Senate
23 November 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 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2871

PETITIONS

Overseas Aid Organisations: Taxation Concessions

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-On behalf of Senator Chipp I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned with the inadequacy of Overseas Aid, both Government and Private as well as with support for local charities. Such Aid is saving precious lives, giving undernourished and homeless people encouragement and help, bringing malnourished children to health, education and a better life, giving people friendship and a new hope. A Crusade of Compassion highlights the hope of a brighter and kindlier world in the International Year of the Child- 1979.

We therefore respectfully request that the Commonwealth Government provide some incentive to encourage such Aid by making the same tax concessions to approved voluntary overseas aid organisations, as are already provided for charities working within Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 54 citizens of Australia:

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

That it is acknowledged that it is reasonable for major sporting organisations to conclude agreements with individual commercial television networks for sole telecasting rights.

However, one of the functions which the ABC should be expected to perform on behalf of the Government is a service to enable all areas of Australia to receive telecasts of major events, irrespective of whether some parts of the country are serviced on that particular event by a commercial network.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members should:

Direct that the ABC should:

Give priority to its role as a community service organisation in preferance to its commercial interests.

On behalf of the Government, provide a community service to those areas not serviced by a commercial network so that direct telecasts of major events are transmitted to all Australians.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 3 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council. We call on the government to continue to maintain the national Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirit

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

That the lead content levels in Australian petrol have been proven to give rise to detrimental health effects on the population and particularly on children.

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

Take legislative action to immediately reduce and ultimately remove lead concentrates from motor spirit in Australia within three years.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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 National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Evans, Guilfoyle and Sheil.

Petitions received.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

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

The petition of the undersigned electors respectfully showeth:

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977 should immediately be repealed because:

It provides unfettered power to Ministers to suspend, stand-down and dismiss Commonwealth Government employees and places them in a markedly disadvantageous position as compared with all other Australian workers.

Its use places Commonwealth Government employees in direct conflict with the Government as it circumvents the arbitration tribunals and denies appeal rights.

Its use will exacerbate industrial disputes and inflame industrial relations in the Commonwealth area of employment.

The International Labour Organisation has condemned the Provisions of the Act as being incompatible with the rights of organised labour in a free society.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

Their support for and endorsement of the National Women’s Advisory Council

We call on the government to continue to maintain the National Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

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

Petition received.

page 2872

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ACT 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I give notice that four sitting days after today I shall move:

That regulation 20 of the Australian Federal Police (Discipline) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1979 No. 211, and made under the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, be disallowed.

page 2872

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ACT 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– On behalf of Senator Gietzelt, and at his request, I give notice that on the next day of sitting he will move:

That regulations 4, 6, 13, 20 and 35 to 38 inclusive, of the Australian Federal Police Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1979 No. 210, and made under the Australian Federal Police Act 1 979, be disallowed.

page 2872

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2872

QUESTION

UNITED STATES-IRAN RELATIONSHIP

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question, to the Leader of the Government representing either the Prime Minister or the Minister for Foreign

Affairs, refers to the current deterioration in the relationship between the United States and Iran. In view of Australia’s good relations and significant trade with Iran, and our close relationship with the United States, has the Australian Government offered to assist in whatever way it can to help prevent further deterioration of the relationship between those two governments? If not, will the Government give urgent consideration to doing so?

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

– The whole question of the circumstances in Iran is one of a most serious nature and one which, if not resolved, could put in peril the stability of large sections of the world. It is no easy matter, as has been obvious in the weeks that have gone by. My understanding is that Australia, through its diplomatic sources, has been very active in every direction, not only at the United Nations but elsewhere in a good neighbour situation to see what can be achieved. Naturally, that would be a confidential series of actions since these things cannot be done best in the open.

I think that those of goodwill throughout the world at this moment are seeking ways of bringing a sense of understanding and reason to the people involved in order to resolve the matter, and certainly we will be doing that. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to Senator Wriedt’s question and if he is able publicly to add anything I will let the honourable senator know.

page 2872

QUESTION

NEW HEBRIDES

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government can confirm reports of disorders in the New Hebrides following the recent successful elections. Are the disorders being caused by elements of an unsuccessful political party? Is it also true that the authorities are showing a reluctance to take any action? Is there any action that the Australian Government can take in this matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On Wednesday I responded to a question from Senator Knight on the background to the general elections in the New Hebrides and the very substantial win by what is now the majority and governing party. I believe there is some element of disorder there following upon the general elections. I am not up to date on any action that our own Government might have taken but other governments may well take action following the change in the status of the New Hebrides. The matter is important. The New Hebrides is a near neighbour and we would hope for stability there and good relations. I know of Senator Sim’s interest in that area. He is interested in all foreign affairs matters. I will bring the question to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 2873

QUESTION

PASSPORT STATISTICS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I am not sure whether my question should be directed to Senator Carrick, who deals with passport control, or the Attorney-General, who deals with subversive problems. I refer to an article in this morning’s Australian in which a former British lad who was in MIS talks about his experiences in Australia between 1961 and 1964. He links that service with an apology over the Palace lackey Blunt. I ask: Do we control the number of espionage operatives entering Australia, whether they be from MI5 or the Central Intelligence Agency? Do they enter Australia with diplomatic immunity or do our passport control people keep statistics on them? In effect, does Australia control the number of espionage operatives entering Australia even if they are supposed to be on our side? Do we know how many come in?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I think that question is probably too hard for either Senator Carrick or me to deal with. I think it is an immigration matter. I will take the question on board and give consideration to it. If it should be referred to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs I shall refer it.

page 2873

QUESTION

MR TONY JOYCE

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. All Australians will be aware of the shooting of Mr Tony Joyce in Zambia in the last 24 hours. Is the Minister able to give the Australian Senate and the Australian public any information and any up-to-date account of this tragic event?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In common with myself, I imagine that many members of this Senate would have known Tony Joyce personally and would have admired his contribution as a fine Australian and as a fine journalist. He has been in many of the frontiers of war and is a courageous journalist. For that and that alone, quite apart from the fact that one of our people has been hurt, we have all been very saddened by this matter and we all wish him a full recovery. I think honourable senators will have heard the news this morning that the Prime Minister has acted to be in touch with Zambia. As a result I am able to advise that Joyce is seriously ill. He is in hospital in Lusaka. His condition is said to be grave and that must be a sad matter. But a neurosurgeon and an anaesthetist from London will arrive in Lusaka at 7 o’clock today Lusaka time. They will see Joyce in hospital and assist with his treatment. I understand that the present diagnosis is that Joyce is too sick to be moved. Mrs Joyce and Australian Broadcasting Commission representatives have already arrived in Lusaka.

Senator Wriedt:

- Mr Joyce.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Wriedt correctly points out that I have used only the surname Joyce. I did it not in denigration but in a friendly way, in the normal way. However, perhaps I should call him Tony Joyce, as most of us do. I am grateful for Senator Wriedt ‘s remark. Members will be aware that the Australian Government is doing all it can to assist his recovery. The Prime Minister has sent a message to President Kaunda asking that Tony Joyce be helped. The Foreign Minister has instructed our missions to give every assistance. An officer from the High Commission in Dar es Salaam has already arrived in Lusaka and will give on the spot assistance.

The circumstances of the shooting have not yet been fully clarified. I understand that Tony Joyce, with his accompanying camerman, on the afternoon they arrived in Lusaka went to Chongwe, the nearest bridge to Lusaka destroyed by Rhodesian raiders. It would appear that they may not have had permission from the authorities to make this trip. They were detained by police as soon as they arrived in Chongwe and put into a police car to be taken to Lusaka. Before the car had moved a shot entered it, hitting Tony Joyce in the head. It is not known who fired the shot. Current demonstrations involving the British High Commission, a further reflection of the tenseness of the situation in Lusaka, have not, of course, helped our efforts to assist Tony Joyce. However, I am pleased to be able to tell the Senate that the Canadian High Commission here has offered the assistance of Canadian channels for passing messages between Canberra and Lusaka. This prompt assistance by a fellow member of the Commonwealth is greatly appreciated.

page 2873

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: COMMITTEE OF REVIEW

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I seek an amplification of the statement made yesterday by the Minister regarding the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I would say in passing that I welcome this announcement finally and endorse the choices that the Minister has made with regard to appointments to the Committee. However, I ask now, regarding the process of the ABC Committee of Review, what steps will be taken to invite the public to participate? Will all hearings of the Committee of Review be public? Will transcripts of the Committee’s hearings be readily available and free to the public?

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

-As far as I know, the matters raised by the honourable senator have not yet been determined. It is my understanding that they will be determined in consultation with, if not by, the group that has been selected. I in turn welcome Senator Ryan’s views as to the people who have been selected to do this very important job. My recollection- I am speaking from recollection only- is that the Minister wishes to use those people to formulate policy on some of the matters that the honourable senator has raised. Of course, I will refer the matter to Mr Staley and get a more authoritative reply than I am able to give now.

page 2874

QUESTION

DECEASED AUSTRALIAN WAR HERO

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to a question I asked on 6 November 1979. 1 will read part of the question:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I draw the Minister’s attention to an article which appeared in the Brisbane Sunday Sun of 4 November, wherein it is alleged that the widow of a deceased Australian war hero, Warrant Officer Ray Simpson, V.C., D.C.M., is presently living in impoverished circumstances in Japan . . .

I do not know whether the Minister heard the AM program this morning wherein this matter was discussed and the wife of this Australian hero explained her disappointment. She had applied for a pension. Her application was rejected. She appealed. Again, her appeal was rejected. I again ask the Minister: In view of the circumstances and the widespread concern in relation to this lady, will the Government consider this matter and do something for her, whether by way of a pension or something else which can help? There is widespread concern about this matter. I express my great concern that we, as a country, should neglect the wife of a man who contributed so much for Queen and country.

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

– As Senator Bonner has said, he previously asked me a question on this matter. I recall the question. I did not hear the AM program this morning, but I am advised that this matter was mentioned on that program.

It is basically a matter for the Repatriation Commission and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. I understand from the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs that Mrs Simpson’s appeal to the Commission to accept Warrant Officer Simpson’s death as service related was recently disallowed. I am told that this decision is subject to a right of appeal. I understand from the Minister’s office that the matter is in hand in that Department. As my Department had some knowledge of the matter, I asked it to determine whether there is any way in which the Department of Social Security may be able to help Mrs Simpson. She does not satisfy the residence qualification for a widow’s pension and there is no other form of assistance that comes under the Social Services Act.

I will bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues and see whether the Government will examine the case and whether other assistance could be given. The sympathy of many people has already been expressed in this matter and I am sure that many of my colleagues will support this attitude. I will keep Senator Bonner and the Senate informed of any developments. The matter is under consideration, subject to the right of appeal, by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and my own Department.

page 2874

QUESTION

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY ACCIDENTS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It refers to accidents in the nuclear industry. The question may also involve the Minister representing the Minister for National Development and the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It relates to reports which I received yesterday that at least four Commonwealth security officers have died of cancer following their involvement in testing at Woomera and Maralinga in South Australia. The Minister will know, of course, that recently a residue of radioactive material was shipped to the United Kingdom. I have also heard reports that a further Commonwealth police officer has died of the same complaint. I ask: Has the Minister any records of the circumstances surrounding this matter or has her attention been drawn to it? If not, will she cause an investigation to be conducted of the records of the staff I have mentioned who performed duties at Maralinga or Woomera during that period in order to determine whether their deaths can be related to their security duties at the time?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information with me on this matter. I will ask the Minister for Health to have the records checked to see whether there are work-related difficulties that should be covered, as requested by Senator Bishop. If the matter is of concern to any other Minister, I will also see that it is referred to him.

page 2875

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH FUNDING OF LEGAL AID

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns Commonwealth funding of legal aid. I am sure that the Minister will have seen the report tabled yesterday by the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission. Paragraph 7. 1 says:

The commitment limit-

This is of the Federal funds for legal aid- was fixed at $ 12.0m per annum in August 1975. Since then, there has been only one minor increase- to $ 12.6m per annum- in 1977-78.

I note that, for example, the Canberra Times has picked that up this morning as meaning that the Federal Government’s funding of the legal aid program increased from only $ 12m to $ 12.6m. I thought that the Attorney-General told us on previous occasions that the Government was spending much more than that limit on legal aid. If this is so, I ask the Minister: What is the correct position currently on legal aid? Has the Minister any figures later than those for 1 978?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– My attention certainly has been drawn to statements in the report of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission which was tabled by me in the Senate yesterday. Senator Lewis correctly quoted a section of the report. In fact, the report says:

  1. . we have seen a ‘freeze’ in the provision of Federal legal aid through the Australian Legal Aid Office.

It goes on to explain the reasons for claiming that there has been a freeze, one of which is that the commitment limit which had been fixed in 1975 at $12m had been increased to only $12. 6m in 1 977-78. The fact is that it is most misleading to judge the Commonwealth’s expenditure on legal aid on what is called a commitment level.

This is a rather difficult matter to explain briefly. It is in fact an administrative arrangement by which one tries to control ultimate expenditure of money on legal aid work which is referred to private legal practitioners. It is true that that administrative control mechanism was at the level mentioned in the report. But the fact of the matter is that the actual overall expenditure by the Government on legal aid- this does not include legal aid for Aborigines; it is only legal aid provided through the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department- has been as follows: In 1976-77, under the first Budget of the present Government, $18,125,000; in 1977-78, $20,177,000; and in 1978-79, $21,989,000. This year the provision for legal aid in the Budget is $25,599,000. The increases over the preceding year for the past two years are: In 1977-78, 1 1.3 per cent; and in 1978-79, 9 per cent. The estimated increase for this year is 16.4 per cent. So there has been a significant increase in expenditure on legal aid. The increase has been in excess- this year it is much in excess- of the corresponding consumer price index increases. So, the reference in the report to which Senator Lewis referred gives a most misleading impression of the matter.

As far as the actual commitment is concerned, although it may be true that last year, 1978-79, there was a commitment level of $ 12.6m, in fact the actual expenditure- the actual payment to private legal practitioners for legal aid workwas $14,662,000. This year we have made provision in the Budget for the payment of $16,643,000 to private legal practitioners for legal aid work. So I think it is a matter of some regret and it ought to be a matter of some concern to the Parliament that the Commonwealth Legal Aid Commission has reported in that way. Although what it reported may be literally true, it does not take into account the figures I mentioned. Moreover, the report is written on the basis that the only solution to the legal aid problem is to increase public funding. The whole provision of money for Commonwealth legal aid has to be taken into account, in the context of total Commonwealth expenditure.

page 2875

QUESTION

TRANSITIONAL TRAINING SCHEME

Senator TATE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the transitional training scheme, with its range of options and combinations of training, education and employment opportunities. I seek clarification of the statement put down yesterday. Will a youth under 19 years of age undertaking some training under the scheme be paid an amount at least equal to the unemployment benefit he or she would qualify for if simply unemployed and not participating in the scheme? By what title or name might the benefit be known? Will young Australians participating in the scheme, particularly part time, still be entitled to register with their local Commonwealth Employment Service office as seeking employment?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Yesterday it was made perfectly clear that the nature of the scheme is that, first of all, it should be preventive; that is, we should try to identify students at risk in schools so that they do not emerge still at riskthat is an absolute key- and so that in their journey through school they can be helped and then, through link courses, work experience courses or advice to transfer to technical and further education, take their place alongside their peers. This is the key. Nevertheless, there will be others. Our aim is that with all others there will be vocational guidance and counselling to identify the nature of their potential skills and their obvious defects; then advice will be given to them.

We will not in any way alter the base for those who are on unemployment benefit. That is quite clear. Schemes such as the Education Program for Unemployed Youth and its variants may be widened. The EPUY scheme pays the equivalent of the unemployment benefit plus $6 for travelling or out of pocket expenses. Some variations may be made. Some schemes in existence in the pre-employment area, which come under the portfolio of my colleague Mr Viner, attract different allowances. Different allowances are paid under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme.

I said yesterday that we would be looking at the whole area to try to see whether rationalisation could be brought about. No attempt is being made in any way to threaten the benefits that will lie with students. Of course, students who are taken from risk in schools and given better training and assistance in developing better attitudes will pass in the normal way into the technical and further education field and will be as eligible as their peers for benefit. Those on unemployment benefit will of course be considered for EPUY-type courses. Those benefits are known. There is a variety of courses administered by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs and these will be developed. I think the only other facet of the question is whether unemployed people undertaking part time courses will be eligible for benefit. That aspect will need to be looked at- if I understand it fully- as the existing rules for unemployment benefit would be infringed if the people concerned received money in excess of the benefit. We would look at any sensible scheme and make rules which would in no way destroy the incentives for these people to do the job.

page 2876

QUESTION

ALICE SPRINGS TO DARWIN RAILWAY STUDY

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the feasibility study that is taking place between the Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government in regard to the construction of a standard gauge railway from Alice Springs to Darwin. I ask: When is the report expected to be completed? Is it the intention of the two governments to make known the contents of the report?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Honourable senators might remember that this matter was touched upon in the debate on transport legislation the other evening to which Senator Kilgariff made a contribution. My understanding is that the study team has indicated that it expects the report to be available by Christmas. The Federal Government and the Northern Territory Government do not regard that date as being critical. They are concerned with the quality of the report. They simply want the report to be available as soon as possible. The report is being prepared primarily for the benefit of both governments, to enable them to decide on the feasibility of the railway either at this time or in the near future. Publication of the report will be a matter for consultation between both governments after they have had the chance to examine it.

page 2876

QUESTION

URANIUM ADVISORY COUNCIL

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment, refers to the Uranium Advisory Council and particularly to pages 4 to 7 of its report. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the Council is kept fully informed on relevant matters and that the Council’s advice is sought prior to decisions being taken? In other words, what steps are being taken to meet those requirements of the report? Given the Council’s concern on public access to Aboriginal art sites, what decisions have been made regarding the Northern Territory Government’s plan to increase the size of the township of Jabiru?

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

-My understanding is that information is not withheld from the Uranium Advisory Council by any department. It may be that the Council has been unsuccessful in securing a free run of advice as a matter of course, but I am not aware of that. All I can say is that I have not heard of any complaint through my Department.

I imagine that Senator Robertson’s query about the size of Jabiru arises from the fact that it was proposed originally that the township be built for about 3,500 people. However, he will be aware that it was also indicated that should certain other steps be taken it would be necessary to enlarge the township to accommodate more people. That certainly appears necessary now. For instance, the Commonwealth Government has devoted extra resources to encouraging preservation of the environment in the area. Indeed, extra personnel will be required by the Supervising Scientist and those sections of the Northern Territory Administration that have an interest in the development of the town. It is proposed that as other uranium fields in the area are developed the township will be enlarged. The latest advice that comes to me is that eventually the town may have to accommodate some 5,000 people. My understanding is that the township is presently being developed to accommodate about 3,500 people. I have had some concern in my mind about the power and water supply being sufficient to meet the demands of an increased population.

I think the core of the honourable senator’s question is his concern that a large population in the town may pose a threat to Aboriginal sites and art work in Kakadu National Park. I am particularly concerned about the maintenance of some of the Aboriginal art in the Jabiru township.

Senator Grimes:

– Will someone over there pull the plug out?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I did not catch that interjection.

Senator Chaney:

– It was not worth catching.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr President, I am advised that it was not worth catching- and that would be traditional for Senator Grimes, I can assure you. The Northern Territory has an interest in this matter, and the people of Australia should have an interest also. There is art work in the area that has stood for 20,000 years, and there is a national responsibility to see that it is preserved as well as possible. I appreciate Senator Robertson’s question.

page 2877

QUESTION

VEGETABLE OIL: USE AS FUEL

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I asked the Minister a question early this week following some information recently disclosed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which showed that vegetable oil could be a more economic alternative fuel than ethanol or grain alcohol. Because of primary producer interest in this matter I ask whether the Minister has any more information regarding excise and other taxation policies on vegetable oil used as a fuel.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-When the honourable senator raised this question earlier in the week I sought advice from the excise inspection and control section of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. I am advised that at present vegetable oil is not subject to any excise legislation, and thus no restrictions are placed on small scale production of fuel from vegetable oils. However, it is obvious that the Government would examine the revenue implications if the use of vegetable oils as fuels commenced to make inroads into the petrol and diesel excise collections.

page 2877

QUESTION

NAVAL PATROL BOATS

Senator MASON:

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as the Minister representing the Prime Minister rather than as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It concerns the absurd and dangerous situation in which our 15 new Fremantle class patrol boats- a major part of our naval building program- are being armed with only one small gun even though they are otherwise vessels fully capable of carrying and suited to the use of guided missiles. They are certainly expensive enough. Will the Minister ask the Cabinet to look again at the facts involved in this matter so that a disastrous policy decision, which is in fact creating an Australian popgun navy, can be reconsidered against the real background of a deteriorating world situation? Will the Government consider now, before most of the ships are built, adaptations to the design of the Fremantle class patrol boat that will allow at least some of them to be modern and effective ships of war?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-There has been considerable public and even parliamentary dialogue on the armament of the patrol boats and their design. The Government has responded to that on a number of occasions. Senator Mason asks whether we will have another look at the matter. I will direct the attention of my colleague, the Minister for Defence, to the substance of Senator Mason’s question and seek any response that he may wish to give.

page 2877

QUESTION

SUB-ANTARCTIC FISHERIES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. On 1 8 October I asked a question relative to the sub-Antarctic fisheries and the research information available. Has any research information been made available by the eastern European countries mentioned at the time? Are further ventures or joint ventures under consideration in our southern fishing zone? What is the purpose and extent of the proposed $500,000 expenditure by the owners of Australian vessels?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I recall the honourable senator’s question relating to this important matter. Honourable senators will be aware that the feasibility fishing proposal between the Australian company, Mauri Bros, and Thomson Ltd, and Dalmor of Poland was given approval early this year. It is one of the ventures which will be run off the southern part of Tasmania, as I understand it, and is expected to commence shortly. It will involve some feasibility fishing in subAntarctic waters and around some of the subAntarctic islands. There is a proposal from Henry Jones (IXL) Ltd, the Commercial Bureau (Aust.) Pty Ltd and a group from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which also involves feasibility fishing operations in the waters south of 45 degrees south latitude. That is currently under consideration by the Commonwealth and relevant State governments.

The conditions of approval for all feasibility fishing projects require the companies concerned to provide data on fishing operations to Commonwealth and State fisheries authorities for dissemination to industry. The information that they have is not held by them. It is available to industry. My understanding is that information on sub-Antarctic resources gathered from, for instance, the USSR fishing activities over the past years also has been sought from the companies concerned in the feasibility fishing proposals which involve USSR vessels and other vessels in that area. Senator Archer has a great interest in this matter. A number of countries are seeking an interest in that area. It will become a particularly important fishing area. Countries such as Poland, the USSR, the German Democratic Republic and Romania have all sought access to this area. I may be able to supply some other information to the honourable senator as the matter is of great importance to the development of fisheries in his State of Tasmania.

page 2878

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator GRIMES:

-I refer the Minister for Social Security to the meeting of 15 or 16 September 1977 at which it was decided to draw up a ministerial for her benefit, to justify the payment of $30,000 to an informant in the present social security fraud case. I also refer the Minister to paragraph I of a minute between Detective Chief Inspector Thomas and the OfficerinCharge of the New South Wales District of the police force, which states:

Following discussions with Mr Lanigan and other senior members of the Department of Social Security in Canberra, in company with the Assistant Commissioner (Crime), Mr J. D. Davies, I was notified that the Minister had agreed to a maximum reward of $30,000 subject to the conditions that the amount paid to any informant would be based on an assessment of the value of the inquiry, the informant’s contribution and the results obtained in the completion of the inquiry.

I ask: Was the Minister notified of the meeting? Was she shown the ministerial which stated the reasons for paying $30,000? Did Mr Lanigan in fact discuss with her a maximum reward of $30,000 to be paid to Mr Nakis? If he did not notify her and if he did not show her these ministerials, should the Minister not take some action against Mr Lanigan or other public servants who are creating the perhaps unwarranted impression that the Minister is misleading the Parliament?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– A number of matters have been raised by Senator Grimes in his question. I referred to these matters in my statement to the Senate of 15 November this year. I have nothing to add to that statement, except to say that these matters are currently under discussion in the court. I am not prepared to interfere in court hearings with regard to matters concerning the case that is being heard in Sydney. I am not aware of the motive of Senator Grimes in bringing these matters into the Parliament at this time. If he adhered to his earlier attitude of being prepared to have this matter dealt with in the courts, that would be a preferable way in which to approach this matter.

Senator GRIMES:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I thank the Minister for the gratuitous advice. I am not concerned about anything that is before the courts; I am concerned about whether the Minister or her Director-General is lying to the Parliament. I am asking the Minister: Did she receive the ministerial and was she informed that her Department and others were involved in discussions about paying a man $30,000 to be an informant? If the Minister was so informed, why has she told us that she was not so informed?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, I must indicate to you that imputations of lying -

Senator Grimes:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I make no imputation. I am seeking to find out. I am not concerned at all about things that are occurring in the courts.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– As I said, these matters were referred to in my statement to the Senate of 1 5 November. I have nothing to add to that statement.

page 2878

QUESTION

TRADE WITH ZIMBABWE-RHODESIA

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. With the lifting of sanctions against trade with Zimbabwe likely to take place in the near future, what facilities exist in Australia to advise those who may wish to establish trade links? What plans exist for staffing a trade office in Salisbury to enable normal trade relations to be re-established between Zimbabwe and Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Rocher’s question is a timely one. I will refer it to the Minister for Trade and Resources and seek an early answer from him.

page 2879

QUESTION

HMAS’ATTACK

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Has the Minister seen reports that HMAS Attack left Melbourne this morning to patrol the 200-mile exclusive economic zone off the coast of Tasmania? Has the Minister noted that an Australian Broadcasting Commission journalist from my State, who is employed on the ABC program This Day Tonight and whose professional qualifications are unquestioned, has been refused permission to accompany the vessel? Is the Minister aware that this permission was refused by the Minister for Defence on the sole ground that that journalist was a woman? I presume that the men of HMAS Attack had no objection to the journalist concerned, Miss Penny Kerr, being aboard. Does the Minister not agree that the security of Tasmania is of interest to the women as well as to the men of my State? As pan of the work of HMAS Attack is to examine unauthorised fishing in the area, would not a woman’s angle be of some human interest- something which Australian Broadcasting Commission programs lack at times?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I think that all that could be said about that question was said by Charles Kingsley years ago when he said:

For men must work, and women must weep,

And the sooner it ‘s over, the sooner to sleep,

Though the harbour bar be moaning.

page 2879

QUESTION

GRANT TO TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs follows the question I asked yesterday in which I referred to a recent grant from the Federal Government to the Tasmanian Government for the development of a specialist manpower unit. I ask firstly, whether the funding is intended to help to train young people for careers in industry and commerce and, secondly, whether the grant is in the form of special assistance to Tasmania or have similar grants been made available to other States. I now ask: Is the grant given to Tasmania for that manpower unit to be a pilot project for the whole of Australia?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– A grant was recently made to the Tasmanian Training Council, which is a tripartite body composed of Federal and State government, employer, employee and union representatives concerned with developing training in industry and commerce in Tasmania. One of the concerns of the Tasmanian Training Council is, therefore, the training of young people for careers in industry and commerce. The grant is unique to Tasmania as the Tasmanian Training Council is the only example of a State body which involves both levels of government, employers and unions as equal partners. As no other State has a similar body funding has not been made available to other States.

page 2879

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to an article in the Melbourne Age this morning which states that the United Nations General Assembly voted yesterday to reaffirm the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination and independence. In view of the fact that the vote was 62 to 3 1 , with 45 abstentions, can the Minister advise how Australia voted and the reason we voted as we did? Will Australia’s relations with Indonesia, and its attitude to the situation in East Timor, be changed in any way by yesterday’s vote at the United Nations?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will refer that question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek an answer.

page 2879

QUESTION

CENTURION TANKS

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that the 160-odd Centurion tanks of the Armoured Corps have now been placed in storage, having been replaced by the Leopards? In view of the total lack of any self-propelled artillery weapons in the Australian forces, will the Government consider a feasibility study on re-engining and new transmissions and suspensions on the Centurions and convert some or all of them to SP weapons? Such a move would be of considerable value both to Australian industry and our national defence.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am, of course, aware that with the advent of the Leopard tanks most, if not all, of the Centurions were put in mothballs. I do not know the technical or military viability of the suggestions made by Senator

MacGibbon. Clearly, if they were technically and militarily feasible they would be attractive. I will ask the Minister for Defence to have a study made and let Senator MacGibbon know.

page 2880

QUESTION

STATE TAXATION

Senator SIBRAA:

-I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to an article by David Potts in the Australian Financial Review of 14 November entitled ‘The pressure is on for higher State taxation’. Is it a fact, as stated in the article, that most States have this year brought down Budgets which significantly increase their recurrent expenditure in real terms and that if they wish to maintain their current levels of services they will have to start imposing their own taxation? Will the Commonwealth’s approach to the Premiers Conference on 7 December be directed at facilitating and encouraging the introduction of State taxation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I did not see the article but if it said what Senator Sibraa said, it does not bear any resemblance to an accurate picture of what happened in the Budgets. If Senator Sibraa is interested in this subject, total expenditure for this year is up by 1 1.9 per cent in Tasmania, 13.8 per cent in Victoria, 1 1.6 per cent in Queensland, and 12.1 per cent in Western Australia. That gives the lie to the substance of the article. One of the things that must be kept in mind is that expenditure has gone up against the background that, one by one, the States have cut taxes and have given tax relief.

Let us look at the suggestion that this is a plot to increase State taxation. In New South Wales the road maintenance tax was abolished in early 1979 and no replacement has yet been determined. Payroll tax exemption levels have been raised. In Tasmania, land tax scales have been reduced to take account of inflation. This involved the little matter of $3. lm relief. As from 1 January next no probate duty will be payable on estates passing to a spouse or children. In Victoria the payroll tax exemption level has been raised by 27 per cent, to give $8m relief in a full year. The gift duty exemption duty level has been raised by 50 per cent. The land tax exemption level has been raised for a principal residence. There is a complete exemption from probate duty for estates which pass from grandparent to grandchild.

In Queensland payroll taxation exemption levels have been raised; land tax exemption levels have been raised in respect of agricultural land; stamp duty has been reduced on purchase of a principal residence; and the exemption level in respect of duty on mortgages has been raised.

In Western Australia death duties have been abolished as from 1 January. The payroll taxation exemption level has been raised, to give relief totalling $2. 2m. In South Australia succession duty has been abolished from 1 January, to give $2m saving. Gift duty has been abolished from that date. Stamp duty on the purchase of a first home has been abolished. Payroll tax exemption levels have been raised and there has been land tax relief.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– Those dollies went down rather fast, did they not?

page 2880

QUESTION

HOUSING ENERGY-SAVING CONSTRUCTION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction aware of a study carried out two or three years ago in Darwin, by the architectural faculty of the University of Queensland, on the use of alternative energy sources in housing development? Is he also aware that a comprehensive report compiled following the study contained many constructive practical suggestions which could be followed by home builders in that area? Will the Minister confer with the Jabiluka Town Development Authority with the object of making this project a model alternative energy township which could be followed by other house building authorities?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Over many years there has been an interest, certainly by the Department of Housing and Construction, in the use of house designs in the Northern Territory which would enable the building to be used to advantage in reducing heat and enable them to use the solar energy that may be generated in that climate. There have been a number of such studies but I believe that I recall the one which the honourable senator mentioned. He referred to the Jabiluka Town Development Authority, which is the principal body developing the town in the Alligator River area. My understanding is that the best intelligence would be available to the Authority. I would hope that by using the information available to it, the Authority would be able to produce the best designed homes for that climate that there could possibly be.

I know that Senator Jessop, because of his interest, has visited the area recently. I have an idea that he has been in the town area on two occasions during this year. He has mentioned to me some faults that he thinks could occur in the development of the town site. I think the honourable senator raises something to which the Minister I represent could well give attention so that we take advantage of every alternative energy source that may be available to residents who are likely to live at Jabiluka.

page 2881

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, is prompted by a report tabled recently in the Senate entitled ‘Health Promotion in Australia 1978-79’, issued by the Commonwealth Department of Health, distributed by the Australian Government Publishing Service and printed by the Government Printer. Is the Minister aware of the part of the report on page 132 which refers to ‘Phantom-like campaigners who transform cigarette billboard advertisements into hard-hitting anti-smoking messages’? The report goes on to describe these people as ‘resourceful advertisers, equipped with their wit and cans of spray paint’. I know the attitude of parliamentarians to anyone who interferes with their election signs so I ask the Minister to ask her colleague the Minister for Health what his attitude is towards that reference and whether he is aware that, if a statement is not made on it, it could be interpreted as being the policy of the Department and those people whose property is being attacked may be forced into the position of having to protect their property. While the Minister is making representations to the Minister for Health will she also ask him whether he does not think his Department is over-reacting to and being emotional regarding this advertising campaign? What health motive is there in the campaign literature distributed among school children in the Hunter region of New South Wales which says: ‘Kiss a Non-Smoker . . . Taste the Difference ‘?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator McAuliffe has raised a matter of great importance. I am not aware of the statements on page 132 of the report ‘Health Promotion in Australia 1978-79’. I am aware, as I think every honourable senator is, of the close interest of the Senate in this matter. I can only suggest that perhaps a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, that is, to Senator Baume and his diligent senators, may assist in resolving some of the points that have been raised. For instance, if the Senate Committee were aware of the concern of Senator McAuliffe, I feel sure that it would take action to see that the matters raised in this report were given close attention. As far as people protecting their property is concerned, I think that is probably a matter for another Minister to determine. As for the advice to school children, that probably comes within the province of my colleague Senator Carrick and it will be for him to make a determination.

page 2881

QUESTION

CYCLAMATES IN FOOD

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-My question also is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it true that the use of cyclamates in foods has now been banned in the United States? Are cyclamates still extensively used in food and drink products in Australia? Can the Minister say whether any action is proposed as to the use of cyclamates in Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– In 1969 the Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America prohibited the use of cyclamates in foods. The answer to the second point of Senator Knight’s question is no, cyclamates are permitted to be used as artificial sweetening agents in Australia only in special dietary foods without added sugar, in special dietary low joule foods and in brewed soft drinks at specified levels. All additives approved for use in foods in Australia, including cyclamates, are maintained under continual review by the Food Science and Technology (Reference) Sub-Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. There is no evidence to suggest that the levels of cyclamates used in Australia have caused any adverse effects in humans. I am advised that it is not anticipated that any changes will be made in the near future in relation to the presently restricted use of cyclamates.

page 2881

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister say just how widespread the distribution of Australian aid is in East Timor? Is it being distributed outside the large number of security villages or concentration camps now established? Is it a fact that East Timorese citizens who remain outside these security villages or concentration camps are considered fair game by the Indonesian military authorities?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Primmer ‘s question is important in that it does point up the geographic difficulties of the country itself, with the isolation of the tribal groups largely in the hills and in the small plateaus in the hill country and, therefore, the great difficulties of distributing food. I have remarked on the topography in Timor before. It is known to the Australian Government that this difficulty exists. It is acutely known to the international agencies, particularly the International Red Cross agencies, that this is so. One of the keen desires of the Australian Government in getting the International Red Cross into Timor was to allow it to get access to the remote parts of the country where the distress, probably, is at the greatest. I have no immediate reason to believe that there is any restriction other than that of geography and ordinary access to the hill tribes and the hill people. It is certainly not my understanding that the Indonesian Government is putting any basic restraints in the way of the distribution of food, but I will take the question up and have it looked at. It would be the Government’s keen intention that there should be a total distribution of food, specifically to those areas, and to the areas of very difficult access which would need it.

page 2882

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I ask the same question as I have now asked him on three previous occasions at the end of parliamentary sessions. Senator Missen also has asked him the same question. The Leader will recall having indicated on three occasions that he would take steps to facilitate a debate some time in the course of the following session on the Royal Commission on Human Relationships. I now ask him for the fourth time: In the approaching session, at the commencment of 1 980, will he again take steps to facilitate such debate?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– lt is not from any want of goodwill that such a debate has not occurred. My understanding is that- I may be in error- it is listed in the General Business list of the Senate and, therefore, it is within the Senate’s hands for the debate to emerge. I do not say that that is in any way an excuse for failure. If the wish of the Senate is expressed in the early weeks of the New Year, and if the two Whips can indicate to me that they would tike that item lifted up in the General Business, I will see that it is done. I invite the Whips so to do.

page 2882

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs seen various reports, most recently in the Age newspaper this morning, that in his confidential report to the Government on the Narcotics Bureau, Mr Justice Williams strongly criticised the permanent head of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Tim Besley, over his evidence to that inquiry? The criticism is made on the basis, amongst other reasons, that he deliberately suppressed certain material and such conduct is described as ‘lamentable’. If these reports are accurate, what does the Government propose to do in relation to Mr Besley? Will it take the view that he is personally responsible for this behaviour and take appropriate punitive action accordingly; or will it take the view that, under our Constitution and the Westminster conventions, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs is himself responsible for such serious departmental administration, and that he will accept that responsibility and resign; or will it rather take the view that senior public servants are a law unto themselves, and do absolutely nothing?

Senator DURACK:
LP

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

Senator EVANS:

– I ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister reconsider that response in the light of the fact that the Parliament will not reconvene until February next year and that during that time it will be impossible to get any response to it.

Senator DURACK:

-The answer to the supplementary question is no.

page 2882

QUESTION

VISIT OF PRINCE NORODOM SIHANOUK

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On 22 November I told honourable senators in answer to a question from Senator Mcintosh that Prince Sihanouk intended to visit Australia in February of next year. The Department of Foreign Affairs has now received advice that Prince Sihanouk will not now be visiting Australia before mid- 1 980. Prince Sihanouk will be visiting France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden until at least the end of February of next year.

page 2882

VIETNAM: INVASION BY CHINA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On 22 November I was asked by Senator Teague for the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of a second Chinese military incursion into Vietnam. I am informed that, although a further resort to military force by either side cannot be ruled out, the available evidence suggests that renewed warfare is unlikely in the near future. In particular, the deployment of Chinese forces in the border region is understood to be defensive in nature. The Australian Government has made clear to both China and Vietnam that it strongly supports the peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with international principles. Accordingly, the

Government favours the continuation of SinoVietnamese negotiations, the second round of which began in Peking on 28 June. Despite the apparent lack of progress, the Government hopes that these negotiations will lead eventually to a lasting settlement.

page 2883

QUESTION

HMAS ‘ATTACK

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Somewhat to my surprise, Senator Harradine wants a more definite answer with respect to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and HMAS Attack than I was able to give him. I will refer the question to Mr Staley for that purpose.

page 2883

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: COMMITTEE OF REVIEW

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– In answering a question by Senator Ryan, I indicated that the answer was on the basis of my recollection. I have had some confirmation since I gave that answer that the general thrust of what I said is in accord with Mr Staley ‘s intentions. Mr Staley wants to stress that he does not want to be involved in the running of the Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He has every confidence in the ability of the people on the Committee, who are sensitive to suggestions and opinions put to them. He is certain that they will take note of Senator Ryan’s contribution. The Minister and the Government hope that the greatest possible participation by the public will occur. The matters of detail as to how the Committee proceeds will be up to the Committee.

page 2883

QUESTION

TELEVISION: EYRE PENINSULA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Jessop raised with me the matter of television services on Eyre Peninsula. The Senate will be well aware of Senator Jessop ‘s untiring efforts to achieve for the residents of Eyre Peninsula a television service, which the great majority of Australians have now enjoyed for 20 years or so. Before providing Senator Jessop with further information which I have received from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, I should make clear that Senator Jessop was mistaken in his question in one minor respect. These matters are not for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, as suggested by the honourable senator, but for Mr Staley ‘s Department. Therefore, it would be unfair of us to accuse the Tribunal of procrastination in this area. The finger must be pointed at Mr Staley’s Department alone.

The Minister has informed me of the sorry history of this matter. It appears, sad to say, that undertakings have been given in the past which have not been met. Mr Staley has indicated that for this reason, both in replies to Senator Jessop and others and during Mr Staley’s trip to Eyre Peninsula early this year, he has been most reluctant to give firm undertakings unless he is absolutely sure that they can be met. He has judged that a sureness about information given is better than speed. During the visit to Eyre Peninsula, however, the Minister indicated that he would, as quickly as possible, provide to Senator Jessop and residents of Eyre Peninsula an outline of the project to extend television services to the area. My memory is that this has been done.

Senator Jessop seeks an indication as to when this project will commence. The Minister’s advice is that, whilst the plan in total has not been finalised or submitted for his final approval, as a general indication his officials expect to commence site acquisitions on Eyre Peninsula by the middle of next year and then progressively to construct the necessary facilities so that the project is finalised by the end of 1982. The honourable senator will understand that this is a project of some magnitude and cannot be completed any more quickly. It may be possible, however, to commence earlier so that the whole matter can be brