of course, we made a solemn promise to the electorate that by 1980 preschools would be fully funded. We find now that the reverse has happened. The South Australian Government now has to find 70 per cent of the funds to operate its pre-schools and the Commonwealth, through its block grants system, is finding only 30 per cent. This has placed a great strain on the Kindergarten Union and the people who endeavour, through their own fund raising efforts, to keep pre-schools going in South Australia. The South Australian Kindergarten Union is making a plea to the Government to reconsider its attitude. This plea is made not only on behalf of the parents but also on behalf of the children who need pre-school education, which

Mr Malcolm Fraser said in his policy speech he believed was an important part of education.

I read now a petition of which I believe copies have been presented in the other place:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

In South Australia pre-school services are inadequate.

The development of adequate services has been curtailed by reduced federal Budget allocations to preschools in the last two years.

Projected cuts for 1979-80 will cause further deterioration of the quality of services offered.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government increase its allocation for pre-school education immediately to enable the provision of adequate pre-school services in South Australia.

That petition is circulating among concerned parents throughout South Australia and should be sufficient advance warning to the Government that South Australian parents are vitally concerned about its policy in regard to preschool children.

I realise that the time available is short but I wish to relate briefly some of the history of the pre-school situation. In 1972, the Australian Government first promised to make pre-school education available to every Australian child within 6 years. In 1974 the Prime Minister further promised that this service would be free. Now, in 1979, pre-school education is free in South Australia. However, it is questionable how long it can remain free and still offer the current range and quality of services. Some programs have already been adversely affected by cuts in funds from the Federal Government. Understaffing and long waiting lists of children are becoming all too common.

In 1974 the Federal Government promised that:

By 1980 all children in Australia will have access to services designed to take care of their educational, emotional, physical, social and recreational needs.

In 1978 the Prime Minister stated that: the block grants represent the highest practicable contribution towards the current costs of pre-schools the Commonwealth is able to make.

What started in 1974 as a policy of providing pre-school education for all children in the year prior to school entry is now rated as an area of the Budget worthy only of ‘topping up’ by Federal funds. This represents a withdrawal of commitment, and subsequently money, which leaves the States, pre-school organisations and, most importantly, children and their parents, stranded.

In South Australia in 1 978 there were almost twice as many pre-school services as there had been in 1 974. with an equivalent increase in the numbers of children using these services. Yet, in real money values, South Australia received in the 1978-79 Federal Budget only 62 per cent of the allocation for pre-school and day care which it had been granted in 1974-75. As greater emphasis has been laid on day care during that period, the actual cut-back in pre-school funding is even more dramatic. In South Australia the State Government has so far been able and willing to make up the deficit but in doing this its proportion of the liability has increased from 32 per cent in 1 974-75 to approximately 70 per cent at present.

I have outlined the problems that are experienced by kindergartens operated through the Kindergarten Union in South Australia. I conclude my remarks by reading to the Senate a letter that 1 received from the Murray Bridge South Kindergarten, which is in the town where I live. It is addressed to me and reads:

The Murray Bridge South Kindergarten is concerned that pre-school education in South Australia is being adversely affected by cuts in funds from the Federal Government. The South Australian State Government has so far been able and willing to make up the deficit in the reduced allocation received from the Federal Government but in doing this its proportion of the liability has increased from 32 per cent in 1 974-75 to the approximately 70 per cent it is providing now.

We are very concerned that if the further projected cuts in federal funding for the pre-schools eventuate it is likely that it will be impossible for the South Australian State Government to maintain existing services. If tuition fees have to be reintroduced this will preclude many children from the benefits of pre-school education.

This kindergarten has already had the services of its teacher’s aide reduced to half time and this is causing problems in adequately providing for our children.

We would be pleased if you could raise these matters in the Senate.

Yours truly (Sgd) JUNE MASON Secretary

I have raised this matter, as I have on four other occasions, to endeavour to persuade this Government to honour its responsibilities and the election promise that it made in 1975. I make this plea not only on behalf of all of the kindergarten unions in South Australia but especially on behalf of the people of the Murray Bridge South Kindergarten at Murray Bridge who I know are working very hard to try to raise money through fetes, raffles and in any other way they can, to keep this kindergarten going and to provide the funds for a full time staff. The kindergarten in Murray Bridge is situated in a very densely populated Housing Trust area. There is a desperate need for it and I hope that the Government will take heed of the request I make on behalf of these people.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– I wish to take the occasion of this first reading debate to speak on the defence needs of this country. Throughout out history Australia has been sheltered from the responsibility of providing for its own defence. We have been sheltered by our traditional allies and to a lesser extent by the fact that our near neighbours in South East Asia have relatively stable governments with armed forces that often were technologically inferior to our own. These circumstances no longer apply. We no longer have the unqualified support of our allies. The ability of any European power to help Australia is severely limited. The ANZUS pact provides the only treaty support for Australia, and that is a very qualified document which certainly does not provide a water-tight commitment for the United States.

The United States support for Australia could conceivably be compromised by another nation’s interests. There are also circumstances where, if the United States wished to help, it would not be able to do so because of higher priorities. In a major conflict the United States has defined its priorities as being Western Europe, Japan and then Australia- in that sequence. In the foreseeable future South East Asia will have areas of instability. There may well be governments with objectives and ideals different from our own. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) has frequently said, peace in our region could be shattered without warning by an assassin’s bullet. Nor can we assume that the armed forces of South East Asia will necessarily be technologically inferior to our own.

Imposed on this political pattern in South East Asia we have the superpower ambitions of the Soviets and their objective of encircling and containing China by setting up bases and client regimes in the Indian Ocean and in South East Asia. These circumstances differ fundamentally from those in existence 20 years ago. The responsibility for coping with the defence consequences of these changes is ours and ours alone.

What are the threats that face Australia? At the present time there are no actual threats, but evidence of the fact that these circumstances can change overnight is the invasion of Kampuchea by Vietnam and the later invasion of Vietnam by China. In the doctrine of no actual threat there are no grounds for complacency. World War II ran for some years- from 1939 to 1942- without any direct military threat to Australia. But then the threat became very real.

Let us look at some of the possible threats to Australia. Potential threats fall into two broad categories: A resource grab and/or interception of our seaborn trade. Interception of sea trade is an unlikely eventuality. We have no large merchant marine fleet. Our cargoes move in foreign bottoms. Any aggressor would be attacking the ships of another nation. Those nations would not permit their ships to sail under Australian convoy escorts. They would withdraw their ships from the trade or use their own escorts.

Senator Tate:

– Is that a good argument for foreign bottomed ships?

Senator MacGIBBON:

– That is a good point, Senator Tate. It is important to appreciate this in view of the major campaign being waged for a new carrier to replace HMAS Melbourne. The case for this and for other major surface ships is based principally, but not exclusively, on the need for convoy escort duties. In an age of satellites, when the precise position of surface ships can be updated every few minutes, and with missile technology, the only place to survive is under the water, except for the massive fleets of the superpowers. The threat that Australia faces comes from our resource base. Most people think of invasion in terms of the capture of cities and factories. They think of the south-east corner of Australia as being the essential ground to hold. Who would want factories with their union problems? What army commander would want to become involved in taking the big southern cities which, if they were defended by a wellmotivated defence force, could be as expensive an exercise as Stalingrad? It is simply not a cost effective exercise, even for a major power.

The converse is true. Australia is attractive because of its great resources- the coal in central Queensland, the iron ore at the Pilbara, the alumina at Weipa and the great expanses of tropical farmland. The essential ground in Australia is the northern half. It is possible that some nation would wish to invade and capture one or more of our resources. Our defence requirements, therefore, are to protect our extended economic zone- and our fishing and seabed rights- to prevent migration occurring by force and not in accordance with our wishes and to deny occupation of any resource areas to invading forces. This is something we can do on our own if only we set our minds to it and get our priorities right. Our objective must be to provide a deterrent force strong enough that it is simply not worth while anyone taking us on, as was the case with Switzerland and Sweden in the Second World War.

The biggest problems we face in providing this defence is that people either believe that it is beyond us or that there simply is no threat. The first argument is not true. We can defend this country. The second argument is also not true. The advocates of this case ask: ‘ Who is going to attack us today?’ They follow up this argument with statements to the effect that only the United States of America and Soviet Russia have the logistic resources to land an army on this continent. Threats, however, develop very quickly. The time frame is months, not 10 or 15 years. The Soviet Union has developed a capacity to transfer technology and arms quite rapidly around the world. We need a lead time of the order of 10 years to marshal our resources. The ‘no threat today’ people are thinking of by-gone wars and of different weapons systems. If we sacrificed enough lives we gained enough breathing space to get ready. Those days are gone. Defence capacity cannot be considered solely in terms of arms or manpower. The defence of this country involves three interrelated areas- the development of the actual Defence Force, the maintenance of a sound economy and the development of regional stability through our foreign policy.

What are our assets from a defence point of view? The first great asset we have are the present services. Whilst they are few in number, they are very competent and very professional. They form a superb nucleus on which to expand provided they have the time to do so. The problem that the Services face is not one of our own making but of the society that supports them. Here I must pay tribute to the Minister for Defence, Mr Jim Killen- probably the best Defence Minister this country has had- who has fought valiantly in Government for a higher priority for his portfolio. The second asset was have is geographical. Australia is an island. Anyone invading this country has very considerable logistic problems to overcome and long and vulnerable lines of communication to maintain.

The final point, and certainly not the least, concerns the great revolution in weapons technology- a revolution which is every bit as important as the invention of gunpowder. Current weapons systems give us the means to defend our geographical position with our low population numbers. We can equalise the huge imbalance of numbers with our neighbours, at a cost which is economically manageable. With electronic intelligence and surveillance equipment- some of it unmanned- and with missile technology, we have the ability to cover those vast areas of this continent in a way we have never done before. How can all this be done?

The very first task is to educate the public to recognise that we are at risk and that we can be secure. When the need is recognised we can move to develop the industrial base, the weapons systems and the forces we need. This year we will spend $2, 500m on defence. That sounds like a great deal of money, but it is only as much as we spend on education, it is less than we spend on health and it is only a third of what we spend on social security and welfare. We are buying an enormous amount of social security, but how much national security are we buying? I do not believe social security can survive without national security.

We spend 2.7 per cent of our gross domestic product on defence which is one of the lowest percentages in the world. The Soviets spend 13 per cent, and the United States of America 6 per cent. Even Britain, with all its economic problems, spends 5 per cent. The international consequences of this are twofold. First of all, no nation will be inclined to help us when we clearly have been making less effort than it has. Secondly, we need foreign capital to develop this country. Projects like the North West Shelf run into the thousands of millions of dollars and no overseas company will risk that sort of money if the host country will not make reasonable efforts to defend that investment. I therefore welcome recent statements of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that defence spending will be increased by 2 per cent in real terms in the coming Budget. It is a matter of high priority.

The next step is the development of our industrial base to produce our own new weapons systems. We have maintained the factories to produce our own munitions and armaments and despite what is said in the newspapers, these are technically excellent organisations. They have certainly suffered from not having had enough money spent on them over the years, but the staff are very capable. We should aim for self-reliance industrially for our own production is the only source on which we can rely in time of need. It also makes good sense economically for it provides employment and very considerably helps our balance of payments. We should be looking at designing our own weapons systems. Our operational requirements are never the same as those of Europe and North America. As Ikara and BARRA have shown, we have the ability to design and build world class systems. We have the potential for a considerable export market in sales to friendly regional governments. It is very much part of our defence to have stable governments in the region and to see that they have a capacity to defend themselves.

Some equipment, such as the tactical fighter force replacement, will need to be bought overseas but the overwhelming majority can be of our own design and production.

Senator Mulvihill:

– We could emulate the invention of the Owen gun in World War II.

Senator MacGIBBON:

– That is the point I am making. In association with this move, the three Services will have to develop and refine contingency plans. They will have to look at what numbers of servicemen they can reasonably expect to have in uniform in peace time. That may well be much the same as at present. Clearly, these numbers will be quite inadequate in an emergency and numbers will have to be brought up quickly by reservists. A complete reappraisal of our reserve system is required. We will need a level of reservists many times what we have today, at higher levels of training and with clear tasks assigned to them so they can have incentives and goals in their training. A great deal of creative thought has to be put into this reserve program. Whether or not Australia becomes involved in any regional instability in the area is a matter for conjecture. If we do become involved, we will certainly have to rely on our own resources. I believe we can look after ourselves if we get our priorities right. The time to do it is now so that by 1 990 we have attained that goal.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– 1 rise to speak about the Government’s attitude to migration. After listening to Senator MacGibbon I must say that it might be as well if we all migrated to New Caledonia, leaving this country to be used as one big quarry by every other country! I query the genuineness of this Government’s attitude to migration. I refer to the extraordinary difference in attitudes towards people from different countries and the basis for this discrimination. The Government insists that we need more workers to immigrate to Australia. Despite the downturn in our economy, despite the highest unemployment this country has ever known, this Government is using taxpayers’ money to advertise in Europe for workers in certain areas of expertise- amongst them, hairdressers. There must be hundreds and hundreds of women in the community who are trained hairdressers because that was the only area in which women could get any sort of apprenticeship. The Government is saying that the old

White Australia policy is long dead, that our immigration policy today is totally nondiscriminatory and is applied consistently to all applicants regardless of race, colour, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin and sex. I query these statements. I feel that they are hypocritical, taking into account the attitude the Government is taking to certain races and nationalities in the world.

The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr MacKellar, says that Australia wants to protect the social and economic future of all its citizens and that therefore it has to limit the number of migrants it accepts each year and give preference to those with close family ties, and with skills, professional qualifications or experience that are in strong demand. I maintain that this Government picks and chooses between the races and countries from which it chooses those migrants. I would like to know what the real criterion is. I do not believe that it is based on need, I believe that it is based on prejudice, and on the prejudice of big business. Certainly Mr MacKellar has said that we now have migrants from more than 100 countries, but I would like to know what the proportions are because, from my observation, they are far from equal. He has gloated about the fact that we now take a large number of migrants from Asia and says that this represents 22 per cent of the total migrant intake. We resettle large numbers of Indo-Chinese refugees. Of the migrants who come to live in Australia, 13 per cent are from Asia, and amongst them are a substantial number of professional and technical workers. Mr MacKellar also says that in recent years numbers of Japanese migrants have come to Australia. The Government has even spent part of the taxpayers’ money on a special program of films to encourage more Japanese workers to settle in Australia. Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that the Japanese have a reputation for being good workers who accept all sorts of conditions and their place in society.

The Government is not making quite such a large splash about the fact that during the last financial year South Africa was the third largest source of migrants for Australia. The second largest source was Great Britain and if the refugee component is included, the third was Malaysia. The Government does not advertise to any large degree the fact that the largest migrant source, excluding refugees, was South Africa. So great is the number of migrants now coming from South Africa that Australia has increased its immigration staff in Pretoria to cope with the increased numbers of applications from people in Rhodesia who wish to settle in Australia. An article appearing in the Johannesburg Star on 30 January this year stated:

  1. . that Australia was considering a plan to accept up to 10,000 Rhodesian refugees if the transitional Government collapsed.

The United States is another area from which the Government is encouraging emigration to Australia. Recently the Federal Government allowed 1 8 American families to enter Australia to establish a multimillion dollar jewellery manufacturing business in Perth, but the decision may have been coloured by the fact that a significant investment was involved. Of course, these days we take migrants from all areas, including areas to which this Government would never before have looked for migrants. We show a great deal of compassion for young ladies in red bikinis who jump off Russian cruise vessels. We show great compassion for the daughter of an elderly German couple who was in Australia with her son and wished to stay here with her parents, despite the fact that she could not speak English. Of course, she should have been allowed to stay, and of course governments should show proper compassion in such cases. But what about the young Greek couple who were here with their seven-week old Australian-born baby and who were deported, even though a very large section of the community asked the Government to change its mind? What about the Fijian parents who were deported, despite the fact that they too had an Australian-born child? No compassion was shown to them and they were sent back to Fiji.

In the last few weeks we have heard of the case of a young man who jumped ship in Australia when he was 1 8 years old in order to settle with his mother and sister, who were his only relations. He lived here very happily, found a job and worked very hard. He thought that if he put his case honestly before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs some sympathy would be shown. He thought honesty was the best policy. This young man went to the Department and told his story, and he was not allowed to return home. The Department was told that if he were sent back to Greece he would have to face the consequences of having jumped ship. His 19-year-old fiancee lost her job because the Commonwealth Police visited her at her office almost every day to ask her for further facts. His brother-in-law fears that because he was of military age, he may be court-martialled for desertion and his length of service may be increased from between 18 and 27 months to at least three years. His brother-in-law wanted to put up half the bail so that the family could spend Greek Easter together before he was deported, if he were to be deported.

Despite all endeavours to stay, this man- he is still only a young man of 22 years of age who has committed no crime other than wanting to be with his mother and sister when he was 1 8 years of age- was deported back to Greece. I think his fate had a great deal to do with the fact that he was a Greek. Had he been of some other nationality, such as British or South African, maybe he would not have been sent back.

The fiancee of a South American migrant who has been detained awaiting deportation alleged that he was being removed from Australia to avoid any investigations into a racket defrauding migrants, but no attempt was made by this Government to look into that matter. Migrants in Melbourne and Sydney have made allegations of bribes up to $1,500 being paid to people who pose as immigration officers expecting that people who are making desperate, last minute attempts to stay in Australia will pay any money to do so. No investigation has been made of those allegations. Despite the fact that a woman who recently went back to the United Kingdom with her five children because she said she could not stand Australia has been backwards and forwards two or three times, it is interesting to note that authorities in Britain said that Australia House was very helpful in arranging for her and her family to be repatriated back to Australia when they had gone home to England before and then had wanted to return to Australia. The same compassion does not seem to be shown for people from other areas, especially people of Greek origin. A Greek-born member of the New South Wales Legislative Council recently said:

I know of instances where Australian citizens of Greek descent who have married in Greece have serious difficulties to bring their wives back here.

We know very well that files on Greeks had been checked by the fraud squad of the Department of Social Security, although there is not much information to show that files on people of other nationalities have been checked. It is interesting to note that the Federal Government is to review the type and number of doctors migrating to Australia because there are too many in some fields and not enough in others. However, not much effort is made to see to it that we attract doctors from multi-cultural backgrounds who may be able to assist the migrant families in Australia. The doctors do not come into Australia in proportion to the areas from which Australia brings migrants. This is causing a great deal of concern and hardship to migrant people, who find it hard to relate to doctors who do not speak their languages and who do not know their background.

There is a great deal of talk in the community about many doctors migrating to Australia coming from South Africa and Rhodesia. A report tabled by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) showed that by 1981 Australia would have one doctor to 543 people. It was found that the net inflow of long term immigrants and settler doctors was higher than anticipated- about 600 a year. The report says that the two most common reasons given for the high gains from immigration are that practice in Australia was more lucrative than in many other countries and that the more restrictive conditions for migration of doctors to other countries made migration to Australia comparatively attractive. This makes one wonder whose fault it is that health costs are rising so rapidly.

All the figures on where Australia’s migrants have come from over the last few years show an extraordinary pattern. South Africans, Britons, Americans and Northern Europeans are being granted visas with little difficulty. However, Southern Europeans- especially Greeks and people from the Middle East- and South Americans have far less chance of getting a visa to come to Australia to see friends and relatives or simply to tour the country. All these figures were given by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The breakdown of the numbers of visas issued and the number of applications refused in the 12 months ended February this year is as follows: Whilst 2,634 Greeks were given visas, 825 were refused. That is a ratio of almost one in three. Whilst 1 85 visas were issued to Turkish nationals, 124 were refused. People from Lebanon were even worse off. The number of applications refused was higher than the number approved. There were 275 visas granted and 291 rejected.

However, there is a stark difference when these figures are compared to those of South Africa, Northern Europe, Britain, the United States and Canada. Whilst 5,715 South Africans were allowed into Australia only 225 applications were refused, or one refusal for every 30 approved. About 50,000 Americans were granted visas and only 189 were refused. More than 5,600 British applications were approved and 450 were rejected. Not one application from Austria was rejected and 1,459 visas were granted. Precisely 18 applications from Sweden and Norway were refused whilst 2,170 were approved. I suppose after knowing this, I should not have been surprised to receive the following letter from the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs:

Dear Senator Melzer,

I refer to your further letter concerning the visitor entry to Australia from Greece of Mr Alexander Grekos who is seeking to visit his sister, Mrs Alkisti Yallouridis of 10 Harrow Street, Blackburn,

I reject utterly your accusation that Greek people are singled out by my Department for discriminatory treatment. It is correct that visit applications lodged in Greece and in certain other countries too are subjected to a closer scrutiny than applies elsewhere. This has resulted from the fact that so many attempts have been made to abuse the visitor policy and I have been compelled to instruct officers overseas to look more closely at the bona fides particularly of people of nationalities which have shown up in our records as being among those most consistently flouting entry requirements. I am sorry to say that Greeks are included in this category.

In assessing Mr Grekos intended other than a genuine visit the officer who interviewed him in Athens took into account factors such as an awareness by Mr Grekos that he would not be eligible for migrant entry, his below average income, no property ties in Greece, no previous travel and seeking a stay of six months. Mr Grekos’s background fitted what might be termed a profile of visitors from Greece most likely to become over stayed visitors in Australia. The doubts held by the interviewing officer in Athens were not alleviated by a report from the Regional Director of my Department in Melbourne, which indicated that after a telephone conversation with Mr Grekos’s brother-in-law, Mr Yallouridis, they also had doubts that a genuine visit was intended.

I have again reviewed this case but I am satisfied the decision to refuse Mr Grekos a visit visa was reasonably based on policy and there was no discrimination based on race or nationality. I have decided to maintain that decision. . . .

This is a young man in his early twenties whose sister had married an Australian, had come out to live in Australia and had just had her first baby. Her father, this young man’s father, came out to Australia to visit his daughter and his new grandchild. This young man wished to come out to visit his sister and his new nephew. His relatives out here were perfectly prepared to put up bonds, to make sure that a ticket was bought that showed he was going to return. The Minister said that he had below average income. How many of our young people going overseas to visit would have a greater than average income? The letter says that he has no property ties in Greece. He is of an age when one could not expect him to have property ties in Greece. He had made no previous travel and he sought a stay of six months. A young man with no property ties and below average income is not going to be able to visit his sister very often. So one would expect that he would stay for the maximum time he could.

I spoke to this young man’s relatives and they were most anxious that he should be out here in time to have the baby christened. The Minister says he is not discriminating against Greeks who most consistently flout entry requirements; I say to him that the Greeks are not the worst flouters of entry requirements.

A report in the Sunday Mail stated that British people top the list of illegal migrants in Australia. A total of 58,883 illegal immigrants is now at large in Australia. The British top the ‘wanted list’ followed by the Americans and the Malaysians. The report stated that the others are Indonesians, Fijians, Italians, West Germans, Hong Kong Chinese, Greeks, Dutch and Singaporeans, in a descending order of numbers. The Greeks are nowhere near the top of the list of those who make up the greatest number of illegal immigrants. The greatest number of illegal immigrants come from Britain and America. If the Government continues in this vein it will mean that people in Australia who are of Greek origin will be able to have no visitors from their home country. There will be no family reunions. The only way that these people will be able to have reunions with their families is by going home to Greece. If they do not they will lose contact with their families and the areas from which they came.

I refer to another case involving 13 Greek teachers who came to Australia under a temporary teaching scheme in 1977. Of those 13 teachers five later applied for permanent residency. One of them was English and was travelling on a British passport. Honourable senators would not be surprised to know that he was granted permanent residence. The applications of the other four, who had Greek passports and Greek citizenship, were rejected. They all came to Australia on the same basis but the applications of the four who had Greek passports were rejected. The application of the one who travelled on a British passport was accepted. I say to the Government that all immigrants are human beings. They all love their mothers, grandfathers and children. They sometimes have wider and deeper family feelings than we have. People in the community are concerned at this sort of discrimination. People from the Greek community are certainly concerned. The Government has castigated other countries about the treatment of their nationals and their treatment of refugees. It has called on them to show greater compassion, to take a greater proportion of refugees and to allow more families to be reunited. I come from the second largest Greek speaking city in the world. I think it is time that this Government showed its bona fides, recognised the tremendous qualities that these people bring to Australia and treated them like human beings.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The fluoridation of water supplies is carried out as a preventive health measure of great importance. Fluoride is a natural constituent of surface and underground water. Most Australian water supplies are deficient in the chemical. Therefore, it is added to the water supplies of about 67 per cent of Australian people. On 2 1 April this year the Australian Broadcasting Commission program, Four Corners, a program which I enjoy watching and which I admire for some of the subjects it raises for public discussion, screened a segment featuring an anti-fluoridation message. This program has given rise throughout the community to some concerns and to some issues which should usefully be made public in this place. One of the results has been that the authorities in the Shoalhaven area have stopped their fluoridation program and intend to hold a public referendum. I understand that the authorities in Forbes have done the same.

I will set out briefly the sequence of events associated with the program. During March 1979 the Four Corners team produced a segment which it called ‘Shades of Doubt’. The program included some dental scientists, together with people who spoke against fluoridation. The request for the program came through the Health Commission of New South Wales and involved a dental scientist. The point is that is of most concern is that the program, which made the assertion that fluoridation causes malignant disease, or cancer, did not involve any experts from this country who have made a specialised study of cancer and its causes. There was no representative from the Australian Cancer Society. There were no representatives from the Cancer registry in New South Wales or in other States. There were no representatives from the State cancer councils. There were no Australian epidemiologists who are concerned with cancer and its likely causes. I believe that in this way the program was unbalanced, which was very unsatisfactory. The New South Wales State Cancer Council heard of the program, in fact, before it actually went to air. It became aware of it when advertisements began to appear for the segment some days before its screening. It approached Four Corners on the day before the program was produced.

The program featured the claims made by an American Ph.D., a man of some learning, a man named Dean Burk. He was introduced by the program reporter Mr Charles Wooley as ‘Doctor Dean Burk, an eminent American cancer specialist’. That is an incorrect description for this man.

He is not a cancer specialist. He has been involved for some time in anti-fluoridation campaigns- that is his right- but the Australian Broadcasting Commission should have been careful how it introduced him.

The problem that rises may be encapsulated if we refer back to the basis of modern science. The modern philosopher who has guided science is Karl Popper. He has said that if something is scientific it has to be falsifiable. One had to be able to prove it is wrong. If you cannot prove that it is wrong, it is not science. It may be myth or it may be some polemical statement. The problem with the Four Corners program is that many of the statements made were simply not falsifiable. They were put in such a way that they could not be treated scientifically. This has been the case with many of the issues which have been raised by Dean Burk and his associate, Dr Yiamouyiannis, in relation to anti-fluoridation campaigns. I have previously brought to the attention of the Opposition Whip, and I now bring to the attention of the Senate, a segment from Consumer Reports, the journal of the United States Consumers Association, for July and August 1978. It sets out some of the activities of these people. I seek leave to have a column and a half of that journal to be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The article reads as follows-

RAISING THE SPECTRE OF CANCER

The first big target was Los Angeles, whose City Council had voted in September 1974 to fluoridate the water supply. The NHF’s ammunition was a study by Dr Yiamouyiannis that purported to link fluoridation to an increase in cancer deaths. The study and a couple of publicity handouts that accompanied it were eventually reviewed by various public health officials, including Thomas Mack, M.D., of Los Angeles, an associate professor of community medicine and an expert in cancer epidemiology. (Epidemiology is a branch of medicine that studies the incidence, causes, and control of a disease in specific populations.) The nature of the Yiamouyiannis study is apparent in an excerpt from Dr Mack’s review:

I cannot begin without commenting on the form of the documents you sent me,’ Dr Mack stated. ‘Despite the gravity of the question addressed, the form of these sheets is that of a propaganda flyer rather than a serious scientific effort. Specifically, there is no indication that any of the material was ever prepared for submission to a reputable scientific journal … All over the documents one finds . . . conclusions emblazoned essentially in the form of slogans, without cautious interpretation or restrictions. For these reasons, the reader must immediately presume that objectivity has never been considered . . At the same time this bias is so pervasive and obvious, the mistaken logic so gross and naive, that the reader assumes the author to be, however competent in his Ph.D. field, totally unaware of the principles of epidemiology.’

Most people are unfamiliar with the principles of epidemiology, however, and a Ph.D. degree can sometimes lend credibility even to claptrap. In Los Angeles it evidently did. The scare tactics of the NHF and other antifluoridationists scored a stunning victory over dental health:

There is no evidence that fluoride increases the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ.’ (from a study by the Royal College of Physicians).

Around the beginning of 1975, Dr Yiamouyiannis also joined forces with Dr Burk. Like the National Health Federation, Dr Burk is a leading advocate of the worthless cancer drug Laetrile (Consumer Reports, August 1977), and he shares the NHF’s aversion to fluoridation.

The collaboration produced a study claiming that 25,000 or more excess cancer deaths occur annually in U.S. cities that fluoridate their water. The assertion was based on a comparison of death rates for specific cancers in some counties that were fluoridated compared with some that were not. In July 1975, Representative Delaney entered the study into the Congressional Record and called for ‘an immediate suspension of all artificial fluoridation. ‘

The National Cancer Institute reviewed the study and was unimpressed. Unlike a proper epidemiological study, it had failed to take into account widely recognised risk factors known to affect the death rate from specific types of cancers. Using the same data, the NCI reanalyzed the study, taking into account such influences as ethnic composition of the population, geographic location, socioeconomic status, and other fundamental risk factors. The purported differences in the cancer death rates promptly disappeared. Undaunted, Drs Burk and Yiamouyiannis bounced back with another study. This time they compared overall cancer death rates for 10 large cities that were fluoridated versus 10 large cities that were not. Again, the fluoridated cities came out second best. Over the 20-year period studied, cancer death rates in the fluoridated cities purportedly increased 10 per cent more than in the un fluoridated ones. In December 1975, Representative Delaney entered the study into the Congressional Record and demanded that all (foundation be stopped.

If anything, the new study was even more amateurish than the July entry. In the judgment of one NCI official at the House subcommittee hearings, it represented ‘the worst piece of work that has been done to date on fluoride’ Drs Burk and Yiamouyiannis had somehow managed to ignore the most fundamental factors involved in cancer mortality rates- age, sex, and race. Old people die from cancer more often than young people; men have a higher cancer death rate than women; and blacks a higher one than whites. Unless those factors are taken into consideration, the results of a cancer-mortality comparison would be meaningless. When NCI scientists reanalysed the Burk- Yiamouyiannis data, they found that the difference in the cancer death rate was due entirely to the age and racial make-up of the respective populations. Fluoridation was irrelevant.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-That article sets out some of the rather unsatisfactory background to the work which these people have done.

The central question whether fluoridation causes cancer has been examined by a lot of people. I do not want to spend a lot of time on that question today. It is an important question and it is desirable that something is put on public record to identify the vast body of literature which has been prepared on this matter. I have available to me a table which was prepared by a Commission which reported to the Governor of Minnesota, and which has summarised many studies which have been done on the association of malignant diseases with fluoridation. I have shown this table to the Opposition Whip,

Senator Georges. I ask leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The table shows that many studies in many parts of the world have been unable to verify an association of the kind that was claimed on the Four Comers program. The program has caused concern and complaints have been expressed to the ABC and have been investigated by the ABC. I must say that the ABC has really taken some trouble to investigate the complaints in some depth and to make, I think, a very adequate response to the various dental groups. I would like to identify also an extract from a letter written by Mr T. S. Duckmanton, General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was written on 30 May 1979 to Mr Graeme Dunn, the President of the Dental Health Education and Research Foundation, in which the ABC admits that there was probably a lack of balance in the program. I seek leave to have that extract incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted:

The extract read as follows-

Following lengthy and detailed discussion, the Commission expressed the view that the program of 2 1 April should have provided a full opportunity, either by way of statement or interview, for the presentation of the considered views of a number of professional bodies concerned with the fluoridation issue. While of the opinion that the public has the right to be informed about potential hazards, as well as potential benefits from any mass medication program, the Commission considered that the first program on the fluoridation of water supplies did not adequately present that range of professional opinion which, by its exclusion from the program, gave rise in some quarters to allegations of biased and inadequate reporting.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I believe that it is right, proper and essential for programs like Four Corners to continue to investigate any matter which they think is of public interest. The title used, ‘Shades of Doubt’, is not a bad title. If Four Corners thinks there is an issue affecting fluoridation, vitamins, medication or tobacco, it should be allowed to investigate the subject. The concern that many of us have is that the ABC, because of its very great capacity to influence the views of a lot of people, has a special responsibility to ensure balance and justice in the programs which it produces. If it is to cover something like the cause of cancer, which is likely to create anxiety in a lot of people, it has a special responsibility which I do not believe it discharged properly in this case. That responsibility is to balance up the particular program. The views it chooses to push on the issue of fluoridation, I am not going to argue about; but I place on record my concern about the way the program was constructed. I hope that Four Corners, because of the dramatic impact that it can have, will ensure in future that it does achieve balance in its programs, even at the expense of the dramatic impact of the segment that it screens.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Readings

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1 964 to increase the maximum rates of levy which may be prescribed for cattle disease eradication and to provide for the introduction of levies on the slaughter of two categories of calves.

The importance of animal disease control to the future of the Australian cattle industry cannot be too highly stressed. Our major export market, the United States of America, and a number of other countries which are either markets or competitors for Australian beef are well on the way to tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication. In these circumstances the tempo of the Australian campaign must be maintained. It is, however, a very costly business.

In the three years to June 1979 the Government will have provided grants totalling some $8. 5m for the compulsory slaughter of reactor animals. Over the same period, the Government has advanced $47m for campaign operations. Recoveries from the disease eradication components of slaughter levies and export charges are estimated at $2 8m. Thus, net advances to the industry over the period have approximated $19m. The Government has decided that such outstanding advances should bear interest at the long term bond rate from 1 July 1979. For 1979-80, the Government has agreed to an allocation of $22m for operations and $3. 6m for compensation towards a Commonwealth-States program totalling $36.4m. The Treasurer (Mr Howard), in the 1978-79 Budget Speech announced that the Government would be reviewing the industry’s financial contribution to the campaign. The outcome of that review was announced by the Treasurer in his statement to the House of Representatives on 24 May 1 979.

Given the marked improvement in returns to the cattle industry in the past year, it has been decided that the industry’s rate of contribution to brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication can be stepped up. The Bill reflects that decision and provides for the maximum disease eradication levy on cattle slaughter to be increased from $ I to $3 a head. The Government has agreed to a request from the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation to introduce levies on the slaughter of calves. Until now, calves under 90 kg dressed weight have been exempt from levy. The industry sector producing calves does receive substantial benefit, however, from the marketing and promotional activity of the AMLC and from the research funded from the slaughter levies and matching Commonwealth contributions. At the request of the dairy industry, provision has been made for a special category of bobby calves. These are intended to be levied at 10 per cent of the rate for cattle. The rate proposed for heavier calves is approximately 35 per cent of the cattle rate. For disease eradication, the proposed maxima are respectively 30c and $1 a head. The Government proposes to recommend to the Governor-General that regulations be promulgated setting the disease eradication components of cattle, calf and bobby calf slaughter levies as from 1 July 1979 at the maximum levels provided in the Bill- namely at $3, $1, and 30c a head respectively. On projected 1 979-80 slaughterings the resulting revenue for cattle disease eradication is estimated at $2 3. 6m in a full year.

I turn now to a summary of the specific provisions of the Bill before the Senate. Clause 3 provides for amendments to definitions to reflect the inclusion of the two additional categories of bobby calf and calf. Clause 4 deletes from subsection 5(2)(b) of the Act the provision that levy is not payable on the slaughter of cattle the dressed weights of which do not exceed 90 kg. This results from the proposal that calves should become subject to levy. Clause 4 also provides for amendment of sub-section 5 (2) (a) of the Act. The purpose of this is to achieve consistency with a similar provision included in the Livestock Slaughter (Export Inspection Charge) Bill. It was considered necessary to use the amended form of words in that Bill to ensure that charge could be imposed on the slaughter of horses notwithstanding that horsemeat cannot be used for human consumption in any Australian State.

Clause 5 provides for the maximum amount of the disease eradication component of the cattle slaughter levy to be amended from $ 1 a head to $3 a head. Clause 6 provides for the same amendment in relation to the slaughter of buffaloes. Clause 7 provides for levies to be payable on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves. The levy components provided for in each case are the same as those for cattle. Clause 8 relates to the requirement for certain bodies to be consulted before recommendations are made on amounts of levy to be prescribed. The amendment proposed in this clause extends these requirements to apply also to recommendations for rates of levy on calves and bobby calves. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Live-stock Slaugher Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the principal Act so as to take account of the proposed introduction of levies on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964. The amendment is to authorise payment into the National Cattle Disease Eradication Trust Account of the proceeds of the disease eradication components of bobby calf and calf slaughter levies. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Export Charge Act 1977 to increase the maximum rate which may be charged on live cattle and buffalo exports for the purposes of animal disease eradication from $1 to $3. This matches the similar amendments provided in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill just introduced. The Government proposes to seek the promulgation of regulations to increase the charge to $3 a head from 1 July 1979. At this rate it is estimated to yield approximately $ 1 50,000 in a full year. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977 to take account of the proposed introduction of levies on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves under the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1 964. The amendments are to authorise payment to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation of the proceeds of those components of bobby calf and calf levies which are designed to provide funds for the Corporation’s administration and promotion activities. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Meat Research Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Meat Research Act 1960 to take account of the proposed introduction of levies on the slaughter of bobby calves and calves under the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1964. The proposed amendments to paragraphs 5 ( 1 ) (a) and 5(1) (aa) of the principal Act are to authorise payment into the Meat Research Trust Account of the proceeds of the research components of bobby calf and calf slaughter levies. The proposed amendment to sub-paragraph 8 (2) (a) ( 1 ) of the principal Act is to authorise the Australian Meat Research Committee to make recommendations on the amounts to be prescribed for the research components of bobby calf and calf slaughter levies. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Firstly, I wish to explain the procedures which the Opposition intends to follow on the five Bills which are before us. The first three Bills listed on the business paper are a package which seeks to increase the levy imposed on slaughtered livestock for the purpose of financing the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign. The Opposition will be opposing those three Bills. We intend to call a division on at least the first of those three Bills. The remaining two Bills extend to bobby calves and lighter cattle the existing levy on livestock slaughter which is imposed to finance the administration of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation and that Corporation’s meat promotion activities. The Opposition will not be opposing those two Bills. So although we are debating these Bills cognately -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, is it in order then to put the question in two groups? Could we take the first three Bills as one group and the other two Bills as the second group?

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, I am happy with that if that procedure is acceptable.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes. I will put the questions in that way at the appropriate time.

Senator WALSH:

– I just wanted to make that clear at the beginning, Mr President. We are not opposing the last two Bills because they seek to extend to a class of cattle previously exempt from it a levy that has been applied for some time to other cattle. However, I do observe in passing that we have grave reservations about the justification of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation’s present meat promotion campaign. The overwhelming probability is that there can be no possible financial gain to the Australian meat industry in promoting on the domestic market under these conditions, but that is another matter. That is a question of AMLC policy which is not, in our view, directly relevant to the final two Bills of the five Bills that are currently before the Senate.

The three Bills which make up the package for financing disease eradication propose to increase the existing $1 levy on the slaughter of adult cattle to $3. As I have said, we will be opposing those Bills. I readily concede- the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) will probably make the point in his closing remarks- that a levy for a similar purpose was imposed by the Federal Labor Government in 1973, but we have been persuaded to modify our view on this matter for the following reasons: Firstly, to a substantial extent, the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign is a public health measure. By contrast, the meat export inspection charges Bills which were debated and passed last week have a purely commercial application. They enhance the value of Australian meat on overseas markets. But there is a public health component in the disease eradication Bills, and for that reason we believe that there is a much stronger case for a greater contribution from public funds.

The second major reason is that the Bill discriminates unfairly against particular regions of Australia, most notably Tasmania and to a slightly lesser extent Western Australia. I understand that there has been no reported case of tuberculosis or brucellosis in Tasmania for a number of years. The State is provisionally free and maybe entirely free. It is necessary, of course, for any Commonwealth levy to be imposed throughout the Commonwealth on a uniform basis so we recognise that there is no scope for imposing a higher federal levy or tax in those regions of Australia which are still tuberculosis and brucellosis prone. The levy has to be uniform for constitutional reasons. Whilst it is reasonable to argue that one could impose a relatively small levy even on those Tasmanian cattle producers and, to a slightly lesser extent, Western Australian cattle producers who have little concern about this and will derive little benefit from it, we believe that a $3 levy becomes a significant impost. We are opposing it for that reason.

Supplementary to the points that I have already made is the fact that the Commonwealth Government has not, at this stage, picked up the share of this tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign which the 1975 Industries Assistance Commission report recommended it should do. The eradication of TB and brucellosis is an eight-year campaign, embracing both detection and compensation for the slaughter of diseased animals. Compensation costs will, of course, decline over time. As the diseases approach eradication, fewer cattle will be slaughtered. Therefore expenditure on compensation will decline over time. But the detection costs, if anything, are likely to increase. The Commonwealth liability is limited to paying 75 per cent of the compensation payments for brucellosis and 50 per cent for TB. For the reasons that I have stated, the proportion of the total costs paid by the Commonwealth will be highest in the early years of the campaign, that is, the number of cattle requiring to be slaughtered will be fewer and therefore the amount of compensation will decline over time.

The 1 975 report of the IAC recommended that the Commonwealth pay 1 5 per cent of the cost of the entire eight-year program, that the industry pay 60 per cent, and that the States pay 25 per cent. To date, however, the Commonwealth has paid only 7 1/2 per cent of the total costs incurred in the eradication campaign; the industry has paid nearly 68 per cent, and the States have paid 25 per cent. If the lAC’s recommendations had been followed, the Commonwealth’s contribution to the total cost of the scheme in the early years would have been something of the order of 25 per cent, possibly even higher. In fact, it has been only Vh per cent. The existing $1 levy has not yielded enough revenue to pay the industry contribution. The shortfall in the industry contribution has been met by a Government advance which is recorded as a debt to the industry trust fund. As yet, no interest has been charged on that debt in the trust fund. There are some doubts as to whether it will be applied in the future. The Commonwealth has been providing bridging finance for the industry’s share of the cost of the total program.

The estimated expenditure for the current financial year was $37. 5m. I understand that has since been modified to something like $33. 5m. On the original estimate of $37. 5m the industry levy was expected to supply $7.8m, the contributions from the States was expected to supply $8. 7m, a loan from the Commonwealth- the bridging finance to which I referred earlieramounting to about $ 12.1m, and the Commonwealth’s compensation grant of about $8. 7m. It is now expected that the compensation expenditure will be only $4m. That is the only Commonwealth contribution to the program, apart from the loan which the industry is expected ultimately to repay. The proposed $3 levy is estimated to yield $23. 26m, which should exceed current industry expenditure on the program, and gradually repay the accumulated debt. The Commonwealth continues not to meet its share of the scheme as envisaged by the IAC. I stress that as the program was envisaged by the IAC, the Commonwealth’s share of the total cost, although 1 5 per cent over the entire eight-year period, would be substantially higher than 15 per cent in the early years of the program.

Unless the program is completed in 1 984, Australian beef could be banned from the United States markets and other markets. But eradication in northern Australia may prove to be a real technical problem, because of feral cattle and buffaloes, and the extensive management practices. The costs of testing vary quite widely between the States, and nobody seems to have given a satisfactory explanation as to why that is so. At the January 1979 meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, a proposal was endorsed to modify the protection plan, with more emphasis on traceback which, it was estimated, could have saved some $30m over the five years. It has not been implemented and nobody- nobody I have spoken to, anywayknows why. Perhaps the Minister for Science and the Environment can give us some reasons when he replies to this debate.

The final two points I want to make are political ones. In speaking in the debate on a similar Bill on 18 September 1973 Mr Fraser, as recorded at page 1205 of the House of Representatives Hansard said:

  1. . the cost of those campaigns -

That is, the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaigns- is borne largely by the States and at the most $6m to $7m would be required from the Commonwealth.

Mr Fraser was using that as an argument against imposing a levy on cattle slaughter. I just note the gross inconsistency between Mr Fraser ‘s attitude at that stage and the actions that his Government is actually taking now, whereby it proposes to raise from the industry $23.26m by way of levy.

The other political point concerns the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) who, in his second reading speech on the legislation now before us, said on 26 May:

In times of oversupply of livestock the levy is likely to bc reflected in prices paid to livestock producers. In the reverse situation -

That is, when demand for beef is extremely high- the levy will tend to be absorbed further along the marketing chain.

What Mr Sinclair was saying was that in times of heavy demand for meat the levy is likely to be absorbed by someone other than the producer and that in times of oversupply of meat the full cost of the levy is likely to be passed on to the producer. Many people would agree with that assessment of the probability but I make the point again that it stands in stark contrast to the comments made by the present Minister for Primary Industry on 18 September 1973, as recorded at page 1 192 of the House of Representatives Hansard, when he said: the Minister must be in dreamland if he thinks that the influence of the levy will not be passed on to the producers.

The marketing situation at that time was very similar to that of the present time with a very strong overseas demand for beef and very high beef prices. As is typical of this Government in so many areas, the remarks that Ministers make today are totally inconsistent with the remarks and assertions they made when they were in opposition.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I will be as brief as possible in my remarks. Basically, I would go along with many of the things that Senator Walsh said or implied in the early part of his speech. I think it is well known in this chamber that I have spoken several times on cattle disease eradication and the importance of an eradication program. There is no doubt that, as far as the cattle industry of Australia is concerned, disease eradication still is the most important single factor that has to be considered. On 30 May I got a reply from Senator Webster to a question that I asked on 28 May on brucellosis control. As a result of that a statement was made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) on 3 1 May setting out the position in a fairly clear and conclusive form. I seek leave to have that statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

PRIMARY INDUSTRY MEDIA RELEASE

Statement by the Minister for Primary Industry the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, M P.

CANBERRA

31 May 1979.

BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION CAMPAIGN

The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Ian Sinclair, today announced that the Commonwealth Government will make available $25. 6m in 1 979-80 towards the State and Territory bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaigns.

Commonwealth funds for compaign operations will total $22m, an increase of 10 per cent on the provision in 1978-79. This is expected to be offset by the proceeds from the $3 per head disease eradication component of the Cattle Slaughter Levy.

In addition the Government would provide up to $3.6m to compensate producers for cattle compulsorily slaughtered under the campaigns. The contribution to compensation is in the form of a Government grant and is not recoverable from the cattle industry. The Commonwealth contribution to the net compensation cost would be 50 per cent in the case of tuberculosis and 75 per cent in the case of brucellosis. In both cases the balance would be met from State sources. The amount provided for compensation is based on estimates made by the States of the numbers of livestock which they expect to slaughter in their campaigns this year. The amount provided for compensation is less than half the total made available in 1978-79 as expanding eradication testing operations have cleared out heavily infected areas and generally the level of reactors is less than anticipated from the original surveys of brucellosis in cattle.

Commenting on progress so far the Minister said Tasmania has been free of the two diseases for some years. Western Australia was the most advanced of the mainland States and its efforts to eradicate brucellosis and could reach provisionally free status before the national target date if the present rate of the campaign was maintained.

The brucellosis eradication campaign in Queensland had been highly successful. Most of the eastern half of the State is under eradication testing and by mid 1979, 20 shires in the north east should be declared provisionally free. By that time only three shires in the south west of the State would not be under eradication testing. The New South Wales eradication plans for 1979-80 would involve eradication testing of 85 per cent of the States breeding cattle and all of the State, except for 7 pasture protection districts in the central west and one in the north west, will be under eradication testing. In addition it is expected that 15 pasture protection districts in the north east of the State will be declared provisionally brucellosis free. Victoria will test 3 million cattle in 30,000 herd tests on 12,500 properties in their State wide program. South Australia will test 1 million cattle in 8,500 herd tests on 3,500 properties and all of the State south of the dog fence should be under eradication testing by 1 979-80. The Northern Territory expects to test 350,000 on approximately 150 properties and eradication activity will be intensified whenever possible.

Concerning tuberculosis eradication, Mr Sinclair said that Queensland hoped to be able to declare all of the State (with the exception of 6 shires in the far west) provisionally tuberculosis free. This means that all cattle in the State except for 0.5 million in 146 herds will be within the provisionally free area. Some 600,000 cattle will be TB tested during the year. Queensland will be approaching the situation which exists in the southern States which are all declared provisionally free even though each State still has some herds in quarantine (Tasmania excepted ) and has to maintain an effective monitoring system to pick up any re-emergence of the disease. In the extensive cattle producing areas of Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory tuberculosis eradication is a continuing problem and marked progress is not expected.

Senator ARCHER:

– Cattle numbers in Australia have come down from the peak of 33.5 million reached in 1976. I understand that the herd numbers approximate 26.8 million and, on the estimates that we are able to get at present, it appears that those numbers are likely to fall a little before it bottoms out in another year or so. I believe that the estimates for bottoming out may even be shown to be a little optimistic. There are still enough farmers in Australia with a liquidity problem which will require them to sell even more stock than is currently budgeted for. I hope that I am wrong, but I believe that we have to look at this as being a reasonable expectation. So that we can get these Bills passed as quickly as possible, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some documents showing livestock numbers on an Australia-wide basis from 1970 to 1979, cattle numbers in Australia and in certain States and slaughtering projections from 1 974 to 1 982.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Senator ARCHER:

– It is interesting to note from these figures not only that cattle numbers are on the decline and likely to continue to do so, but also that until last year sheep numbers were declining very rapidly- although they showed a slight recovery in 1979- and that pig numbers are at their lowest level since 1970. Livestock numbers in Australia are now substantially lower than they have been previously.

I give a warning about the likely results that this will have. I start with my State where the cattle numbers have dropped by almost onethird in the last four years. In this four-year period Tasmania actually has increased its killing capacity quite substantially. The effect that this will have on abattoirs, meat industry employees and associated things will be quite serious. Of course, this will be the case in other parts of Australia as well. We are now overequipped with killing space. I expect quite naturally that the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union also is likely to realise this and will inevitably apply some sort of squeeze to try to recover the loss of earnings that its members will suffer as a result of there being a lower throughput. I think that this is inevitable and that it will be one of the matters to be tested in the right place at the right time.

This will result also in higher meat inspection costs. I am now referring again to the meat inspectors and other employees in the other half of the industry. I hope that the committee of which Bert Kelly is chairman will be capable of rationalising some of the creeping overheads in this area. While cattle numbers are down and values are high it appears that we should be able to get far more co-operation from farmers in all areas towards disease eradication. The proportional cost of mustering, which has been so high for the last four or five years, made mustering in the outback areas impossible even to contemplate. I believe that with the better prices now we should be able to expect a far greater level of mustering. I think that we have to look to this.

Recently I was talking to one gentleman who said that during the last two or three years his stockmen occasionally rounded up a bunch of the oldest cows on his property and drove them as far out into the bush as they could to let them die in peace and cause as little trouble as possible. He has now reached the stage of hiring a helicopter to ascertain whether they all died. It is worth it to him to look for the residue of these cattle to try to convert them to money.

Because of the change in such a short time in the value of animals much of the money which the Commonwealth Government provided to assist the industry over the last year or so was not spent to the current advantage of the farmers. I refer particularly to the contribution paid towards the spaying of females. It has turned out to be quite unfortunate. The killing figures that I have been able to get hold oflately indicate that of the total cattle kill, 50 per cent is female. On this basis it is difficult to try to increase herd numbers. Several speakers have quoted from the report of the Industries Assistance Commission so I will not bother to do so.

I refer to two points that Senator Walsh endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to make. Firstly he said that it was justifiable to try to make political capital by saying that the Bill should be thrown out, on the grounds that it involves a public health and is not a meat matter. If Senator Walsh believes that, he is deluding himself. I tell him quite bluntly that it is very much a meat matter. Unless we get brucellosis and tuberculosis under control there will be no sale of meat. It does not matter whether it is a health matter. I respectfully suggest that to say that this is a public health matter will have no reaction at all in the place where we are selling meat. Another aspect of this matter relates to Tasmania. I have a lot of sympathy for the Tasmanians for what they have achieved over time and at great cost. I suggest to the Tasmanians, as I have done before, that we are talking about an Australian industry. It is all very well for them now to say that they feel that they should not have to contribute. But the Commonwealth Government has contributed substantially towards the eradication of brucellosis in Tasmania. There is no way that we will have an export market of Australian meat based on the fact that Tasmania is clean. It is in the interest of Tasmania as much as every other State to see that the eradication program is carried through fully.

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

– I thank those honourable senators who have spoken in this debate and those who have not spoken but wished to do so. I have three comments to make relating to the matters raised by honourable senators. Because of the time factor I ask, if the Opposition is agreeable, that these comments be incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The comments read as follows-

Human brucellosis is an insignificant health problem in Australia when compared to the damage to society caused by such agents as alcohol and motor vehicles.

For instance in 1977-78 there were 1 IS clinical cases of brucellosis in Australia.

New South Wales 29; Victoria 12; Queensland 59; South Australia 14 Western Australia - ; Tasmania - ; Northern Territory 1; Australian Capital Territory - ;

Without exception these 1 1 S cases were either farmers or meat workers.

The human health hazard in Australia could be reduced without resorting to an expensive brucellosis eradication campaign by emphasizing increased attention to personal hygiene and by controlling the disease instead of eradicating it. Vaccines suitable for control are relatively cheap and effective.

The justification for the massive expenditure on brucellosis eradication (in 1979-80 Commonwealth and States are expected to spend $36.8m ) depends almost exclusively on the need to ensure that our continued access to the lucrative northern American market is not endangered.

The Commonwealth, of course, makes grant funds available for compensation payments to producers for the compulsory slaughter of reactor animals. These have totalled $8.5m over the last three years and are expected to be $3.6m in 1979-80.

Senator Walsh referred to the Commonwealth’s share of cost so far being lower than the IAC recommended. This results from the need for compensation payments to be lower than expected. Honourable senators also should not overlook the fact that of the $47m provided by the Commonwealth over the last three years for campaign operations, only $28m has been recovered from industry levies. These additional funds do not enter into the percentage calculations referred to by Senator Walsh.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I thank the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– With the concurrence of the Senate we will take the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1979, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1 979 and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1979 together.

Question put:

That the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1979, the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Collection Amendment Bill 1979 and the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1 979 be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 30

NOES: 22

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Amendment Bill 1979 and the Meat Research Amendment Bill 1 979 be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2985

WINE GRAPES LEVY BILL 1979

First Readings

Debate resumed from 8 May, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I am prompted to speak on the first reading of these Bills by an English Tory troglodyte called Lord Hailsham, who has written a foreword to the English edition of John Kerr’s Matters for Judgment. An edited version of Hailsham ‘s apologia for Kerr is printed in today’s Melbourne Age. Normally the senile prejudices -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Just watch your language generally, Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– Normally the senile prejudices of some overseas Tory would not warrant comment in this Parliament, but Hailsham ‘s fabrications and hallucinations reinforce, as I have little doubt they were intended to do, the fabrications and hallucinations of Hailsham ‘s Australian bedmates -

Senator Young:

– I raise a point of order. I think that courtesies should be extended to the gentleman concerned. He is Lord Hailsham, not Hailsham.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have indicated to the honourable senator that he should use language which would be accepted and appreciated by all concerned.

Senator WALSH:

– I am willing to oblige Senator Young and to comply with his sensitivities. The fabrications and hallucinations of Lord Hailsham support the fabrication concocted by Lord Hailsham ‘s Australian bedmates, by people such as those representing the League of Rights and the extreme Right of the Liberal and National Country Parties. In reference to Sir John Kerr’s dismissal of the Whitlam Government, Lord Hailsham said:

  1. . should he -

That is the Governor-General- deem it his duty to use the reserve powers of the Monarchy against a would-be Mussolini, or a Prime Minister who wishes to govern unconstitutionally, he must make his preparations in secret or not at all.

Leaving aside his Mussolinic hallucination, Lord Hailsham is asserting that the Whitlam Government breached the Constitution. The same fabrication was, and continues to be, asserted by Lord Hailsham ‘s Australian counterparts. It has never been specified by these constitutional literalists what sections of the Constitution were alleged to have been breached. It never will be because no sections were breached. Lord Hailsham charges Mr Whitlam with being a republican, an attribute which is abhorrent to Lord Hailsham. Giving free rein to his febrile mind, he then asserts with respect to republicanism:

Commonwealth statesmen would do well to reflect that a republican form of Government, in which the executive assumes independence of the trusteeship of the Crown, leads straight along the path to Tea Pot Dome, Watergate or Mulder -

By which I presume he means Muldergate- and the Sanjay motor factory, and possibly to Idi Amin or worse.

In short, Lord Hailsham is asserting that republics are necessarily corrupt and constitutional monarchies are above corruption. Somebody should remind Lord Hailsham about the milliondollar bribes accepted by Prince Bernhard and perhaps someone should remind him that his Tory ministerial colleague, Reginald Maudling, was kicked out of Parliament when his corporate criminal activities were exposed. Perhaps someone should remind him also of the Thorpe case and a few other things that go on in England.

Lord Hailsham exhibits a penchant for wrapping up his political prejudices in pseudo-judicial trappings. His Australian quasi-counterpart has exactly the same penchant. In 1974 a Court of Dispute Returns judgment cleared Senator Webster on the grounds that no evidence had been presented to suggest that Senator Webster had used his senatorial position to secure Postmaster-General contracts. That was quite true. But it was not the charge; it did not refer to the charge. The charge was that he was a shareholder in a company of less than 25 persons which had contracts with the Commonwealth and was therefore in breach of section 44 (v). The enormity of the Chief Justice ‘s finding in this matter was dramatised in two contemporary comments made by Federal Liberal politicians, both lawyers. I will not embarrass them by naming them, but one said that it had destroyed his faith injustice and the other said that if Senator Webster was not caught by section 44 (v) nobody could be; the section was meaningless.

In the next brazen demonstration of political bias the Chief Justice went beyond emasculating those sections of the Constitution which do not suit his purpose. If the legal assertion of his cousin, who is a former Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, is correct, the Chief Justice’s advisory opinion to Sir John Kerr in 1975 was actually illegal. It breached the judgment of his own court which ruled in the engineers’ case that the court could not give advisory opinions. In what purported to be a review of Sir John Kerr’s book published in the Age of 19 December last, Mr Ellicott claimed not only that Mr Whitlam knew he could be dismissed but that he actually expected to be dismissed. The proof Mr Ellicott offered was that Mr Whitlam had not appealed to the High Court against his dismissal. That assertion by the Chief Justices ‘s cousin, a former Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, blows apart the excuse offered by the Chief Justice at the National Press Club on 10 June 1976. When asked by journalists about the legality of his advisory opinion, the Chief Justice replied:

It doesn’t alter my own opinion. The question of whether the Governor-General could withdraw his Ministers’ commissions could never come before the High Court in any shape or form.

Questioned later at that Press Club meeting he said:

No, I had no need to consult with my fellow judges. For one thing it was a matter that could not in any sense come before the court. There is no doubt about that.

I will not indulge in any legal sophistry, for which I am not trained anyway. But anyone who comprehends simple English can see that the assertions by the Chief Justice and his cousin are mutually exclusive. At the very least the Chief Justice’s action was legally arguable but that did not deter him from pressing for and sanctioning the most provocative, enduring and divisive political action Australia has known since the conscription fracas of World War I.

The Chief Justice was shocked on that occasion by the tenacity and by the legal skill of journalists who interrogated him on that day. In a previously unreported comment after the formal luncheon had ended he showed his mind all too clearly. ‘If I had been Governor-General’, he said, ‘I would have sacked Whitlam the day after the Senate first deferred the Appropriation Bills’.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who said that?

Senator WALSH:

-The Chief Justice. Stripped of their normal pseudo legal camouflage, the bare bones of the Chief Justice’s political prejudices in the services of which he abuses the judicial office he holds were exposed by that statement. He is a disgrace to the Bench. He is as big a disgrace -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I ask for your protection of the Chief Justice.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is a grave reflection which the honourable senator must withdraw.

Senator WALSH:

– Under which Standing Order, Mr President?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is practice, as I told the honourable senator on a previous occasion.

Senator WALSH:

-I am sorry?

The PRESIDENT:

– That practice has been established over many years in this place. There is a respect for those practices in the minds of most senators.

Senator WALSH:

– Traditions and practices were abolished in this place three and a half years ago. He is a disgrace to the Bench, as big a disgrace to the Bench as Kerr was to Government House -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order.

Senator WALSH:

– . . . or as Hailsham is to politics and journalism.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! A point of order has been raised.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I can understand grandstanding. However, I refer you to page 152 of Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice.

The PRESIDENT:

– I know that part quite well.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I believe that you asked Senator Walsh to take a certain course of action.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have asked that he take a course of action. I would appreciate it if you would, Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– I just raise a query, Mr President. The Standing Orders -

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no Standing Order.

Senator WALSH:

– I am not aware of any.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is true that this matter is not covered by the Standing Orders. It has been abided by in this place for a long time as an established practice.

Senator WALSH:

– Customs and traditions were abolished in this place 314 years ago. As far as I am aware, Mr Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice has no authority in this place.

The PRESIDENT:

– I have indicated to you, Senator, that there is no Standing Order relevant to that which I have asked you, in all decency, to withdraw. That is all.

Senator WALSH:

-I will withdraw it for the present.

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you.

Senator WALSH:

-This is a matter which I believe has to be cleared up. The rules in this place should be set by the Standing Orders, not by what someone who has never been a member of this House wrote in some book. I withdraw the remark to oblige you, Mr President, as I do not want to create a scene at this time on the last day of the sitting. However, I respectfully suggest that this matter ought to be cleared up by the Standing Orders Committee and that a firm, decisive rule ought to be made on the basis of some real authority, not the opinions of someone who has never been a member of this Senate.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– Honourable senators will be aware that yesterday in the House of Representatives the report of the Australian delegation to the United Nations 33rd Session and the report by the Australian delegation to observe the elections in ZimbabweRhodesia were presented to Parliament. Those reports had some pertinent things to say about events in southern Africa. Just a few hours ago the President of the United States of America announced that, in spite of the recent elections in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, the United States would not recognise that country, nor would it take off the international sanctions imposed on it.

I wish to make some observations on the current situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, South West Africa-Namibia and South Africa itself. There has been some disquiet about the constitution of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia which entitled electors to vote. There have been questions raised that the white minority there still holds control of the police, the judiciary, the security forces and the public service. For the information of honourable senators, a copy of that constitution was placed in the Parliamentary Library by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) yesterday. If honourable senators peruse the constitution they will see that it is quite flexible. Power does reside in the hands of the black majority in that Parliament in that it has complete authority over the allocations of money to the armed forces and to the police. Honourable senators may find that information reassuring.

Turning to the elections in ZimbabweRhodesia, as honourable senators know there was no register of voters in that country. Voting is not compulsory there, as is the case in many other places. Other methods were determined to ensure that as many people who were entitled to vote did vote, but double voting was avoided. South West Africa-Namibia and ZimbabweRhodesia have held elections which have been judged to be technically fair by the swarms of observers and reporters from international papers and agencies. None of them could find any defect that would render invalid the decision of the electorates. From our observation the reporters were basically hostile to the governments holding those elections. Similar regulations to those in force in South West Africa-Namibia and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia are used in other countries in Africa and in parts of the Third World. For example, there was no register of voters in Gabon and no register of voters in Mozambique for their 1978 elections. Further, there was no register of voters in Iran this year for the refer- endum for the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The practice of requiring electors to dip their fingers in indelible dye for identification purposes is not unusual. It is the system used in Iran, Kenya and Tanzania. The fact that regional party lists were used is not unusual. They are used in Senegal. Even in the Ivory Coast they have a national list. The fact that there are reserves or appointed seats is not unusual either, because that system is used in many countries, particularly Malawi, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Kenya and Tanzania, where 106 of the 206 seats are reserved. Of course, in Lesotho all of the seats are reserved.

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has now satisfied the entire six principles, laid down by successive British governments over the years, as qualifying her for independence. The problem was always one for Great Britain to decide. It still is and the sooner Great Britain can bring ZimbabweRhodesia to legality the sooner she can decolonise her in the same way as she has decolonised her other colonies over the years. In that way, less upset will be caused all of the countries of the Commonwealth. The withholding of recognition from both of these countries has been caused by the fact that the General Assembly of the United Nations, the front line states and the Organisation of African Unity have painted themselves into a corner by their support for SWAPO-the South-West African People’s Organisation- and the Patriotic Front. It is because these two nationalist groups have refused to take part in elections- although invited to do so- that their backers are opposing recognition. These two external parties have not contested the elections, simply because they were not sure of winning. The publication of extracts from a recent Luanda meeting show a resolve on the part of the SWAPO, Angola, Zambia and Botswana to make unreasonable demands upon South Africa regarding the bases of SWAPO within South-West African Namibia, demands that South Africa could not possibly meet, and then blame South Africa for breaking off negotiations.

Certain nations, including Australia, are clearly applying double standards in regard to recognition of administrations that have been established by force. I cite as an example the recognition of Pol Pot in Kampuchea in 1975, as compared with the refusal to recognise Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. While I am on that subject I remind honourable senators that when Mozambique and Angola came to independence, they had imposed upon them governments that were not subject to elections at all. In other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, the people are governed entirely without elections. In countries such as Nigeria, Jordan, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, women do not get a vote at all. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Australia and other nations are withholding recognition, not because of a careful analysis of the merits of the case but because they do not wish to run counter to the views of the front-line states, the Organisation of African Unity, some members of the Commonwealth, and some members of the Third World- a number of which are far less democratically governed than is ZimbabweRhodesia. Any steps which encourage the forces of SWAPO and the Patriotic Front to hold out for a unilateral takeover of these countries makes their chances of success just that more likely. If that happens, the risk that the whole region will pass under the control of parties that are committed to their social backers is also more likely. I stress at this stage that in both ZimbabweRhodesia and South-West Africa racial discrimination has been eliminated in its entirety.

I turn now to South Africa. Whatever anyone may think about the apartheid policies of the Republic of South Africa, one must concede that it has brought about many changes. So far as the South Africans are concerned, they are farreaching changes. As far as other people are concerned they may have been changes that have occurred too slowly and have not gone far enough. But the fact is that many changes have been made. The important thing is that the South African Government is getting no credit for the changes that it has made. The West and the Third World countries are making a grave mistake if they think that these changes are being made from a position of weakness. It is a bigger mistake to think that by applying more pressure they will get more changes. Unless South Africans can see that the changes are bringing some reward by way of co-operation it will be hard for the South African Government to convince the electorate that it must make further changes. It will also increase the risk of more support going to the Right wing politicians, who would put a stop to any changes occurring at all.

It has been claimed that recognition of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South West AfricaNamibia, with the removal of sanctions from Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, would split the Commonwealth of Nations. Maybe it would. But in all fairness, on a cold analysis of the facts, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand should give a lead to the Commonwealth and recognise those nations and remove the sanctions. By some twisted logic there are those who think that recognition would aid the aims and objectives of the Soviet Union. I mentioned previously in my speech that exactly the opposite would occur. Far from upsetting Britain, the United States, New Zealand and Canada we should be putting spurs into them to recognise and cut sanctions. Why should we all be applying sanctions when Britain, France, Canada and the Soviet Union are breaking them, and have been doing so for years? The sanctions have been a sick gesture and the sick gesture has now become a sick joke.

What is in it for Australia, one might ask? Apart from any moral questions, I think security is important. Our trade with Europe has to go around the Cape route. If the oil artery to Europe were cut it could grind the wheels of Europe to a halt within a few months. South Africa has ports which are fully operational. She has an immense defence force; she has roads, railways, telecommunications; and above all she has people, both white and black, who are pro- West. In Southern Africa there are critical supplies of strategic minerals, and as I see it there is some urgency to see that those supplies are not added to the reserves of the Soviet Union and denied to the West. I see the security of the Indian Ocean as important, particularly with its African choke points at Gibraltar, the Suez, the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, Zanzibar, Mozambique and the Cape itself.

As honourable senators will know there is an inability for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces to come below the Tropic of Cancer, but there is no such restriction on the Soviet forces. Perhaps I place too much importance on the security question, but I think not. Concerning trade, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, South Africa and probably South West Africa-Namibia would in all likelihood be competitors of Australia. To some this may appear to be an impediment but at least we have been free of that competition for some years. Nevertheless, there are great investment possibilities in those countries, as the British and American investors have found out. Tourism between us would be a boon to all. Anyone who has been there will attest to that. Sporting, artistic and cultural exchanges could be nothing but agreeable.

In the wider sense, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, South West Africa-Namibia and South Africa have had experience in bringing underdeveloped peoples to economic, social and political independence. These experiences should not be neglected by the rest of the world. The rest of the world has few enough successful examples but these countries have many. They have realised the paramount importance of tribalism- I stress tribalism not nationalism- to the black Africans, the importance of land to the tribes and the tragic effects for all those peoples of the entrenchment by the Organisation of African Unity of the colonial boundaries. Those colonial boundaries divided the tribes and rendered most of the sub-Sahara countries in Africa ungovernable.

Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South West Africa-Namibia are now destined to become independent countries with popularly elected governments, with or without the blessing of the international community. South Africa is a militarily powerful country and if necessary will fight to preserve her future. She cannot be conquered by any other country in Africa and I am sure that she would not stand idly by and watch Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South West AfricaNamibia fall to Marxists, as happened in Mozambique and Angola. We should short circuit all this and recognise that the elections in South West Africa-Nimibia and ZimbabweRhodesia have opened the way for an association of free States working together for their security and progress.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I desire again to say a few words on a matter that I have raised continually in this Parliament since 22 February. Yesterday when speaking in the debate on Supply Bill (No. 1) I said that if the Government did not supply me with an answer to my question as to whether the immediate past Governor-General has a free telephone service between Australia and England I would raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity. I spoke to the Opposition Whip today and asked him to speak to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) to see whether he had an answer. The answer has not yet been given to me. So I am as good as my word. I said yesterday that I would raise the matter again today. It is now 1 5 weeks since I asked whether that gentleman has a free telephone. It looks as though the Senate will go into the winter recess and I will have to wait until the Budget session to ask my question again. I tried to get the answer through legitimate means- firstly by asking a question without notice, then by putting a question on notice and again during the Estimates Committees’ consideration of the supplementary Supply Bills. I could not get an answer. I can only assume that in fact this person has a free telephone. If he has not, the Government could quite easily have come back with an answer to that effect.

Senator Webster:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. It may expedite this matter if I read the following statement on behalf of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick): ‘I understand that a draft answer is before the Prime Minister at present and I will attempt to expedite a response for Senator McLaren.’

Senator McLAREN:

– I thank the Minister for that. This situation seems to be of the same shades as when I was trying to get a copy of the River Murray report. I had to raise the matter continually in this Parliament. I am very pleased that my persistence has at last flushed out the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and that he is going to provide me with an answer. The very fact that he is providing a draft answer causes me to signify -

Senator Georges:

– No, he is not.

Senator McLAREN:

-Senator Webster said that the Prime Minister is -

Senator Cavanagh:

– He is approving a draft.

Senator McLAREN:

– Well, if the answer is no, it would not take much drafting, would it? I assume now that in fact the exGovernorGeneral has a free telephone. As I said yesterday, if he has a free telephone it would take a lot of work to ascertain how much the taxpayers have paid towards it. However, I accept the Minister’s statement and look forward to getting an answer during the recess.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I refer to the situation facing Australian musicians and recording artists, many of whom are associated with or involved in an organisation known as the Australian Music Makers Association. I raise this issue because I believe that this industry should be recognised as a major industry with great potential. Those people involved in the industry have initiative and energy and can add a great deal to this nation’s development. It should also be recognised, because of its importance to Australian cultural development, the arts and our national ethos. It also makes a significant contribution to the image of Australia in many other countries. It has to be emphasised that this industry is not seeking support because it is uncompetitive. Given a fair go, it has shown that it can be more than competitive even against the European and United States marketing machines which are involved in this sort of industry.

My concern is a result of a prolonged delay by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in deciding on an increased quota for Australian music broadcast by Australian radio stations. My fear is that that decision, if not made soon and in the interests of Australian performers, could deal a serious blow to this important industry. The many people involved in the industry produced a pamphlet last year in which it was pointed out that Australia has the second highest per capita spending on recorded music in the Western world, yet Australian musicians, artists and record makers have to struggle to survive. Many of these talented people have to leave Australia to gain the success that they deserve. As I understand it, 80 per cent of broadcasting time is given over to non-Australian products. This has stunted the growth of this already substantial, but potentially much more important, Australian industry. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, in a report some time ago, indicated that from 1 May this year there should be an increase of from 20 per cent to 30 per cent in the time available for the transmission of music programs of Australian performances. The Government has indicated its support for this proposal. In relation to that, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) on the subject.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Minister for Home Affairs Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 26 March 1979

My dear Senator,

I refer to your letter of 14 November 1978 about the playing of Australian music on Australian radio.

I wrote to you on 4 January 1979 advising that a subcommittee of the Australia Council’s Music Board would report to the Board in February on the problem of increasing the Australian content of radio music programs and examine the proposals put forward in the pamphlet ‘Fair Play for Australian Music’.

The Board has now met and I am advised that it has welcomed the Government’s decision to introduce a 30 per cent quota for Australian music on Australian radio from 1 May 1979. On the specific points raised in the pamphlet, the Board sees no reason to alter its position on the Australian music content of radio programs stated in its submission to the IAC Enquiry into the Music Recording Industry in Australia in September 1977.

In its submission, the Board endorsed the following principles:

A points system should operate which is weighted in favour of Australian composition.

Artists to whom the local content rule is applied should be either of Australian nationality or currently resident in Australia.

The points system should favour the use of local content in peak listening times.

While these principles are not totally in line with the proposals put forward in the ‘Fair Play’ pamphlet, they reflect the Music Board ‘s belief that the effective implementation of local content rules would play an important part in the development of an identifiable Australian culture and music.

I have recently received a deputation from the Australian Music Makers Association and during the meeting with representatives of the Association I passed on the views of the Music Board and added my personal support to the introduction of the 30 per cent quota.

Yours Sincerely,

J. ELLICOTT

Minister for Home Affairs

Senator KNIGHT:

– I thank the Senate. This letter followed a question I asked in the Senate on 28 February. At that time I was informed that the Government had indicated its general endorsement of the Tribunal’s proposal. However, no action has yet been taken to implement the Tribunal’s recommendations. It is my understanding that now there may be some suggestion that the quota be increased to only 25 per cent, with an increase to 30 per cent next year. The Australian Music Makers Association has suggested- I support its view- that a 30 per cent quota for Australian performances should be introduced immediately, and this should be increased by annual increments to a total of 40 per cent. The Association has suggested that this be done over five years. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has indicated that discussions on this matter are still being held. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a letter I have received from the Minister on this matter.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Minister for Post and Telecommunications Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Senator Knight,

I refer to your personal representations of 1 7 April on behalf of the Chairman of the Australian Music-Makers’ Association, Mr Ron Tudor, concerning requirements for the broadcasting of Australian music on radio.

I have discussed with Mr Bruce Gyngell, Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the matter you raise and he has informed me that the Tribunal is having discussions with the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters aimed at reaching an early decision. Mr Gyngell has stressed the importance of ensuring that the decision is capable of implementation given the various forms of music currently being broadcast and the ability of producers to supply recorded music in these forms.

I understand that the Tribunal will give the matter its undivided attention when the current public inquiries into the renewal of the three Melbourne television licences conclude in mid-June.

Yours sincerely, A. A. STALEY

Senator KNIGHT:

– I thank the Senate. There has been a substantial delay in this matter already and I believe it should be resolved as quickly as possible in the interests of Australian artists. I believe that the Broadcasting Tribunal should implement its own recommendation, which the Government has endorsed, and immediately introduce a quota of 30 per cent for performances by Australian artists. It is my view that the proposal of the Australian Music Makers Association for an increase to 40 per cent by the mid-1980s is a modest and a reasonable request which should also be endorsed. I reiterate that this is an industry which has great potential and which is not simply seeking protection to prop itself up; it is seeking a fair go so that the full benefit of the industry might be felt by the whole of Australia and not just those involved directly in the industry. Therefore, I believe that it is a matter of some urgency and that the Broadcasting Tribunal has a duty to act promptly. If it does not introduce the 30 per cent quota it could deal a serious blow to an industry with enormous potential, both within Australia and overseas. If it does so it would be only a proper recognition of that industry and the efforts of those involved in it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I intended to speak at some length on the motion for the second reading of the Wine Overseas Marketing Amendment Bill but because of the lateness of the hour on this, the last day of session, I intend to keep my remarks to a couple of minutes on the motion for the first reading of these wine Bills. I merely indicate my concern and the concern of members of the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia about the amount of wine that is imported into Australia compared with the amount of Australian wine being exported. There are about 1 70 manufacturers of wine in Australia, and about 6,000 Australian workers are engaged in the manufacturing side of the wine industry. That section of the industry- apart from the growing or agricultural section- has an annual wage bill of about $38m. So honourable senators will see that the wine industry is of considerable importance to employment opportunities in Australia. As I said, I had intended to speak at length on this subject but I now intend to make more comments on the subject during the Budget session.

While the Government is engaging in its Export Now policy- a lot of publicity has been given to that campaign by the Department of Trade and Resources and the Minster for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony)- the Department should be attempting to step up Australian wine exports if employment opportunities are to grow within the industry. I have obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics the latest figures available on the industry, which relate to the financial year 1976-77. In 1976-77 some 5.2 million litres of still wine was imported into Australia, the total value of which was $7.2m. However, in that year only 4.8 million litres of Australian wine was exported, the total value of which was a mere $4.5m. So whilst the value of wine imported into Australia in 1976-77 was $7.2m, the value of wine exported was $4.5m, or almost $3m less. While the Goverment is engaging in an Export Now policy, I suggest to the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster), who is at the table, and to the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) that they should be looking at the promotion of Australian wine, particularly on the export market, to ensure that there are greater opportunities for Australian workers in the industry. I will deliberately cut short my remarks, but I believe that this is a matter of great importance. If the Government is looking for employment opportunities, this is one way in which those opportunities can be achieved.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I wish to take advantage of the first reading of the Wine Grapes Levy Bill to make a few brief comments about penalty rates. I was quite staggered to hear a few minutes ago the contribution made by Senator Sheil when he spoke about southern Africa. I must say that Senator Sheil is always consistent when he talks about Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and South Africa. I know that he believes what he says, but I think he is tragically wrong. If he looked at the situation that occurred in the election that took place recently in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia he would find that 4 per cent of the white minority in that country had 28 per cent of the votes in the lower House. The role of the Senate is not being talked about at all at the moment, but one-third of the people who were elected to the Senate are from the white minority and one-third are from the ranks of the tribal chiefs. If one looks at the statements of the tribal chiefs and their role in ZimbabweRhodesia, they often turn out to be more conservative than the whites.

Senator Sheil was putting a case for the instant recognition of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and a lifting of the restrictions that apply. Of course, if that were to happen there would be an immediate campaign by all the black countries in Africa. Moderate countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania have pledged themselves to support the Patriotic Front if this situation occurs. This would be a tragedy because there would mean a step-up in the fighting and a step-up of the guerrilla activity. The Rhodesians themselves would turn to South Africa, and I think everybody recognises that South Africa has said that it would commit itself militarily in a situation such as this. Of course, with the forces that South Africa possesses, it would be in a much stronger situation than the Patriotic Front. As I have said, if the Patriotic Front, aided by moderates states such as Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania, did not have arms and could not get supplies it would turn to the Eastern bloc. It has been said already that the East Germans acknowledge that they have in Africa what they call volunteers who would be prepared to fight. There would then be a blood bath that nobody would be able to stop and nobody wants.

It is not often that I agree with the Prime Minister of Australia, but I am sure that Mr Fraser knows that. One only has to read his statements to understand that. One has to read only what President Carter and the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Andrew Young, have said to realise that they know it too. It is for that reason that the United States will not lift the sanctions that apply at the moment and bring about instant recognition of ZimbabweRhodesia. It seems to me that only Senator Sheil and Margaret Thatcher do not seem to understand that point of view.

I want to speak briefly about an issue that is causing a great deal of concern to a large number of trade unionists and their families. I refer to the consistent attack on penalty rates by this Government and by employer organisations. Under the guise that assistance has to be given to tourism and to the tourist industry, a campaign has been orchestrated by the Press, especially the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age aimed particularly at the liquor and hospitality employees in this country. No regard has been given to the consequences of this campaign. One only has to look at the history of penalty rates in this country. They have been an integral part of the Australian wage structure since 1947, following a test case in the Federal Arbitration Court. They are standard in seven-day-a-week industries. People in the industries do not regard penalty rates as fringe benefits. Because they have been in existence since 1 947, the people who work in those industries now regard penalty rates as a basic industrial right.

There has been no consultation with the trade unions about this at all and, if it continues, there will be complete industrial chaos in the hospitality industry. It will not be any help for tourism at all. The unions will ensure that. It will be of no help to tourism if people cannot get a drink, if they cannot get their meals and if they have to carry their own luggage. There has been a union campaign against this situation. There are 90,000 members of the Liquor Trades Union throughout Australia. In New South Wales, 15,000 members of the Liquor Trades Union have already attended stop work meetings. Honourable senators hear a lot from the Government about the fact that unions hold stop work meetings and nobody turns up; only a militant few are able to manipulate union meetings. I stress again the fact that at stop work meetings called in an industry where it is particularly hard for some people to attend meetings, over 15,000 people have attended. They are determined. They voted unanimously. If this campaign continues they will close every club and hotel in this country.

There are people who say that that is a threat, that the union is threatening industrial anarchy. I pose the question to anybody in the work force, or to any honourable senator: Who would be prepared to drop 25 per cent of their weekly salary if there were an immediate taking away of penalty rates? That is what it means to the vast majority of people who work in this industry. One also hears members of the Government talk about the odd person in the hospitality industry who, because of overtime rates say at Christmas time, earns a huge amount of money. The vast bulk, the overwhelming majority, of people in this industry do not receive those wages. They receive ordinary wages with inbuilt penalty rates. For historical reasons, weekends in Australiaespecially Saturday and Sunday nights- have been considered to be free time. Of course, some industries must continue over the weekends. The hospitality industry is essential but, as I have said, there are hundreds of thousands of people in the liquor industry whose average weekly wage is $2 10 a week. That includes penalties.

It is also said by some people that in Australia and New Zealand there is a penalty rate situation that does not exist in any other country and that, therefore, they are better off. I point out that Australia and New Zealand probably also have one of the safest industrial records and some of the best workers compensation schemes anywhere in the world. Does that mean that we should start attacking these conditions the way that the penalty rates are being attacked? I would say not. It has been said by many people that if penalty rates are cut then that will help the tourist industry. If one compares Australian tariffs with those in the major tourist resorts, one finds that Australian rates compare quite favourably.

Senator Hamer:

– The service is much worse.

Senator SIBRAA:

– I would not say that in all instances, either.

Senator Hamer:

– Try to get a meal on a Sunday!

Senator SIBRAA:

– The Australian carried a short but very revealing article on 2 February 1978 which reported on the regular Financial Times survey of the relative costs of hospitality in the major trading cities of the world. Sydney was thirtieth out of 72 cities, and well behind other capital cities where no penalty rates are paid to any of the employees. In many cases, room service would cease altogether at about 10 p.m. and many of these countries by comparison are very low-wage economies. Senator Hamer mentioned people not being able to get a meal on a Sunday. I suggest that in a lot of tourist resorts in the world, a similar situation exists. I suggest that honourable senators go to Fiji or Hawaii and try to get room service after midnight when there are no penalty rates, see what is charged, and compare that with the wages that people get.

The Liquor Trades Union in New South Wales carried out a survey throughout the world. I will not take the time of the Senate by quoting extensively from the document that I have. I will just mention one particular example, in which the Liquor Trades Union found that the Hyatt hotel in Berlin charged $80, in Hawaii the charge was $60 and in Sydney it is only $45, and yet Sydney was the only place where penalty rates were paid. Similar examples can be quoted in detail for many other cities, especially Karachi, Bangkok, New Delhi, Calcutta and other Asian nations where hotels are as expensive or more expensive than Australian hotels but in which the people employed work for pathetically low wages by Australian standards. Often, a section of the staff works for nothing else but tips.

The Premier of New South Wales has pointed out that the only fair way to adjust the present penalty system without provoking industrial chaos would be to negotiate a trade-off in wage levels. I believe that this process would be painstaking and would take a long time. It would cost almost as much as the present system. I have raised this issue as a warning to the Government that a deliberate attack on penalty rates would be unjust and would be seen to be unjust by those who have come to expect them as part of their conditions. Such an attack would be based on false premises economically and would be an invitation to prolong industrial conflict. The Liquor Trades Union in New South Wales is gearing itself for a prolonged conflict and for industrial chaos if this campaign continues.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Readings

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Wine Grapes Levy Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that levy is paid in respect of all grapes and grape juice used in the production of wine, brandy and spirit for fortifying wine. This was the intention of the Wine Grapes Charges Act 1929, now to be replaced by the provisions of this Bill. Because of developments in wine industry technology it has become apparent that the Act does not authorise levy collections in certain situations. In terms of the Wine Grapes Charges Act levy is payable by the owner of the winery or distillery to which grapes are delivered ‘for use in the manufacture of wine’. Of particular significance are new methods of storing single strength grape juice at the establishment producing the juice pending a decision at some future stage whether to convert it to wine manufacture, or sell the juice to another establishment which would use it for the manufacture of wine. Under the existing law levy is not payable on these transactions.

To ensure that the original intentions of the Wine Grapes Charges Act are fully met, the Bill provides that levy is payable by the proprietor of the establishment concerned in respect of grapes and grape juice when used in the manufacture of wine, brandy and fortifying spirit. For the bulk of grapes received, the wine making process starts immediately following crushing and so most of the levy would continue to be paid on the fresh grapes used. Levy on the fresh grape equivalent will be payable by a winery when grape juice is used for wine making in those instances where it has been brought in from another establishment or has been stored prior to wine making. The winery would not be liable in respect of grape juice sold for consumption as such.

The proceeds of the levy form the income of the Australian Wine Board, which is responsible under the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929 for controlling export of wine, undertaking promotion in Australia and overseas and research into the quality of Australian wine and brandy.

The maximum rate of levy imposed by the Wine Grapes Charges Act is $2.50 per tonne in the case of fresh grapes. This maximum is being retained under the provisions of the Bill. Additionally, for the purposes of calculating levy, provision is being made for conversion of dried grapes and grape juice to their fresh grape equivalents. The existing operative rate of levy at $2.40 a tonne for fresh grapes is also retained and provides the Board with an income of about $1.lm a year.

The Bill is presented following concern being expressed within the industry of the possible adverse and growing effect on the funds available to the Board if no payment of levy were made on grape juice brought into wineries and put to wine making or of grape juice not used immediately for wine making. The Bill is to come into operation on the date that royal assent is given but with provision being made in section 5 for the levy to be imposed on prescribed goods used in the manufacture of wine on or after 1 January 1979. Under the terms of the Wine Grapes Charges (Repeal) Bill to be introduced the Wine Grapes Charges Act is to continue in operation until 30 June 1979. Having both Acts operate for the first six months of 1979 is to facilitate the transition from the old levy system to the new one. There are, of course, provisions to obviate double payment of levy on any grapes or juice.

Mr President, I should refer to recent representations from parliamentarians both here and in the other place advocating that grape juice be brought within the jurisdiction of the Wine Board to enable it to promote the product. In this connection I mention that a working party of senior representatives of the industry- private and co-operative winemakers and grapegrowers under the chairmanship of the Department of Primary Industry is currently engaged in a review of the constitution and functions of the Board, the method of financing its operations and the range of products which might be covered by its charter. In the Government’s view it would be appropriate to await the outcome of that review and then determine, after consultation with the industry, whether grape juice might be included in the Board’s functions. I expect that legislation will come forward in the Budget session covering proposals for the Board’s reconstitution. In summary, the Bill preserves the intention of the Wine Grapes Charges Act and meets the concern expressed by the industry generally that, as a result of changes in technology and in industry practices, action is needed to protect the funding of the Australian Wine Board. I commend the Bill.

Wine Grapes Levy Collection Bill 1979

This Bill is complementary to the Wine Grapes Levy Bill 1979 and is to facilitate the collection of levy imposed under that Bill. Under the Bill levy collection procedures are formalised which follow closely those that have been developed for other primary industry levies. The Bill includes penalty provisions for non-payment of levy, recovery of amounts unpaid and power to call for returns. There is to be provision for self assessment of levy. Additionally, the Bill preserves existing provisions for levy to be paid in two equal instalments at six monthly intervals. I commend the Bill.

Wine Grapes Charges (Repeal) Bill 1979

This Bill is a machinery measure to repeal the Wine Grape Charges Act 1929 which is to be replaced by the Wine Grapes Levy Bill 1979 and the Wine Grapes Levy Collection Bill 1979. As explained in my second reading speech on the Wine Grapes Levy Bill the repeal will be effective from 1 July 1 979. 1 commend the Bill.

Wine Overseas Marketing Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill contains a consequential amendment to the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929 necessary to maintain arrangements for the appropriation of the proceeds of the wine grapes levy to the Australian Wine Board for the funding of its operations. I commend the Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The purpose of these Bills is to close a loophole in the existing levy applied on wine, the major purpose of which is to fund the Australian Wine Board in its administration and promotion activities. Because of changing technology in the wine industry a great deal of grape juice can now be held in store for a considerable length of time and then either processed into wine or passed on to another wine maker. Some of the wine processed in this way has been escaping the levy. I think that it follows logically that if the levy is justifiable it ought to be paid by all the people who produce the product. For that reason, the Opposition does not oppose the Bills. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives referred to an inquiry which is presently going on into the operations of the Wine Board. A number of important criticisms have been made of the Board by members and senators from both sides of the Parliament, particularly in the last year. Senator Douglas McClelland made such a criticism last September. In view of the limitations on time and the fact that the inquiry to which I have referred is taking place, it is probably not necessary for me to go into much detail about the matter.

Another matter which ought to be raised in relation to these Bills concerns the possibility of a wine tax in the next Budget and the draft report of the Industries Assistance Commission which was released a couple of weeks ago. If the Government accepts the recommendation of the IAC inquiry into grapes and wine it is likely that a tax on wine in some form or other will be imposed in the August Budget although the Government may decide to wait for the final report before acting. Leaving aside any argument about whether such a tax is justified, serious doubts are again raised about the credibility of the Minister for Primary Industry. Last December in the South Australian Riverland the Minister gave an unequivocal assurance to grape growers that there would be no tax on wine. I quote from an article in the Australian Financial Review of 20 December. It stated:

Speaking at a wine and brandy industry meeting in Renmark, South Australia, Mr Sinclair said the Federal Government had no such idea in mind -

That is, a tax on wine. The article continued:

This suggestion is irresponsible and reflects no real understanding of the serious problems the Riverland grape growers and others throughout Australia face’, he said.

In the horror Budget at the end of May we saw two other unequivocal assurances which had been given by Mr Sinclair abandoned, namely his absolute guarantees that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty would be maintained and that there would be no meat export inspection charges. The growers in the Riverland and other wine producing areas of Australia to which Mr Sinclair referred have every reason to feel very nervous. The absolute guarantees of the Minister for Primary Industry in other instances have been shown to be worth nothing. His guarantee to the Riverland wine producers may yet be shown to be equally worthless. I sound those words of warning to wine producers.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I wish to point out one or two aspects of the future of the wine industry. Unfortunately, owing to the shortness of time my remarks will be abbreviated. But I want to draw attention to the recent statement by the Industries Assistance Commission in its draft report on grape growing, and to draw attention specifically to the difficulties which the implementation of that report in its draft form would create for the wine industry in South Australia in particular. I draw the Senate’s attention to the specific point that I do not believe that it is possible to consider the brandy industry as an industry distinct and separate from the wine industry. I believe that that difficulty, when traced back to the draft report of the IAC, stands out quite clearly as being one of the blockages in the thinking of people when people consider who try to regulate and tax the wine industry.

I also draw specific attention to the fact that particular crops-for instance, barley- are grown specifically for beer, for the manufacture of spirits or for other purposes. Those crops can be produced over a 12-month period. The farmer putting in those crops can be flexible in the way he approaches his plantings each year. He can choose to put in a grain which is in demand on the world markets and which brings a good price from one year to another. He can choose between wheat or barley or some other grain. Above all, he has only a 12-month commitment. If his crop fails for one reason or another, he has another year in which to attempt to recoup his loss. However, with the wine industry I point out that it takes some six years to bring a vine to maturity. Consequently, during that period the vines need careful tending and their growth needs to be carefully monitored. A very costly investment is entered into. The end result is a very inflexible product. One type of grape is produced, only after a long growing period and a large amount of capital investment.

In the last eight or nine years there has been a significant market change, but the inflexibility of the wine industry renders it virtually impossible to adapt to such market changes. It is that inflexibility which is at the core of the difficulties of the grape growing industry, particularly, in my home State of South Australia. I believe that the IAC and the Government need to give consideration to the proposition that an element of flexibility should be introduced into the wine industry. I point out the fact that the brandy industry- I link this with my initial statement- is the key to flexibility in the wine industry. As you would well understand, Mr President, in a year of surplus grape production brandy can be made and stored for a number of years in such a way as to soak up the surplus production. In South Australia there is a surplus this year of some 1 8,000 tonnes of red wine grapes. That is quite apart from the fact that in the next year or two we will see a significant upturn in the number of vines coming into production 5 to 6 years after their planting. Consequently a surplus of possibly 100,000 tonnes of grapes will come onto the market in the not too distant future.

Action needs to be taken now to ensure that flexibility is given to the wine industry. I suggest that the Government should give due consideration to allowing the brandy industry to be considered as an integral part of the wine industry so as to provide that flexibility. In order to do that, it should consider the introduction of a differential rate of brandy excise as compared with the excise that now applies to imported spirits in Australia. I believe that that solution is one that ought to be considered by the Government with all due seriousness in the light of the circumstance that has arisen here. Recently a question asked by the honourable member for Wakefield, Mr Giles, in the House of Representatives elicited that in the last 12 months, whereas the Budget was set down to bring in $130m worth of revenue from excise on spirits including Australian brandy, the likely outcome for the financial year ended 30 June 1979 is less than $100m worth of revenue. So there will be a shortfall of some $30m in respect of that excise. That follows a rise of some 80 per cent in the excise on brandy in the last financial year. I believe that in light of those particular matters and in light of the need to consider the flexibility of the wine industry, so that it can adapt itself to the needs of the future, the reintroduction of a brandy differential in excise ought to be a major part of the Government’s consideration.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

-I rise to say only a few words on the same subject. I believe that the wine industry is in real difficulties, simply because of the excise that was placed on that industry in the last Budget. It is true that the brandy industry is an integral part of the whole wine industry. It employs many people. The Treasury will not receive the $130m it expects from the extra excise and what Senator Messner failed to say is that there are people in that industry who are unemployed and that is of no benefit whatsoever to this nation.

I am concerned that this Government is thinking about putting an excise on wine. I believe that this would completely destroy the industry. I will agree with Senator Messner that this industry cannot take sudden changes. If there is to be any adjustment in the industry, the change has to occur over at least a five or six-year period. The wine industry is the most vulnerable industry of all the agricultural industries. This has not been taken into consideration in the past. In 1 970 an excise of 8.3c a bottle and approximately 25c a flagon was placed on wine, but the actual price of the wine went up by 12c to 15c a bottle and by 35c to 40c a flagon simply because of State taxes and other expenses involved. In that same year, the wine industry had a growth rate of 10.7 per cent. After the excise was placed on the wine in 1970, this figure fell to minus 0.3 per cent. The same thing would happen today. In the last Budget the excise on brandy was increased massively from 10.2 lc a litre to 1 8.75c a litre. The industry now has a large surplus of brandy that it just cannot get rid of. It has over 13 million litres of brandy in stock and there is simply no way of getting rid of it. Anyone who goes to the grape growing area will see tonnes of grapes rotting on the vines, and I believe that that situation is quite intolerable.

It is estimated that 22 1 million litres of wine, with a value of approximately $330m, will be sold by the end of June. If this Government imposes an excise of 1 per cent on that wine the return will be $3. 3m. But that will not be the case, as it was with wine in 1 970.

The wine and brandy industries certainly should be given a sympathetic hearing by this Government. I do not believe that the report of the Industries Assistance Commission justifies any increase. If there is to be an increase in excise it should be planned over a long period. Growers should be forewarned. Plantings could be adjusted over a period of five or six years. I believe then that the industry would increase. This industry has had continual setbacks over the years because of successive Government interference. The brandy industry has contributed $136,715,734 in excise in the period 1972-78. In 1977-78 the brandy industry contributed $28,955,560. It is not possible to assess the industry’s contribution this financial year. Possibly it will be much the same because brandy sales have remained static. I do not think the Government will receive anywhere near the revenue it is seeking. A large number of people work in the industry, in the distilling section as well as in the growing section, and I ask the Government to take cognisance of that fact. In view of the time I will conclude my remarks, but I think many other honourable senators would like to say more.

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

- Mr President, I will be brief. I intend to limit my remarks to the promotion of sales of Australian wines overseas. In the second reading speech the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) indicated that the Australian Wine Board is responsible, under the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929, for controlling the export of wine and undertaking promotion in Australia and overseas. In the annual report of the Australian Wine Board for 1977-78 we see, on page 10, that exports to the United Kingdom in 1976-77 were as low as 528,000 odd litres. In 1977-78 only 485,000 litres were exported to the United Kingdom. There was a drop of 8 per cent. By comparison, in 1960 almost five million litres were exported, ten times more than the latest result. The Board then gives quite extraordinary reasons for why sales of Australian wines have dropped. Some of these reasons I agree with; some of them I cannot agree with.

Overseas, particularly in the United Kingdom, if one looks at the wine list in restaurants one sees wines from practically all countries, European Economic Community members and others, except Australia. 1 feel this is an area where the wine board has failed in promoting Australian wines overseas. If we look further into the report, we will see that the wine centre in London is mentioned. About three weeks ago I wanted to buy a couple of bottles of wine and 1 went to that centre. I am not very familiar with London but I must say that when I went to Soho where the centre is I was quite perplexed to find the kind of shops that are next to the Australian Wine Centre. A younger person or a lady would not be tempted to go to that street because there are sex shops, one next to the other. I was looking at what was going on in that street where the Australian Wine Centre is -

Senator Georges:

– It is in the right street.

Senator LAJOVIC:

– Perhaps it is, but the fact is that it is hidden where no one can find it. In London, we have many premises in more important avenues where this centre could be located. It is said that the Australian Wine Board operates a gift centre which enables people under the scheme to send Australian wines to their friends in the United Kingdom. I have never seen the scheme advertised anywhere in Australia. I wonder how many people know about the scheme which enables people to send Australian wines to their friends in the United Kingdom.

I would like to know why Australian wine centres are not established in other countries such as Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia. There are many migrants in this country who would like to send Australian wines to their friends but they cannot. I feel that the promotion of Australian wines is absolutely negligent or ridiculous; it does not exist. Net expenditure on overseas promotion- and this does not relate only to the United Kingdom-in 1976-77 was $91,087 in Australia currency. In 1977-78 it was $66,274. That is the total net expenditure by the Board on overseas promotion which receives $ 1 m from the levy. I wonder how far $66,000 goes towards covering the market overseas.

What does the Wine Board do about the quality of Australian wines? The April issue of the very prestigous magazine called Gourmet contains an article about the Indian-Pacific train which runs between Sydney and Perth. The article reads:

I am a long time admirer of Australian wines. Most of the reds are the equal to the best middle level wines- Europe or California. (French wines don’t begin to tower over others until they get up into the first rank).

The top ranking Australian wines are superb, and there are a few white wines that are their peers.

This is the opinion of somebody who certainly knows what good wine is, but what is our Wine Board doing? I am afraid that it is not doing enough. If it did more we would not have the problem of surplus red wines which exists in Australia at present.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I will not speak for very long on these four wine Bills now before the Senate but it would be remiss of me if I did not again say that it is disturbing to find right at the end of every session that the Government sees fit to bring in for debate Bills dealing with primary industry. I do not know whether it is deliberate or not, but it does curtail debate. It can be seem from the House of Representatives Hansard that the second reading speeches on these Bills commenced in the other place on 22 March and here we are in the dying hours of this session having to curtail our remarks on these Bills. It is now three months since they were introduced into the other place. This is just not good enough. I invite honourable senators to have a look at the position in respect of the other Bills that we have had to deal with today including the livestock Bills as well as the wool industry Bills yesterday. All of those Bills dealing with primary industry should be reviewed by this Senate. This is a House of review but, as I have often said, it is really not a House of review. I will not go into that at this time; the people who sit opposite know my views on that subject. It is a tragedy that we have to deal with these Bills, which are so important to primary industry in Australia, right in the death throes of a session. I hope that when we come back for the Budget session the Government will see fit to bring on primary industry Bills early in the session so that they can be given due consideration. Senator Messner said that one could not separate brandy grapes and wine grapes. He mentioned that the Government expected to get $ 1 30m- I think he said- from the brandy excise it imposed in the Budget and that there was a shortfall of $30m. Senator Messner will recall that when there was a lengthy debate about that brandy excise we on this side of the chamber, along with the grape growers of Australia, warned the Government that that very thing would happen.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You were in the forefront of that campaign, senator.

Senator McLAREN:

– I was. I moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading of that Bill in the form of a request to the Government not to increase the brandy excise. Of course, honourable senators opposite, who now see the folly of their ways, voted for that excise despite the fact that they told the people in their electorates that they were concerned about it. I am not going to refer further to that fact because I might provoke some honourable senators opposite. We will leave it for the Budget session.

The other thing that I am concerned about is the fear in the wine industry that a wine tax will be levied in the Budget. I want to quote briefly from a telex sent by Mr Sinclair after that meeting which was held in Renmark last year and which I attended. It was held after the brandy excise was imposed. Mr Sinclair stated:

I would repeat my assurance of yesterday, the Federal Government has no intention of introducing an excise or tax on wine at this time.

It is the last three words which are causing great concern to wine grape growers in Australia, particularly in the Riverland of South Australia, because no clear undertaking has been given by the Government that it will not impose a wine tax. What Mr Sinclair said- and I quote it from his own telex- is that the Government is not thinking of introducing an excise or tax on wine ‘at this time’. Mr President, you know as well as I do the ramifications which the industry suffered when Mr Gorton, the then Prime Minister, put on a wine excise. It created havoc in the industry. In view of the fact that the Opposition is supporting these Bills, I will not say any more at this stage.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I support what has been said about the urgent situation that faces the wine industry and the fact that the Government should not contemplate doing anything in the Budget to damage it further at this stage when it is faced with tremendous grape surpluses. I just reiterate what I said recently in the Senate. I made these points also to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Government has to bear in mind the loss of tax revenue that would follow an inevitable downturn in the wine sales, which has been borne out by the lower revenue that we have received as a result of the imposts on potable spirits; the costs associated with carry-on finance that would be needed by disadvantaged growers as a result of such an imposition; the loss of revenue due to downturn in activity for small businesses and service industries in grape growing areas; and the increased unemployment benefits that would be the inevitable result if any further impost were placed on the industry at this stage.

I also support what Senator Lajovic said about the need to promote our wines overseas. The purpose of these Bills is to provide money for the Australian Wine Board. I believe that the Wine Board should pay due regard to the need for a professionally organised market survey of countries such as America and Japan. In America there is growing awareness of the pleasures associated with the drinking of Australian wine. I believe that that is a very fertile market which could be explored by the Wine Board to our advantage. I support exactly what Senator Lajovic said about that. I have pleasure in supporting the Bills.

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

– in reply- I thank honourable senators from both sides of the chamber for their remarks relating to these Bills and for their general support of them. Honourable senators from both sides have shown restraint in their speeches. I know that they would wish to speak at length. I will take note of the comments that were made and see whether the Government can bring on agricultural Bills for early consideration in the forthcoming session.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2999

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL 1979

First Readings

Debate resumed from 4 June, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1979

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 1979 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Bill, which contains 14 schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 1-15 (1979) which have been introduced into the House of Representatives at different times since February this year. Also included in the Bill are changes of an administrative nature. In the main, the amendments give effect to decisions by the Government in respect of the following reports by the Industries Assistance Commission:

Certain Paper and Paperboard

Fisheries and Fish Processing Industry

Injection or Puncture Needles

Inks

Jewellery and Other Precious Metalware, et cetera.

Timber and Timber Products and Plywood and Veneer

Tyres, Tyre Cases, et cetera.

Umbrellas, Sunshades, et cetera and Parts Therefor

Vegetable Oils and Fats: Animal Oils and Fats, et cetera.

Work Trucks, Certain Mobile Machines, et cetera.

Honourable senators will recall that when the Tariff Proposals were introduced a summary in respect of each of the Proposals was circulated setting out the nature of the change in duty rates and the origin of each change. A consolidation of those summaries has been prepared and copies may be obtained from the Records Office. I commend the Bill.

Excise Tariff Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to enact the Excise Tariff Alterations moved in the house on 27 February and 4 April 1979 by Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 1 , 2 and 3. The first alteration increased the excise duty on naturally occurring liquefied gas to $13 per kilolitre. This follows the announcement by the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) on a package of measures designed to encourage the use of liquefied petroleum gas as an alternative energy source. The second alteration follows determination by the Minister for National Development of new import parity prices for the period 1 January 1 979 to 30 June 1 979 in accordance with the Government’s decision that all Australian produced crude oil should be priced to refineries at import parity levels.

The third alternative is complementary to alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966 contained in the Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1979. A new item has been inserted in the Excise Tariff Act 192 1 to provide for the duty free entry of goods, other than alcohol or tobacco, that are, at the time they are entered for home consumption, owned by certain authorities or bodies established for a purpose of the Commonwealth by or under an Act of the Commonwealth. This is an interim measure pending examination by the Government of which, if any, such authorities should receive exemption from Customs or excise duties. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I will outline the procedure which the Opposition will follow. These Bills are being debated cognately. We are not opposing the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill. We will be moving an amendment to the second reading stage of the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. I will speak only briefly. Those who noted the comments of Mr Hurford in the House of Representatives with respect to the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill will have seen that he suggested that some sort of parliamentary committee ought to replace the present unsatisfactory practice under which changes in tariffs and excise which have already occurred are retrospectively validated by the Parliament without any real examination.

The purpose of the two Bills is to validate changes in tariff and excise which occurred up until the early part of May this year. The Customs Tariff Validation Bill and the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) which appear at the bottom of the business sheet will provide provisional validation for subsequent changes in tariffs and excise. I refer now to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill. Since it is a component of the Government’s crude oil pricing policy which has been the subject of strong, sustained and justified criticism by the Opposition for a long time, I move:

The Government’s oil pricing policy has been to some extent reviewed. I repeat that under this Government the price of petrol at the bowser will have, by July or August of this year, doubled in three years. The 1978 changes to the earlier crude oil pricing policy are directly responsible for inflation running at higher levels now than it was a year ago and will be responsible almost certainly for inflation running at higher levels over the next 1 2 months. The Government has recognised in its horror Budget changes some of the weaknesses of its policy and it has modified it. But is has not modified that policy to the extent which we believe it should have. Consequently, we have moved our amendment.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Georges:

– Aye.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3000

BOUNTY (INJECTION-MOULDING EQUIPMENT) BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Mr President, might I suggest that the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Bill 1979, the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill 1979, the Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Bill 1979, the Bounty (Bed Sheeting) Amendment Bill 1979, the Bounty (Dental Alloys) Bill 1979 and the Bounty (Paper) Bill 1979 be taken together, with separate questions being put in respect of each Bill?

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-That is acceptable. As the Minister probably knows, we do have amendments in respect of two of those Bills which we propose to move at the second reading stage. I will speak only briefly on this package of five Bills. The two Bills to which the Opposition will move amendments are the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill and the Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Bill. The purpose of the amendment we propose to move to the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill is to reduce from 1 ,000 to 500 the minimum print run which qualifies for the bounty. The amendment we propose to move to the Bounty (Rotary Cultivators) Bill expresses concern about the Government’s failure to give a satisfactory explanation of the move it is taking in introducing that legislation, in particular of why it has not implemented the full recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission when it reported on the matter. We do not oppose the other three Bills. I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bounty (Books) Amendment Bill 1979:

At end of motion add ‘, but the Senate, whilst supporting bounty assistance for local printers, is of the opinion that such assistance should be provided for minimum runs of500 copies instead of the present 1,000 copies in order to aid smaller, more specialised printers who have previously been encouraged to invest in facilities through, for instance, the investment allowance, and who must be encouraged to undertake structural adjustment in more equitable and less costly and disruptive ways’.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– When these Bills were debated in another place, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) gave a very full explanation of why the Government did not accept the full recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report. I refer honourable senators who are interested in the matter to the Minister’s comments then.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3001

BOUNTY (ROTARY CULTIVATORS) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I move:

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3001

BOUNTY (BED SHEETING) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

page 3001

BOUNTY (DENTAL ALLOYS) BILL 1979

Second Readings

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

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3001

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Again I will be very brief. These two Bills, neither of which the Opposition is opposing, authorise some changes in tariffs and excise which have already taken place from about 10 May onwards. They will also authorise changes in tariffs and excise which may take place between now and about the middle of November. The legislation seeks to authorise those changes within a six months period. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3001

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-The Opposition is opposing this Bill which seeks to implement the decision announced during the 24 May horror Budget to impose a tariff of 2 per cent on nearly all imports previously free from tariff. The Bill, as it now stands somewhat amended, is less obnoxious than the original Bill which was introduced in the House of Representatives on 24 May. That Bill was amended by the Government after debate on it had almost been completed in the Committee stage which is a testimony to the hasty and ill-considered nature of the legislation. Last year’s Budget, of course, was rewritten more times than most people can remember and now we seem to have the same spectacle with this mini-Budget or horror Budget. It will be recalled that the excise Bill which implemented the new crude oil levy arrangements also had to be redrafted at the last minute. Of course, the Ministers responsible for this legislation have had a number of other things on their minds in recent times. It is just as well there is no more primary industry legislation in the pipeline. This, of course, is a case of desperation move after desperation move by a desperation government.

The principal reason we are opposing the Bill is that it will unquestionably be inflationary. In its original form the Government estimated it would add $80m to the cost of imports which would add directly about 0.15 per cent to the final consumption expenditure and it could be expected to add something considerably more than 0.15 per cent to the consumer price index over the next 12 months because of its indirect effects on production costs and also because it is likely to lead to price increases among competitive domestically produced goods. It applies to an enormous range of goods, from raw fish to aeroplanes. The reason given by the Government for the change is the Florence Agreement to which Australia is not a signatory but the terms of which evidently the Government feels obliged to honour. A number of commodities to which the Government originally proposed that its 2 per cent import tariff would be applied are exempt under the terms of that agreement.

This draws attention again to the hastily and ill considered nature of this move, this further desperation move by a desperate government. It makes Australia also look hypocritical- not that there is anything unusual about that these days. A week before the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) was made on this matter the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was grandstanding in Manila, lecturing the rest of the world about the virtues of removing barriers to trade. When he returned to Australia he did the opposite. As has so often happened with this Prime

Minister and this Government, their public statements and actions are mutually exclusive.

Senator Wriedt:

– What you would call deception.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, deception. If it is not conscious deception then it is certainly deception. In the joint communique issued with the President of the Philippines on 1 1 May, the Prime Minister said that it was of critical importance to achieve significant reductions to barriers in world trade. Yet as soon as he returned to Australia we find his Treasurer and his Government announcing another new tax which imposes a further barrier to world trade. At this rate the Prime Minister’s credibility will be as low abroad as it is at home, if it is not already.

Senator Wriedt:

– Would that be possible?

Senator WALSH:

– The last time I checked his credibility it showed about 20 per cent of the people believed the things he was saying. I imagine after the last few weeks the number will have declined to single figures. Probably it will be even lower than the inflation rate. The Opposition opposes this Bill for the reasons I have stated. The Bill is a desperate measure by this desperate Government. It was searching around for any means possible to raise additional revenue. Obviously inadequate thought was given before the Government implemented it, evidenced by the fact the Government had to amend the items which are covered. As with virtually all the changes made in the 24 May horror Budget, it will add to inflation, the containment of which has been the declared primary objective of this Government ever since it came to office; an objective initially in which it had some success but in which it is now failing. That completes the total pattern of failure of this Government under this Prime Minister.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I want to draw the attention of the House to a very strange happening. Senator Walsh, who led for the Opposition, stated that we are opposing this Bill and yet before he finished speaking a document is put before honourable senators giving the record of the sittings of this Senate from 20 February to 8 June 1 979. When one reads the document one sees on page 3 the divisions in the Senate won by the Government total 69, and won by the Opposition, nil. This document was prepared even before the business of this Parliament was finished. It is conclusive proof that Government members had no intention whatever of listening to the amendments moved by the Opposition on the two previous Bills; the

Government had no intention whatever of entertaining opposition to this particular Bill. It has had this document prepared and it is tabled in the Parliament.

We are told repeatedly that this is a House of review. Where is the House of review? We have this document tabled in the Parliament, put in front of every senator. It gives a record of the sittings of the session and yet we have not dealt with the business before the House. I think it is a disgraceful attitude of the Government. I think it should be brought to the attention of every elector in Australia. This Senate is abused, although it is supposed to be a House of review. It should be brought to the attention of every elector, how the Government of the day just uses this House to ramrod its legislation through without giving any consideration to the people elected as the Opposition and who want to put a point of view.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Senator McLaren knows perfectly well that this document is a statistical record that has been put out by the Senate Records Office, not by the Government. That states it, if he does not already understand.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to express my very grave concern that the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) should have tried to lay the blame in regard to this document that is before the Parliament upon the Senate Records Office. The honourable senator should be ashamed of himself for trying to shed the blame to somebody else when it is the Government’s responsibility. Certainly, the people in the Senate Records Office were efficient in having this document prepared, but they would not have prepared it had they not had previous advice from the Government that it would not give any consideration at all to the two amendments that Senator Walsh moved to the previous Bills, and would not even take into consideration that we would be opposing this Bill. It is all very well for the Government to try to get itself off the hook and blame the Senate Records Office. Any Minister who is prepared to shed the blame, and place it upon his staff, does not deserve to occupy the position of Minister.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

- Senator McLaren is apparently suggesting that the Government can run the Senate Records Office and the Senate officers. It is absolute nonsense and he must know that as well as everybody else does.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3003

QUESTION

RETIREMENT OF JAMES ROWLAND ODGERS, C.B.E., CLERK OF THE SENATE

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

– by leave- I move:

Briefly, we cannot allow this occasion to pass without placing on record a tribute to the Clerk, Mr Jim Odgers, who retires in August and will not be with us when we return for the Budget sittings. It is a delight that one can pay a tribute to someone when he is going from us still relatively young, still healthy and still in the fullness of his talents and therefore capable of going on for many years, we hope, in the richness and fullness of life.

I remind the Senate that Jim Odgers was born in Adelaide and, since joining the Public Service in South Australia, has had a most distinguished record of public service spanning almost 50 years. He joined the Reporting Staff of the Commonwealth Parliament in 1937 and the staff of the Department of the Senate in 1942. Since then he has risen through the upper ranks of the Senate staff, culminating in his promotion to the position of Clerk in 1 965. He has held that position with distinction since that time- a period of some 14 years.

All honourable senators will have experienced the professional advice and assistance of Mr Odgers and of the other officers he has so ably led as Clerk of this Senate. He has gained the distinction of becoming recognised as something of an authority on parliamentary practice in the English-speaking world. He prepared the first edition of Australian Senate Practice, which was published in 1953, and the fifth edition of which was published in 1976. So, in its own way, the name of Odgers has taken its place, with us, in the context that the Erskine May image holds in the minds of students of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy.

Although all honourable senators may not share all of his views on the proper role of the Senate, we are all indebted to him for the many developments that he has fostered and guided throughout his service in this chamber. Following a grant to study the functions and procedures of the American Senate and its committees in 1955, his report laid the groundwork for our Standing Committee system. He was Secretary to the committee appointed by Government senators in 1964, the report of which provided the basis for the ‘ 1 965 Compact ‘ which has since determined the division of items between the two categories of Appropriation Bills. Time does not permit me to refer to all his achievements but, as honourable senators will be aware, Her Majesty the Queen bestowed the Honour of Commander of the Order of the British Empire on him in 1968. Mr Odgers has dedicated himself to the Senate and to the institution of Parliament for over 40 years. I am sure all honourable senators will join me in wishing him a long and happy retirement. Our very good wishes and thanks go also to Mrs Odgers who has served with her husband during the period of his work in the Senate, with all the strain on her patience and understanding which the sitting hours of this place impose upon wives and families. I ask Mr Odgers to take back to his family our own admiration and respect for the work that he has done. His great contribution will be, and is, a living monument to him. That is not always available to all men.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– I wish briefly to support the remarks of Senator Carrick. I would perhaps go one stage further than saying that Jim Odgers, as we know him, is something of an authority. I think it is fair to say that he is an authority in the area of procedure, particularly in this chamber, and we have been indebted to him over the years. The quite monumental work that he has prepared and updated, Australian Senate Practice, is a unique work. It is a curious work, I suppose, because for us in this chamber it is a mixture of the Bible and the Koran, and the thoughts of Chairman Mao I suppose could be thrown in as well. That might account for the red cover. There is no doubt that without that book all of us would have been lost at sea on many occasions. This would also apply in the years ahead.

It is the custom to refer to ‘Odgers’ for our guidance in the way in which we conduct the very complicated procedures and overcome the difficulties in which we find ourselves. It is appropriate that we place on record the indebtedness of our parliamentary system to that which Jim

Odgers has contributed. I do not think there is anyone amongst us who would take a different view. May I also say that Senator O ‘Byrne, who had to leave earlier today, as the longest serving member of the Senate was hoping to be here this evening so that he could say a few words. Unfortunately he is not here. I just want it recorded that he would have liked to have been here in order to say a few words. My only advice to Jim Odgers is that during the course of his retirement the best place that he could spend it in is Tasmania and if he gets the time I can assure him that he would be most welcome down there.

The PRESIDENT:

-Honourable senators, I wish warmly to endorse the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). I feel that there is no more laudable attribute in anyone’s character, and in fundamental good citizenship, than personal integrity and loyal and dedicated service to the causes to which the person is attracted. These attributes mark our worthy Clerk, Mr J. R. Odgers, CBE. He is indeed a man of absolute integrity, a man of outstanding ability and judgment, who has been completely dedicated to the wellbeing and strengthening of the institution of the Parliament and of the Senate in particular. He has always pursued his duties selflessly, impartially and fearlessly, never deviating from the course which he set to serve the best interests of the Parliament.

He has served the Parliament for 42 years, the Senate in particular for 37, of which 14 years have been as Clerk. His is a distinguished publicservice for just under 50 years since entry to the Public Service in Adelaide in 1930. The monumental work Australian Senate Practice will ever remain a vital book of reference, not only here but also in parliaments throughout the world. The fifth edition of his book will ever keep the name of Odgers remembered here, as has been that of Erskine May in the British tradition. I trust that we shall see a sixth edition of his great work. I wish to express my sincere thanks to him for his quite magnificent assistance to me in my office as President. He is indeed a good and loyal friend, tried and true, to whom, together with his good wife Jean, I tender on behalf of all honourable senators best wishes for health and happiness in his retirement.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3004

ADJOURNMENT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– In the hope that all on both sides of the chamber will have a happy and fruitful recess, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 6.26 p.m. until Tuesday, 21 August 1979, at 2.30 p.m. in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.

page 3006

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1373)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, upon notice, on 28 Feburary 1979:

Has: (a) the General Manager; (b) the Chairman; or (c) any member of the Australian Wheat Board protested to the Minister since 1 January 1979, seeking to change a plan by the Government, and/or the Treasury and/or the Reserve Bank, to finance part of the 1978-79 season first advance from sources other than the Reserve Bank Rural Credits Department, if so, when was any such protest made, and by whom.

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

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

No.

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1377)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister earlier this year, either alone or in conjunction with other Ministers and after conferring with the Secretary of the Treasury and/or other senior Treasury officials and/or the Governor and/or other senior officials of the Reserve Bank, agree to prevent the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department advancing sufficient funds to the Australian Wheat Board to enable the Board to meet its obligations to pay the first advance on all 1 978-79 season wheat received from wheatgrowers.
  2. Was it intended that the Wheat Board borrow the rest of the money required to meet its obligations to wheatgrowers from the trading banks.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I refer the honourable senator to the answers given by the Minister representing the Treasurer to Questions Nos 1376 and 1380 (Hansard of 29 May 1979, page 2297).

Wedge-tailed Eagle (Question No. 1603)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 9 May 1979:

Is the Government holding discussions with all States concerning the declaration of complete protection for the Wedge-tailed Eagle, in view of its position on the coat of arms for the Northern Territory; if so, what are the details.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The Commonwealth Government is not holding discussions with the States and Territories about complete protection for the Wedge-tailed Eagle.

Protection of avifauna is the responsibility of the appropriate State or Territory authority and the Wedge-tailed Eagle is protected throughout Australia under various State and Territory legislation. However, in all areas of Western Australia, except the Shire of Kojonup, the Wedge-tailed Eagle may be destroyed by landowners on their own land and when their property is being damaged or may reasonably be expected to be damaged.

Aquarium Fish Imports (Question No. 1612)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What actions has the Minister or his Department taken as a consequence of Resolution 10 of the Australian Fisheries Council concerning limitations to live aquarium fish imports.
  2. ) When will such measures be implemented.
  3. On what legislative authority will they be implemented.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Resolution 10 of the Australian Fisheries Council meeting of 10 November 1 978 is under consideration. I have met the Honourable Assistant Secretary of the Australian Federation of Aquarium Fish Importers and Traders and I have made arrangements to meet a representative group of the aquarium fish industry. The resolution is under consideration by relevant Commonwealth authorities, including the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, which falls within my portfolio.
  2. A decision on any limitations on importation of live aquarium fish will not be taken until discussions referred to in ( 1 ) above have been held and I have reached agreement on the matter with the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and the Minister for Health.
  3. Under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations, live fish and eggs of fish are listed as item 23a of the Second Schedule.

Education Program for Unemployed Youth (Question No. 1627)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What are the aims of the Education Program for Unemployed Youth.
  2. When did the program begin.
  3. Where in Queensland have there been courses under this Program and what are the details of these courses.
  4. Has any evaluation of the Program been made to see whether the aims of the Program are being fulfilled; if so, what has been the result of the evaluation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Education Program for Unemployed Youth is designed to assist young people for whom low or inadequate levels of educational achievement form a primary barrier to their obtaining stable employment.
  2. The first courses to be conducted under the program began in New South Wales on 1 1 July 1 977.
  3. Four series of courses have been conducted in Queensland. The locations of these courses were as follows:

Courses Queensland are each of 16 weeks duration and cater for an average of 14 students per course. Instruction is given in the following areas:

Communication skills. Communication with numbers. Self-expression through drama. Career education. Health and recreational activities. Technical knowledge and skills.

  1. An evaluation of the pilot phase of the program (JulyDecember 1977) was carried out by the Department of Education and the report was published in November 1978. While the report was essentially a descriptive account of the program in its developmental stage, there were however some encouraging results. Although EPUY was not a job training program in the same way as other employment training programs such as SYETP, 28 per cent of students who returned questionnaires which were sent to them after they had completed courses had obtained work. Another encouraging result was that seven per cent of students who began courses returned to formal education on course completion.

The report provided a useful and encouraging insight into the program in its pilot phase and on balance fully justified the Government’s decision to place the program on an ongoing basis.

A more detailed evaluation of the operation of the program is currently being undertaken by the Australian Council for Educational Research. The report of this evaluation is expected in December of this year.

Miss Katherine Bingham: Passport (Question No. 1628)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) When was an Australian passport issued to Katherine Bingham, who testified in a Swiss Court that she fed poisoned chocolate to a Swiss national, Oskar Gutweniger (see Sydney Sun, 26 April 1979).
  2. Is Miss Bingham’s passport to be cancelled, in view of the quaint behaviour she has disclosed to the court.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) An Australian passport was issued on 24 April 1 979 but not handed to Katherine Bingham until the completion of her trial.
  2. No.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Question No. 1630)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. Has the Minister seen in its entirety a letter, from Mr Groom to Mr Newman, from which he quoted during the Senate debate on a motion of no confidence in the Minister on 8 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1659).
  2. ) Is he aware of its contents.
  3. Did he see the letter before or after giving the answers he gave during Question Time on 3 May 1979.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. ) See pages 2066-7, Senate Hansard, 24 May 1 979.

Common Fund (Question No. 1647)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

When will the Minister announce a specific financial commitment to the Common Fund for world commodity price stabilisation, following the Australian Government’s support for the establishment of the Fund.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

At UNCTAD V in Manila the Prime Minister stated that Australia will be fully supporting the Fund’s first window operations and that we will make an ‘effective’ contribution to the Fund ‘s second window. I am not yet able to advise when the precise level of our contribution will be announced. While the developed country members of UNCTAD have undertaken to make assessed contributions to the first window of the Fund to a total of SUS218 million the exact details of how this sum is to be apportioned between the countries concerned has not yet been agreed.

We have also proposed that there should be some broad agreement on an equitable burden sharing approach for contributions to the second window and this question has still to be discussed.

It seems unlikely, therefore, that a decision by the Government on its contribution to either window will be possible until further negotiations in the Interim Committee of the Negotiating Conference which meets in September to draft the Articles of Agreement for the Fund.

Medical Benefits Funds

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 10 May 1979 (Hansard, pages 1 793-4) Senator Sibraa asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question without notice concerning private medical benefits funds reducing the level of benefit to 75 per cent, because of the number of claims that have been made.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

A number of registered organisations have rules which allow them to reduce the level of medical benefits, upon a contributor having been paid benefits up to specified annual limits.

The Government is concerned with the effect of rules which restrict medical benefits, particularly in relation to the chronically ill. Emanating from this concern, a comprehensive examination of the rules of registered organisations is being made to identify those rules that discriminate against people in some way or other. Consequent upon this examination being finalised, the organisations concerned will be asked to amend their rules in line with the Government’s policy.

Unemployment Statistics (Question No. 941)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 24 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the latest estimated number of unemployed:

    1. adult males; (b) adult females; (c) junior males; and (d) junior females, in each State.
  2. What percentage of the total work force in each State falls into each of the above categories.
  3. What is the percentage of unemployed (a) adult males; (b) adult females; (c) junior males; and (d) junior females; in (i) each capital city, (ii) each major provincial city; and (iii) non-urban areas, in relation to the total workforce of each State.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question.

  1. 1 ) This information is available in respect of full-time unemployed in the Australian Bureau of Statistics monthly publication ‘Unemployment (Preliminary Estimates)’ Catalogue No. 6201.0.
  2. and (3) This data is not published but some of it may be obtained on application to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Aboriginal Housing (Question No. 1120)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 November 1978:

  1. Did Mr Jack Cook, Assistant Director (Southern) of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, as alleged in a document incorporated in Hansard by Senator Keeffe on 17 November 1978 (see p. 221), completely ignore, at a Conference with Jay Creek Council, requests from Aboriginals for Apatula Housing, but make strong representations for Stawell Timber Industry Housing.
  2. Did Mr Cook inform the Council that Apatula Housing was ‘no good ‘.
  3. Is Apatula housing manufactured by Aboriginal labour at Finke working for an Aboriginal Company.
  4. Has this housing widely constructed at Aboriginal settlements throughout the Northern Territory, passing all architectural requirements, and has it, in fact, been highly praised.
  5. Did Cook take the attitude to Apatula housing as a result of a direction given to him; if not, for what reason did he seek to persuade the Council to accept an inferior construction manufactured in Victoria by European labour.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The documents incorporated in Hansard referred to matters which were alleged to have taken place in 1971 and 1972 before my Department was created. I do not believe it appropriate that officers should undertake the lengthy enquiries necessary to establish the facts, which may well be impossible in the circumstances.

I would confirm, however that Apatula housing as referred to in the question by Senator Cavanagh is manufactured by an Aboriginal Company established at Finke in the Northern Territory and that Apatula houses have been used in a number of places in Central Australia. The company has recently completed construction of a hostel in Alice Springs for Aboriginal Hostels Ltd.

Customs and Excise Duties (Question No. 1313)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

How much customs and/or excise duty was collected on beer, potable spirits and tobacco in Australia in each financial year from 1974-75 to 1977-78 and how much duty is it estimated will be collected in 1 978-79 on these items.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Actual clearances and revenue to end-March suggest that excise for the year as a whole for beer, potable spirits and tobacco may be about 3 or 4 per cent below the Budget estimate.

Sir John Kerr: Telephone Services (Question No. 1325)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 February 1979:

Is the former Governor-General of Australia, Sir John Kerr, provided with a free telephone service between his country of residence, England, and Australia; if so: (a) what was the cost to the Australian taxpayer of the telephone calls made to Australia by Sir John Kerr during the writing and compilation of his book Matters for Judgment; or (b) if these particular costs cannot be separated, what is the total cost of all telephone calls to Australia by Sir John Kerr since he took up residence in England.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It is not the practice to make public the telephone accounts of current or ex-holders of Vice Regal or Parliamentary office, and I do not propose to institute such a practice.

Minister for Productivity: Overseas Visits (Question No. 1356)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many overseas visits have been made by the Minister since 13 December 1975.
  2. What countries were visited on each occasion, what was the length of stay in each country, and what was the purpose of the visit.
  3. How many: (a) members of the Minister’s personal staff; (b) departmental advisers; and (c) persons other than personal staff and departmental officers, accompanied the Minister on each trip.
  4. What are the names of 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 pan of the travel; if so (a) has a charge been raised for such travel; (b) what was the charge; (c) what would have been the commercial airfare applicable for travel undertaken by aircraft of No. 34 Squadron; and (d ) do the costs requested in (5) (a) above include the costs for the use of aircraft of No. 34 Squadron.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the reply given by the Prime Minister to question number 1335 (Senate Hansard, pages 1608-9, 2 May 1979).

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1370)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

Has (a) the General Manager; (b) the Chairman; or (c) any member of the Australian Wheat Board protested to the Prime Minister since 1 January 1979, seeking to change a plan by the Government and/or the Treasury and/or the Reserve Bank, to finance part of the 1978-79 season first advance from sources other than the Reserve Bank Rural Credits Department; if so, when were any such protests made, and by whom.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Representations were received by the Minister for Primary Industry who is the responsible Minister.

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1374)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister earlier this year, either alone or in conjunction with other Ministers and after conferring with the Secretary of the Treasury and /or other senior Treasury officials and/or the Governor and/or other senior officials of the Reserve Bank, agree to prevent the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department advancing sufficient funds to the Australian Wheat Board to enable the Board to meet its obligation to pay the first advance on all 1978-79 season wheat received from wheatgrowers.
  2. Was it intended that the Wheat Board borrow the rest of the money required to meet its obligation to wheatgrowers from the trading banks.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 1376 given by the Minister representing the Treasurer and which appeared in Hansard on 29 May 1979 (page 2297).

Financing of Wheat Board First Advance (Question No. 1378)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Were first advance payments to Australian wheatgrowers delayed earlier this year because the Reserve Bank’s Rural Credits Department refused to advance to the Australian Wheat Board sufficient funds to meet its obligation to pay the first advance on all 1978-79 season wheat received from growers.
  2. On whose authority or instructions did the Reserve Bank refuse further advances to the Wheat Board.
  3. Did the Reserve Bank later make available to the Australian Wheat Board sufficient funds to honour its obligation to pay the first advance on all wheat received from wheatgrowers.
  4. On whose authority or instructions did the Reserve Bank reverse its earlier policy.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer to question No. 1376 given by the Minister representing the Treasurer and which appeared in Hansard on 29 May 1979 (page 2297).

Economy: Money Supply (Question No. 1382)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister claim in a recent statement that the Government now had the money supply under control.
  2. Was the plan to transfer $250-300m of the Australian Wheat Board ‘s outstanding debt on the 1 978-79 wheat pool from the Reserve Bank to the trading banks still operative at the time the Prime Minister made his statement.
  3. Has that plan now been abandoned.
  4. If the answer to both questions is yes, what alternative means of curbing money supply growth has or will the Government implement.
  5. If the plan to transfer the debt was abandoned before the Prime Minister claimed the money supply was under control, what alternative means was used to absorb the troublesome S2S0-30Om.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has consistently kept the money supply under control.
  2. to (5) I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 1376 given by the Minister representing the Treasurer and which appeared in Hansard on 29 May 1979 (page 2297).

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 1385)

Senator Rocher:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 27 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What amounts were expended by the Federal Government in each year from 1974 to 1978 under the classification Incidental Allowance ‘ which is paid to tertiary students who qualify for the Living Allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS).
  2. What amount has been set aside to meet these outlays for the year 1978-79.
  3. What are the amounts that each Australian University in Australia charges for student association fees.
  4. How many students who qualified for the TEAS Living Allowance attended each Australian University in each year from 1974 to 1978.
  5. How many full-time students attended each Australian University in each year from 1 974 to 1 978.
  6. Does the Federal Government pay the amount being referred to as the amenities and services fee for Commonwealth Public Servants who attend a University to undertake part-time or full-time courses.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Incidentals Allowance is included in living allowance payments to students under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and hence precise details of expenditure on the former are not available. Estimates of expenditure on Incidentals Allowance however are as follows: 1974-not available; 1975-$6.16m; 1976-$7.30m; 1977-$7.53m; 1978-$7.58m.
  2. The estimate of expenditure on Incidentals Allowance for the 1979 calendar year is $7.6m.
  3. The amounts charged for student association fees (full time) by each Australian university in 1 979 are:
  1. Statistics showing the particular university attended by students who qualified Tor living allowance under TEAS are not available. The total number of grantees in training at universities at 30 June each year was:

1974-31.762: 1975-35,395; 1976-39.789: 1977- 39,746; 1978-38,600.

  1. The number of full time students (both undergraduate and postgraduate) attending each Australian university in each year from 1 974 to 1 978 is set out at the end of this reply.
  2. Under Regulation 100C of the Public Service Regulations, a Commonwealth public servant who has been attending a university to undertake a course in approved circumstances is entitled to reimbursement of general service fees paid in respect of parts of the course successfully completed. Most public servants benefiting from this Regulation would have been studying part-time.

General service fees are also payable under the scholarships provided by the Public Service Board for full-time university study.

Royal Australian Navy Apprentices (Question No. 1388)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many applications were received from each State for the 1 979 intake of Naval Apprentices into the Royal Australian Navy Apprentice Training Establishment.
  2. How many applicants from each State were accepted, and entered the establishment.
  3. What was the target for entry members.
  4. How many, if any, of the intakes were accepted from within the Service.
  5. ) How did the academic standard of applicants compare with the 1977 and 1978 entrants.
  6. Were there any marked differences in the academic standards of applicants from the various States; if so, what were the differences.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. One hundred and sixty-eight. The shortfall of three was caused by late withdrawals.
  2. Ten.
  3. The only gauge of academic standard of applicants available is the test of mathematics routinely administered. On the basis of this test applicants for the the 1 979 intake were similar to applicants for the two previous January intakes.
  4. Based on the mathematics tests routinely administered the academic standard of applicants from the various states, in order of merit was:

New South Wales

Queensland

Tasmania

Western Australia

South Australia

Victoria.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 1502)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 28 March 1 979:

Can students who hold teaching qualifications and who wish to undertake a tertiary course qualify for assistance under current regulations governing the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme; if so, has this always been the case; if not, when were the regulations changed and why.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes, in certain circumstances. It has always been a provision of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) that a student who has undertaken one course at the tertiary level may be assisted for a second course if it is at a higher level than the first course, or for the number of years by which a second course at the same level exceeds the duration of the first. For example a student who has completed a three year teaching diploma may be assisted for a postgraduate diploma course or for the fourth year undergraduate diploma or degree course.

Prior to 1979 it was possible for a student who had completed a first course of teacher training such as a Diploma of Teaching to receive assistance from the commencement of a degree course in a field related to teaching, e.g. a BA. This concession was introduced in 1973 to enable teachers to upgrade their qualifications.

In the 1 978 Budget context it was decided that the special concession relating to teaching courses should be phased out from the beginning of 1 979. The Student Assistance Regulations were amended in October 1 978 to give effect to this decision.

In deciding to phase out the teaching concessions, the Government considered it could no longer justify special arrangements in relation to training for the teaching profession while no such arrangements apply to training for other professions such as Engineering or Medicine. There is no longer a need to give special encouragement to people to undertake teaching courses, and there has now been reasonable opportunity for teachers who undertook the shorter training courses years ago to upgrade their qualifications.

High Court Building (Question No. 1519)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 3 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is one of the two great windows in the new High Court Building to contain a portrayal of the British Coat of Arms.
  2. What is the reason for this latest manifestation of the colonial cringe, particularly since the abolition of all Federal appeals to the Privy Council.
  3. At whose instigation was the decision made to portray the British Arms.
  4. Does it have the support of all, or a majority, of the High Court Judges.
  5. 5 ) Does it have the support of the Government.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Arms will be displayed in the centre of the large glass wall at the front of the new High Court Building facing Parliament House. The rear of the new building, on the lake side, is also one large glass wall. The Royal Arms will be displayed in the centre of this wall.
  2. ) This does not involve anything in the nature of what is referred to in the question as a ‘colonial cringe’. Both the Australian Arms and the Royal Arms are displayed on Parliament House. The Court, like the Parliament, has its origins in an Imperial statute and the Queen is part of the Constitution and is the Fountain of Justice. The display of the Royal Arms in addition to the Australian Arms on the new building is in recognition of these historical facts.
  3. to (5) The Chief Justice suggested that both the Australian Arms and the Royal Arms be displayed as indicated in (2) above and this has the full support of the Government. The decision was in fact made by the Government. I do not know the views of the other Justices.

Aborigines: Broadcasting Services (Question No. 1545)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on5 April 1979:

  1. 1 ) What consultations have taken place with Aboriginal communities on their broadcasting needs.
  2. ) How much money has been allocated during the financial year 1 978-79 for the training of Aboriginal broadcasters and for the purchase of equipment.
  3. Will Aboriginal communities be granted low powered public broadcasting licences, or will broadcasting to Aboriginal communities become the responsibility of the Special Broadcasting Service.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) In recent years exploratory consultations have been held with a number of Aboriginal communities in northern and central Australia about their interest in broadcasting. A survey of training needs is being undertaken with the Australian Film and Television School before allocating money to the training of Aboriginal broadcasters.
  2. Aboriginal broadcasting services are being considered by a working party of officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Postal and Telecommunications Department, Special Broadcasting Service and Australian Broadcasting Commission. A number of choices, including those suggested by Senator Ryan, are under consideration, but a report has not yet been received. The Postal and Telecommunications Department has also informed me that draft planning proposals for public broadcasting stations are in preparation as a result of representations from the Nguiu Shire Council ( Bathurst Is.) and Milingimbi, Northern Territory.

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (Question No. 1S49)

Senator Missen:
VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) How much has already been spent by the Government on the current hearings, relating to Television Stations Licensing, which are being conducted throughout Australia by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
  2. What evidence does the Government have that this expenditure has been justified.
  3. What credentials and qualifications are required by an applicant seeking the position of Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
  4. Have any safeguards been adopted to ensure that the Chairman of the Tribunal remains impartial; if so: (a) what are the details; and (b) how are the safeguards enforced.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Expenditure incurred by the Tribunal on inquiries relating to the licensing of television stations for the period I July 1 978 to 30 April 1 979, was as follows:
  1. The very active participation by members of the public and various public interest groups in the recent Adelaide and Sydney Licence Renewal Hearings has amply demonstrated the wisdom of the Government’s commitment to the concept of public accountability.
  2. Personal and professional qualifications of the highest order are sought by the Government for persons recommended to the Governor-General for appointment to the Chairmanship of statutory authorities, including the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.
  3. (a) and (b) Under section 80a of the Broadcasting an Television Act 1942, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is required required to act fairly and impartially and to observe the rules of natural justice in the performance of its licensing functions.

In addition, section 9 of the Act requires a member (including the Chairman) with interests which may conflict with his duties as a member, to dispose of those interests within 1 4 days of this appointment.

Postal Charges: Country Newspapers (Question No. 1554)

Senator Chipp:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the cost of postage for country newspapers recently risen by up to 50 per cent; if so, is this increase contrary to the Postal Services Act 1975, Clause 7 (2), by which the Commission is required to have regard to the special needs of people who reside, or carry on business outside the cities.
  2. Do such high postal costs work against decentralisation measures.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is correct that under Section 7 (2) of the Postal Services Act 1 975 the Postal Commission is required to have regard to the special needs for postal services of people who reside or carry on business outside the cities. In addition, however, Section 76 of the Act requires the Postal Commission to operate its services as efficiently and economically as practicable. Sufficient revenue must be earned in a financial year by the Commission to meet all costs properly chargeable to revenue and to fund from internal resources at least 50 per cent of its capital expenditure.

Although postage rates are determined largely by the requirements of the Act regarding the Postal Commission’s financial objectives, the present charges allow for a considerable element of subsidy of country postal services. Postal charges have to be balanced in such a way as to retain as high a level as possible of customer usage within the more profitable metropolitan areas while, at the same time, recognising the particular difficulty of people in the country. The

Postal Commission estimates that postal services for residents of rural areas are being subsidised to the extent of about $1 5m per annum by the residents of the more densely populated areas.

It is true that as a result of the increases in postal charges from 1 January 1979, country newspaper postage rates rose by more than the 1 1 per cent increase in the basic postage rates which applied from 1 July 1978. Most country newspapers, however, are eligible for posting under the registered publications service and qualify for Category ‘A’ postage rates which are about one quarter of the postage rates which would apply if full postage were payable. Furthermore, many publishers of registered publications had their postage costs substantially reduced in October 1 977 following the transfer of some publications from Category ‘C to categories ‘ A ‘ or ‘ B ‘.

About one third of the articles posted under Category ‘A’ are country newspapers and on this basis the average subsidy on this mail financed by other users of the service is the equivalent of 1 2.8 cents per newspaper.

To further benefit those who post publications, such as country newspapers, in bundles, 1 have recently approved the restoration of the maximum weight limit for registered publications to the former level of 13 kilograms. Consequently new rates for postings of registered publications weighing between 750 grams and 13 kilograms were introduced on 1 May 1979.

  1. As indicated above the present postage rates for country newspapers allow for a considerable level of subsidy from other users of postal services. In the circumstances it is not considered that postal charges discriminate against decentralised areas or work against decentralisation measures.

Defence Force: Alcoholism and Drug Addiction (Question No. 1560)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Do the respective medical services of the Army, Navy, and Air Force conduct surveys amongst defence personnel, designed to detect alcoholism, drug addiction or associated problems; if so, what have been the result of such surveys; if not, what was the incidence of (a) alcoholism; and (b) drug addiction, detected by Medical officers of the Army, Navy and Air Force during each year from 1 965 to 1 978.
  2. What program has (a) the Department of Defence, or (b) individual arms of the services, instituted to deal with problems such as alcoholism and drug addiction.
  3. How many (a) officers; and (b) servicemen, in each of the three armed services have been (i) taken off active duty; (ii) discharged (iii) hospitalized and rehabilitated; or (iv) otherwise treated, because of alcoholism or drug addiction, in each year from 1965 to 1978.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. There are no detailed statistics on the incidence of alcoholism and drug addiction detected by Medical Officers in any of the Services.
  2. Each Service has comprehensive instructions dealing with alcoholism and drug abuse. Guidance is issued on the types and effects of various drugs and on the prevention of misuse of alcohol.
  3. Statistics in the form requested are not held. See also reply to ( 1 ) above.

Northern Territory: Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 1578)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1 979:

Has either the Minister or the Prime Minister received a request from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly seeking a transfer of Aboriginal Affairs in the Territory to the Northern Territory Government: if so: (a) has the matter been considered by the Minister or the Government; and (b) has the Government agreed to transfer the Australian Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Northern Territory to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No request has been received from the Chief Minister seeking a transfer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the Territory to Northern Territory Government.

The Memorandum of Understanding in respect of financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and selfgoverning Northern Territory provides that ‘overall responsibility for policy planning and co-ordination in respect of Aboriginal affairs will remain with the Commonwealth Government which may provide finance for special measures to assist the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory as appropriate ‘.

In line with the Memorandum of Understanding, however, there has been a progressive transfer to the Northern Territory Government of State-type functions which were previously administered by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Boeing Aircraft (Question No. 1582)

Senator Colston:

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

Who owned the predominantly white Boeing aircraft which was parked between the Ansett Airlines and TransAustralia Airlines terminals at Brisbane Airport on the evening of 25 April 1979.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The predominantly white Boeing, a Boeing 727/100, was owned by the Fluor Corporation, of the United States.

Investment Allowance (Question No. 1598)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 May 1 979:

What indicators exist by which the Government can study the impact of the investment allowance on investment, employment and output, both at a macroeconomic and a microeconomic level.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Statistics are available of capital expenditure, employment and output, classified by industry and by other characteristics. Changes in those statistics are, of course, the result of a number of influences, and not the investment allowance alone. There are no indicators which enable one to say how many of any movement in those statistics is caused by the investment allowance, and how much by any one or more of the other influences.

Primary Industry Bank of Australia (Question No. 1607)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Does the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry that ‘Some banks have apparently taken greater advantage of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia facility than others and consequently they have used up their share of the apportioned money’ (see House of Representatives Hansard, 3 May 1979, page 1 802 ) mean that clients of those banks have no chance of getting loans at this stage; if so, will the Minister make an immediate statement to that effect, so that potential borrowers will know where they stand, and how long this situation will last.
  2. On what basis, by whom and when, and in what amounts were the total PIBA funds apportioned to trading banks and other agents as the Minister’s statement indicates.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Primary Industry Bank of Australia Limited has experienced a higher level of demand for its funds than was expected when the bank commenced lending operations in November 1978. There being a limit to the amount of funds available to the bank, this has meant delays in approving loans in some cases. However, the bank is continuing to approve loans. It is relevant that a prospective borrower is not necessarily restricted to seeking access to Primary Industry Bank funds through any one prime lender. There is no intention to make a Ministerial statement on the matters raised.
  2. Allocation of the Primary Industry Bank’s funds is essentially a matter for determination by the bank itself. The details of allocation to individual prime lenders are not available to me and, as they relate to the dealings between the bank and its customers, I would not, in any case, think it appropriate to release them publicly.

Student Unions (Question No. 1613)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 10 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Who are the parties to the agreement made in 1 973 to which the Minister referred in answer to a question without notice in the Senate on the subject of student unions (see Hansard,2 March 1979, page 803).
  2. What are the terms of that agreement.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The agreement to which I referred on 2 1 March 1979 was made at the Premiers’ Conference in June 1973, and confirmed in subsequent correspondence between the then Prime Minister and State Premiers.
  2. Under the agreement, the Commonwealth accepted full responsibility for the financing of universities and colleges of advanced education from 1 974 on condition that tuition fees were abolished for all formal post-secondary education courses, including TAFE. Fee abolition applied not only to tuition fees but also to related fees such as laboratory, graduation and library fees.

Tuition fees for adult education courses and other courses not leading to a qualification, were not abolished.

The Commonwealth did not accept responsibility for funding non-academic amenities and facilities at tertiary institutions or the activities of student unions or student representative councils.

It was agreed that the estimates of the amounts of expenditure on universities and colleges of advanced education of which the State Governments would be relieved would be deducted from the general purpose funds provided to the States- more specifically, reductions to the financial assistance grants in respect of recurrent expenditure, and reductions to the States ‘ Loan Council programs in respect of capital expenditure were agreed on.

Fill Aircraft (Question No. 1620)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 May 1979:

  1. What has been: (a) the consumption of rockets and missiles, by type, used in practice by the F 1 1 1 aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force ( RAAF) in each year from 1 976 to 1978; and (b) the average number fired per FI 1 1 pilot per year.
  2. ) How many (a) rockets and missiles were fired between 1 November 1978 and 30 April 1979; (b) Fill pilots in the RAAF have had actual experience in firing rockets and missiles; and (c) F 1 1 1 pilots are there in the RAAF.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. (a) and (b), (2) (a)-By F1UC pilots-Nil. The RAAF uses conventional bombs on its FI 1 1C aircraft and consequently there have been no rockets or missiles fired from these aircraft.
  2. (b)- As F1UC pilots- Nil. However, some of these pilots would have fired rockets or missiles from other aircraft such as Mirage and Iroquois. (c)- The RAAF’s two F111C squadrons are established for 1 1 pilots each plus two in reserve. There are another 30 pilots, in various staff positions, who have had FI 1 1C experience.

Pro-Life Emergency Pregnancy Support Service (Question No. 1622)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 May 1 979:

Will payment by individuals and companies for advertisements and publication of notices in the program of the First Australasian Conference of Pro-Life Emergency Pregnancy Support Service be tax-deductible, as claimed by the organisers.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Whether an income tax deduction is allowable for payments for advertisements or publication of notices in the program of the First Australasian Conference of Pro-Life Emergency Pregnancy Support Service is a matter for determination in each case in the light of all the relevant facts.

Section S 1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act authorises income tax deductions for losses and outgoings incurred in gaining or producing assessable income or necessarily incurred in carrying on business for that purpose except to the extent to which they are losses or outgoings of capital or of a capital, private or domestic nature.

To the extent that it can be demonstrated that a payment was incurred in gaining or producing assessable income or in carrying on business for that purpose it will be allowable as a deduction.

Sand-mining on Fraser Island (Question No. 1625)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

Has the United States Government made a decision to take up or ‘espouse’ before the International Court of Justice the Dillingham Corporation’s claim to compensation from the Australian Government in respect of the closure of its sand-mining operations on Fraser Island? If so:

Does this decision represent a spectacular failure of the Minister’s attempts at diplomacy in this area, and make nonsense of Australia’s so-called special relationship with the United States; and

What is the Government’s present assessment of the likely outcome of any such case brought against it in the International Court?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (b) The Australian Government received a communication from the United States Government in March 1979 in which the United States Government advised that it was prepared to espouse the Dillingham Corporation ‘s claim for compensation and that, if the different views existing between the two Governments could not be resolved, it was willing to have the matter decided in an international forum.

The Government gave careful consideration to this communication. In response, it advised the United States Government that, while it did not agree to a United States proposal to refer the matter to arbitration, if the matter were to be referred by the United States to the International Court of Justice, Australia would not insist on the normal requirement that Dillingham Corporation first exhaust any legal remedies in Australia. The Australian Government would not invoke the United States reservation to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, as it would be entitled to, in order to challenge the Court’s jurisdiction in this case.

The Australian Government made it clear that it would be prepared, if it was thought that this would assist in resolving differences of opinion, to engage in discussions with the United States Government with a view to explaining the reasons for the Australian Government’s position.

The Government had earlier made an ex gratia offer of $4m, determined on an after-tax basis, to the DM Minerals partnership through which the Dillingham Corporation had an interest in mining on Fraser Island. The offer had regard to the loss of expected profits for the year 1977, and extraordinary costs incurred by the partnership in the closure of the enterprise. An offer on the same basis to another company engaged in mining on Fraser Island was accepted. The Government was informed in March that DM Minerals would not accept the ex gratia offer.

The Australian Government remains of the view that no compensation is due to Dillingham, either under Australian law or international law.

Motor Accident in Northern Territory (Question No. 1631)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Was a tracker, Mr Tommy White, of Ti Tree, Northern Territory, killed in a motor accident about five miles north of Aileron, and were two members of his family injured.
  2. Was the driver of the second vehicle involved in the accident a policeman from Alice Springs who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol.
  3. 3 ) What is the name of the policeman involved.
  4. Was any legal action taken against him, or any court enquiry held.
  5. Was any legal aid given to the widow, and any compensation paid to those injured.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. I am informed that the accident occurred three kilometres north of Aileron on 1 March 1979.
  2. and (3) I am informed that Senior Constable Phillip Keith Dredge was involved in the accident and that a breathaliser test proved negative.
  3. A coronial inquiry is to be held on 25 June.
  4. 1 understand that Mr White’s widow has placed the matter in the hands of the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service and that any claim for compensation will be dealt with in the usual way.

Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd (Question No. 1635)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 24 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Bond Corporation Holdings Ltd. Annual Report for 1978 show that the Commissioner of Taxation had withdrawn an assessment issued against Yanchep Estates Proprietary Limited for $5,860,000 additional income tax to that provided in the accounts; if so, and in view of the substantial impact that this decision had on the funds available to shareholders of the Bond Corporation, thereby increasing its borrowing ability and enabling the sale of remaining interests in Yanchep Sun City to the Tokyu Corporation of Japan: (a) will the Treasurer make a thorough investigation of the reasons for the withdrawal of this assessment; (b) what representations were made to the Treasurer for its withdrawal and by whom; and (c) under what provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1 936 was it withdrawn.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, it is true that the Bond Corporation Holdings Limited Annual Report for 1978 showed that the Commissioner of Taxation had withdrawn an assessment against Yanchep Estates Pty Ltd for $5,868,730 income tax. As the honourable senator will know, this is a matter between Yanchep Estates Pty Ltd and the Commissioner which is protected by the secrecy provisions of the income tax law.

No representations were made to the Treasurer for the withdrawal of the assessment.

Aboriginal Land Rights in Northern Territory (Question No. 1636)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 24 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Is the Northern Territory Government continuing to adopt a program of avoiding the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 by re-zoning land at will.
  2. ) Does some of the re-zoned land now being declared Town Land’ include unalienated land; if so, will this effectively prevent any Aboriginal land right claims in the rezones areas in the future.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The Northern Territory Government has indicated that it has no further extensions of town boundaries in contemplation within the period of the freeze over unalienated Crown land. The only exception to this would be arrangements relating to the McArthur River development which are under discussion between the Northern Land Council, the Borroloola Council and the Northern Territory Government.
  2. The extension of town boundaries has had the effect of preventing some Aboriginal land claims under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Aboriginal requirements within the town areas will continue to be determined by the Northern Territory Government on a needs basis.

Discussions between the N.T. Government and the Land Councils, particularly in respect of land claims that were affected by the extension of town boundaries, are underway with a view to satisfying the requirements of both parties.

Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust (Question No. 1638)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What person or organisation is liable for the costs incurred for television and other advertising for the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust.
  2. What are the details of advertising costs incurred so far.
  3. Was an advertising agency engaged to publicise the Trust; if so, which one.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3 ) The Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust is an independent body. I understand that it will in due course report publicly on its operations. $400,000 was provided to the Trust by the Commonwealth for administrative purposes. The Trust indicated that it did not intend that donations to the Trust would be used for advertising and other administrative purposes during the period of fund-raising or the period of formation of the new Foundation.

Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust (Question No. 1639)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 28 May 1979:

  1. 1 ) What person or organisation is liable to pay the costs of travel undertaken by relatives of Sir Robert Menzies, such as his niece, Mrs Judy Kuehne, and other people, in order to attend functions connected with the launching of the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust.
  2. What are the names of all people for whom such travel costs have been, or will be, paid; and what travel did each person undertake.
  3. What was the cost of all travel undertaken by each person, and was the travel first-class or economy class.
  4. What travelling allowances or expenses were paid to each person.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2), (3) and (4) See the answer to Question No. 1638. The administrative costs of the Trust are met from the Commonwealth ‘s contribution referred to in the answer to Question No. 1638.

Trade Barriers between Developed and Developing Countries (Question No. 1642)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 29 May 1979:

Did the Prime Minister, during his attendance in May 1 979 at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Manila, call for a lowering of trade barriers between developed and developing countries; if so, what steps is the Government taking to implement that view in relation to tariff policy.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

In his statement on 9 May 1979 to the Fifth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development the Prime Minister said that he believed individual governments of developed countries should be prepared to allow increased market access for imports from developing countries. The Prime Minister pointed out that Australia had been doing this very effectively for more than a decade. Over this period the percentage of our imports coming from developing countries had nearly doubled and the rate of increase in recent years had been nearly 35 per cent per annum.

Unlike in most other countries elements of the Australian tariff are regularly reviewed through the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry process and this will continue. In overall terms there has been a significant reduction in duties over the last five years.

Taxation Office Canteens (Question NO. 1664)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) In what Australian cities, and at what addresses do employees of the Commissioner of Taxation have: (a) sole; or (b) shared, access to public service canteens.
  2. What is: (a) the number of Taxation Office employees for whom each canteen caters in respect of ( 1 ) (a) and (b) above; and (b) the total number of persons for whom each canteen in category ( 1 ) ( b) caters.
  3. Which canteens in each category are conducted by: (a) private enterprise; (b) the Taxation Office; (c) the Treasury; (d) the Department of Finance; and (e) some other Government department or authority.
  4. Which canteens in each category are run on a basis of a separate accounting system.
  5. Where are the accounts of the canteens, for which a separate accounting system is operating, published.
  6. What was the profit or loss for the year ended 30 June 1978 of each canteen which is not run on a basis of a separate accounting system.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. (a) 65 King William Street, Adelaide; 350 Collins Street, Melbourne; 270 King Street, Melbourne; 9-21 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
  2. (b) 320-330 Adelaide Street, Brisbane; Langton Street, Canberra; 1 88 Collins Street, Hobart; 1-3 St George’s Terrace, Perth.
  3. (a) 1,074 and 65 King William Street, Adelaide; 1,378 at 320-330 Adelaide Street, Brisbane; 583 at Langton Street, Canberra; 391 at 188 Collins Street, Hobart; 2,001 at 350 Collins Street, Melbourne; 981 at 270 King Street, Melbourne; 9 1 8 at 1 -3 St George ‘s Terrace, Perth; 1 ,8 1 7 at 9-2 1 Elizabeth Street, Sydney.
  4. (b) Not known.
  5. All of the canteens are conducted by Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd.
  6. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd does not advise the Commissioner of Taxation of the basis of the accounting system used in the running of canteens.
  7. 5 ) Not known.
  8. Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd does not advise the Commissioner of Taxation of profits or losses made in public service canteens to which his employees have either sole or shared access.

Parmelia Yacht Race (Question No. 1676)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 June 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated total cost to the Australian taxpayer of the 24 metre ketch Anaconda’s leaving Australia, taking part in the Parmelia Race and returning to Australia including the cost of leasing, fitting out and crewing the vessel.
  2. What is the breakdown of such costs.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Estimated Total Cost-

    1. The estimated costs to be borne by the Australian taxpayer through Defence Force participation in the Parmelia Yacht Race amount to a total of $ 127,520.
    2. The crew members collectively are contributing $ 1 0,000 towards total costs.

  2. Cost Breakdown-

    1. The elements included in the total taxpayer costs of $127,520 are:

Office of Local Government (Question No. 1678)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What will be the cost of establishing the Office of Local Government to co-ordinate federal programs affecting Local Government.
  2. ) Where will this office be located.
  3. How many people will be employed.
  4. What liaison will there be between the Office of Local Government and the various State Governments and Ministers for Local Government.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There should be no additional cost in setting up the Office of Local Government.
  2. The office will be located in the Department of National Development and staff will be drawn from the existing Local Government Branch.
  3. This is a matter for discussion between the Permanent Head of the Department of National Development and the Public Service Board.
  4. The Office of Local Government will provide a Secretariat for the Joint Steering Committee for Local Government Ministers’ Conference and will service the Local Government Ministers’ Conference.

Special Youth Employment Training Program (Question No. 1680)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many allegations of abuse of the Special Youth Employment Training Program have been substantiated following investigations.
  2. In how many cases has: (a) the training subsidy been withdrawn as a result; and (b) the employer concerned been denied further subsidised trainees.
  3. What are: (a) the names; and (b) the business addresses, of the employers against whom allegations of abuse have been substantiated.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  2. (a) 46(b) 62.
  3. Information relating to names and addresses of employers is confidential.

Employment Statistics (Question No. 1681)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 1 979:

  1. What is the latest figure available of the total number of unemployed: (a) male adults; (b) female adults; (c) male juniors; and (d) female juniors, registered for employment at each Commonwealth Employment Service centre in New South Wales.
  2. What is the total number of job vacancies recorded in each category above, at each of the centres.
  3. What is the ratio of unemployed: (a) adults; (b) male adults; (c) female adults; (d) juniors; (e) male juniors; and (f) female juniors to job vacancies recorded, at each of the centres.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) Statistics of job vacancies are recorded only in respect of adults and juniors and not in respect of males and females.

The remainder of the information, except for the metropolitan offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, sought by the honourable senator is available in my Department’s publication Monthly Review of the Employment Situation.

I will write to the honourable senator with available information in respect of metropolitan offices.

Aboriginal Housing (Question No. 1690)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 6 June 1979:

Does a committee exist which investigates and advises on the various requirements of houses constructed for Aborigines; if so: (a) who are the members of the committee; and (b) how many are Aborigines.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

No specific committee exists which investigates and advises on the requirements of Aboriginal Housing. The Department of Housing and Construction provides specialist advice in this field to Aboriginal organisations and to the Department. In the Northern Territory an Aboriginal Consultative Group has been established with representatives from a number of disciplines of study. In addition to this there are, within the Department of Construction, project managers who specialise in Aboriginal housing work.

Prosecutions under Student Assistance Act (Question No. 1720)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 June 1 979:

  1. How many students have been prosecuted during 1979 in each State for failing to notify discontinuance of study, as required under Regulation 85 ( I ) (a) of the Student Assistance Regulations 1974, made under the Student Assistance Act 1973.
  2. What role does the Commonwealth Police Force play in gathering information prior to prosecution.
  3. What information does the Department of Education supply to the Commonwealth Police on students during the course of such investigation.
  4. On what criteria, on whose authority, and on what basis, are these prosecutions conducted.
  5. Have such prosecutions been conducted only in Victoria; if so, why.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Regulation 85 ( 1) (a) of the Student Assistance Act 1973 requires a beneficiary to notify the Department of Education within seven days if he discontinues any part of the approved course he is undertaking. A penalty is provided for failure to do so since this results in the student continuing to receive payments to which he may no longer be entitled. The following numbers of former TEAS beneficiaries have been prosecuted in 1979 (up to 3 1 May) for failure to comply with this particular provision.

Victoria: 4.

South Australia: 3.

  1. Where it appears that an offence may have been committed under the Student Assistance Act and Regulations or the Crimes Act in the receipt of student assistance benefits, the matter is referred to the Commonwealth Police for inquiry and the preparation of a report for further consideration by the Department and the Deputy Crown Solicitor. In the course of their inquiries the Commonwealth Police may consider there is a need to ascertain or verify information on such matters as the student’s whereabouts and circumstances surrounding the apparent offence.
  2. The Department of Education provides the Commonwealth Police only with information necessary for their inquiries.
  3. The authority to undertake prosecution action in relation to the unlawful receipt of student assistance benefits is the Student Assistance Act 1973 and its Regulations, or where appropriate the Crimes Act 1914 as amended. Prosecution action is undertaken in consultation with the Commonwealth Police and Deputy Crown Solicitor. The circumstances of the individual case are taken into account in deciding whether or not to proceed with prosecution. Prosecution is not undertaken for technical or trivial breaches of the legislation.
  4. No. Between 15 October 1974 when Regulation 85 (1) (a) became effective and 31 May 1979, prosecutions have taken place in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia as well as Victoria for failure to notify the Department of Education of discontinuation of study.

Australia-China Council (Question No. 1723)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 June 1979:

  1. 1 ) What discussions took place with the Chinese Government or its representatives regarding the formation of the Australia-China Council.
  2. Were any suggestions made by the Chinese about the objectives and activities of the Council; if so: (a) were these taken into account in the formation of the Council; and (b) were any suggestions accepted or rejected.
  3. If any suggestions were rejected, why.
  4. Was any consideration given to the establishment of a similar council in China, with similar objectives and functions financed by the Chinese Government; if not, why not.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Ambassador in Peking discussed the Report of the Working Group (which was tabled by Mr Sinclair in the House of Representatives on 6 June 1979) and the Government’s intention to establish the Australia-China Council with the Chinese Government early in 1978.
  2. No. The Chinese Government expressed broad agreement with the proposal and welcomed the Government’s initiative.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. The Chairman of the Australia-China Council, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, has been advised by the Chinese authorities that the establishment of a reciprocal Chinese body might be possible in the future.

Public Telephone Facilities

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 7 March 1979, Senator Gietzelt asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question without notice:

Is the Minister aware that a large number of public telephones are constantly out of order? I specifically advise him that many public telephones in the Sydney area have been vandalised and made inoperative and have not been repaired for a considerable period. Can the Minister indicate what priority Telecom Australia gives to the repair of public telephone facilities in view of the announced increase in profitability of that statutory authority? Will the Minister establish whether Telecom has given consideration to installing vandal-proof telephones of the sort widely used in the United States of America?

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

Telecom Australia assigns a high priority to the repair of public coin telephones known to be out of order. Regular checks on the condition of public telephones are carried out but for the most part the Commission is necessarily dependent on reports from the general public to learn that units are unserviceable. Telecom believes that in many instances, and particularly where there is another public telephone nearby, a faulty unit may not be attended to for some dme simply because it has not been reported out of order.

To provide early information back to the service centre on faulty public coin telephones, Telecom is currently introducing newly developed fault detection equipment which will automatically monitor the performance of public telephone equipment in all capital cities and suburban areas. The data provided by this new equipment enables staff at the exchange to quickly identify public telephones which are faulty and prompt repair action can then be taken.

Insofar as the introduction of sturdier public telephone facilities is concerned, a seven-year program to modernise the public telephone service was commenced in 1976. As part of this extensive program, all older type vandal prone instruments are to be replaced with a particularly strong and more vandal resistant instrument. This instrument, called the CT3, is one of the strongest and most advanced of its type, lt was selected from world-wide tenders and is manufactured to the exacting requirements of Telecom to suit Australian conditions.

It is considered that the wider installation of the CT3 telephone and public telephone monitor equipment will significantly alleviate the problems which have been experienced in the past with regard to both the incidence of public telephone faults and delays in restoring affected installations.

Technological Change

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 27 March 1979, Senator Harradine asked me the following question without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, because of the effect of technological developments on future employment prospects; or it may be directed more appropriately to the Minister for Science and the Environment, who is responsible for preparing us for future shocks, technologically speaking. In what year is it expected a computer will become chess champion of the world, with all that that implies?

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

Technological change has become, potentially, a very divisive issue in recent months and an issue about which much uninformed comment has been made. The use of emotive terms such as ‘the impending computer holocaust’ add nothing to informed debate on the central issue of the effects of technological change on people.

Suggestions by some groups that Australia should simply forgo new technology is, I believe, totally unacceptable. Our competitors in international trade will continue to embrace new technological developments and our whole economic system and our standard of living would suffer if we did not follow suit.

Technology in the form of new products and manufacturing processes arising out of industrial research and development will generate new employment prospects and could well form the foundation for whole new industries.

This is not to suggest that the economic and social consequences of new technology should be ignored. The impact of technology is an issue on which the community at large is seeking information and guidance from the Government. It was with this in mind that the Prime Minister on 1 December 1 978 announced the establishment of an independent Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia (CITCA).

The Committee is representative and expert, comprising three men eminent in their respective fields:

Chairman: Professor Rupert H. Myers, C.B.E., Vice Cancellor and Principal of the University of New South Wales.

Members: Mr A. G. Coogan, General Manager of Nabalco Pty Ltd; Mr W. C. Mansfield, Federal Secretary of the Australian Telecommunications Employees’ Association.

The Committee’s terms of reference are:

To examine, report and make recommendations on the process of technological change in Australian industry in order to maximise economic, social and other benefits and minimise any possible adverse consequences.

In particular, the Committee has been asked to:

identify:

technological change which is occurring or is likely to occur in Australia;

new technologies which have the potential for substantial impact in Australia; and conduct detailed studies of those areas identified as the most important in order to evaluate the likely effects;

examine relevant overseas experience and studies of technological change, and assess mechanisms used to introduce and evaluate new technologies;

review the effectiveness of Government policies and programs in facilitating the introduction of new technology.

Advertisements have been placed nationally, inviting submissions from any interested group or person. At this stage, the Committee hopes to present its report towards the end of this year. As the effect of technological developments on future employment prospects will come within the scope of the report, I commend to the honourable senator that he follows the progress of the inquiry, and the subsequent consideration by the Government of the Committee’s report.

Alcohol

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 3 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1617) Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning excise on low alcohol beer. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A similar suggestion was made by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its report entitled Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?. The Committee recommended a 30 per cent excise differential in favour of low alcohol beers as compared with normal strength beers. The recommendations made by the Committee are being considered by the Government.

Special Education Programs

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 8 May 1979, Senator Teague asked me the following question without notice:

What were the circumstances which led to the Schools Commission’s innovations grants program earlier this year turning down a submission by the Specific Learning Difficulties Association of Australia in Adelaide which sought only $3,500?

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

When examining an application for funding the Schools Commission and the Innovations Committees in each State consider the following points:

Whether the project is innovative within its context;

Whether the project will improve the quality of primary and/or secondary education experienced by a particular group of learners;

whether the project ‘s sponsors possess the capacity to carry the project through to completion;

the overall quality of the proposal relative to other proposals.

The Commission was not able to recommend support for the project submitted by the Specific Learning Difficulties Association of Australia in Adelaide because the Association has previously run similar courses to the one proposed and were seeking funds to continue them, rather than establish a new education program. For this reason, the proposal could not be classed as innovatory and hence was ineligible for funding.

It was suggested to the proponents that because of the nature of the project, it could be eligible for funding under the Schools Commission’s Services and Development Program which is administered by the South Australian Services and Development Committee. Subsequently, the proponents did submit an application under this program and I understand that the proposal has been approved in modified form.

Home Loan Interest Rates

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 8 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1672) Senator Sibraa asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the possibility of introducing a moratorium on home loan repayments where the major income earner of a family unit is unemployed. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The question is based on a false premise, as there has been no general increase in housing loan interest rates as was suggested by the honourable senator. Bank housing lending interest rates are generally now one percentage point lower than at the beginning of 1978.

Home loan interest rates charged by Permanent Building Societies have very recently increased in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory only. However, prior to that adjustment, rates in these regions were at the lower end of the range of rates charged by Societies across Australia; the very recent adjustment, in broad terms, returns rates in NSW and ACT to the levels prevailing prior to January 1979, which are below the peak levels of 1976 and 1977. In the other five State, loan rates charged by societies are generally up to a percentage point lower than at the beginning of 1978.

While the Government shares the honourable senator’s concern for the position of the genuinely unemployed, it would not be an appropriate means of assistance for the Government to issue directives to housing lending institutions of the kind suggested.

Experience shows that most lenders, who are in the best position to assess the situation of individual customers, give sympathetic consideration to requests fora rearrangement of repayments from borrowers in financial hardship.

Finally, it should be noted that if the criterion were solely whether the income-earner of a family unit were unemployed that would not take into account the overall income position of the family unit and hence not necessarily be closely related to the extent of any need. A criterion based on family unit income would be difficult, if not impossible, to administer and would lead to anomalies. It seems preferable that individual cases continue to be considered on their merits by mortgage lenders.

Nuclear Power Stations

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 10 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1794) Senator Mcintosh asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning nuclear power stations. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Decisions on future electricity generating capacity and the technologies employed are essentially for individual States to make, but Australia has many international obligations in the nuclear area and it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to ensure that these are met.

International obligations arise, for example, from our adherence to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), from bilateral nuclear cooperation and safeguards agreements to which Australia is a Party and from Australia ‘s acceptance of international guidelines, circulated as IAEA Information Circular No. 254, for the export of nuclear material, equipment or technology. Clearly, these matters will be of importance in any move to generate electricity in Australia by nuclear means.

The Commonwealth Government would also wish to see that safety standards developed internationally in this area were fully met in any Australian project.

Yirrkala School

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 22 May 1979 Senator Keeffe asked the following question without notice:

I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he is aware that toilet facilities for teachers employed at Yirrkala school- 1 refer to the old building- and additional toilet facilites for students at the same school, which were requested and apparently approved some time ago, have not yet been constructed. Can he advise when construction is likely to commence?

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

Tenders for the relocation of a mobile toilet block from the old post primary school site (now used for adult education) to the current primary school site were called on 24 May 1979. Tenders close on 7 June 1 979 and it is anticipated that work will commence mid June with a scheduled completion time of six weeks.

Bank of Adelaide

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 22 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1897), Senator Davidson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the Bank of Adelaide. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

At 6.00 p.m. on 22 May 1979 the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited and the Bank of Adelaide announced that agreement had been reached to merge their interests. In brief, the announcement made the following points:

The Board of Directors of the Bank of Adelaide had unanimously decided to recommend a scheme to its shareholders for the acquisition of all the issued capital of the Bank of Adelaide.

Agreement was subject to appropriate shareholder approvals and to all necessary consents being granted by Commonwealth and State Authorities.

As part of the merger of interests, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited would assume full responsibility for the supportive arrangements for the Bank of Adelaide and its subsidiary, Finance Corporation of Australia Limited recently agreed between major trading banks in Australia.

Banking

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 23 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1973), Senator Watson asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the Bank of Adelaide. The Treasurer has consulted with the Reserve Bank and has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There has been a tendency in some quarters to understate the degree of competition that does exist between banks in Australia with 25 private, Government and trustee banks providing trading or savings bank facilities through, in most cases, extensive branch networks. In addition, there are three specialist banks- the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, the Australian Resources Development Bank Limited and the new Primary Industry Bank of Australia Limited. There are also other types of financial institutions that actively compete with banks in providing at least some of the facilities offered by banks: these include finance companies, money market corporations, building societies and credit unions.

It should be emphasised that there is no policy bar to Australian interests seeking to establish a new bank in Australia. The position is that there is provision in the Banking Act for corporate bodies to apply for new banking authorities that may be granted unconditionally or with conditions. Any application by Australian interests proposing to incorporate and establish a bank would be considered by the Government on its merits. Obviously the applicants would need to demonstrate a standing and financial strength commensurate with the responsibilities involved in operating an authorised bank.

Rhodesia

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 28 May 1979 Senator Maunsell asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen a report in the Press supporting previous accusations that the Soviet Union, through Swiss agents, has been buying large quantities of chrome from Rhodesia and reselling it to the United States at a considerable profit? In view of the fact that United Nations sanctions have been ignored almost entirely by the major powers, will the Minister ask the Foreign Minister to initiate moves in the United Nations to have these sanctions lifted, as they represent little more than a joke?

The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided me with the following information:

I have seen a press report alleging that the Soviet Union has been trading in Rhodesian chrome and tobacco.

Any such transaction would be in breach of mandatory sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council. Member states of the United Nations are obliged to respect mandatory resolutions adopted by the Security Council. A committee to monitor the observance of sanctions has been established by the Security Council but it is not known whether this Committee will be discussing these allegations.

The Australian Government is not proposing to take action in the United Nations as suggested by the honourable senator.

Deregistration of Doctors in South Australia

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 29 May 1979 (Hansard, pages 2219 and 2220) Senator Young asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question without notice concerning the loss of entitlement to certain Commonwealth health benefits, by patients of doctors whose names had been removed by the State authorities from the South Australian Register of Medical Practitioners for failure to pay the required annual practising fee.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The benefits involved were Commonwealth medical benefits, Commonwealth pharmaceutical benefits and nursing home and domiciliary nursing care benefits.

The Deputy Crown Solicitor in Adelaide confirmed that Commonwealth legislation precluded payment of these benefits in relation to patients of doctors who were not registered in either South Australia or another State or Territory.

It is regretted that some patients did lose their entitlement to the benefits during the period the doctors were not registered. No option had been open to the Commonwealth once the State authorities removed the names from the State Register. As a consequence of this action the doctors were then not encompassed by the definition of ‘medical practitioner’ in the Commonwealth legislation that authorises certain benefits for patients of registered doctors.

It was in order to minimise the effect on patients that the Acting Minister for Health issued a press statement on IS May 1979 listing the names of doctors concerned, so that their patients could be aware that Commonwealth benefits were not payable.

Medical Services

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 29 May 1979 (Hansard, page 2217), Senator Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question without notice concerning the accuracy of a report in the Melbourne Age regarding the cost of medical services.

The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

The report in the Age newspaper on 29 May 1979 in regard to the possible cost to an uninsured person of treatment for an episode of illness in which the patient received a number of medical services, each costing less than $20, is essentially correct. While a course of treatment might involve a number of services, after 1 September 1979, the Commonwealth medical benefit will only be payable to the extent that the Schedule fee for each individual medical service exceeds $20. Accordingly, in the case of an illness requiring a number of services, each with a Schedule fee of $20 or less, no Commonwealth medical benefit would be payable. While the patient will be responsible for medical costs up to $20 for each Schedule service, there will be a guarantee against higher cost items of medical service in that the Commonwealth will meet all except $20 of Schedule fees above $20.

There will, however, be no change in the current arrangements for pensioners with health benefit cards and persons classified by their doctors as disadvantaged.

In my speech to Parliament on 24 May 1979 announcing the changes, I pointed out that those who elect to remain uninsured will pay the full cost out of their own pockets where the Schedule fee is $20 or less. It was for this reason that I went on to say:

The best advice I can give such people is that they should weigh up their personal circumstances carefully and decide whether it is in their best financial interest to remain uninsured or to take out medical insurance with a private fund ‘.

The Government has been forced to introduce this and other measures in the health insurance area because it cannot afford to continue to subsidise health costs at the present rate if the Budget deficit is to be kept at an acceptable level. The measures are a vital component of the Government’s overall Budget strategy.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 June 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790608_senate_31_s81/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant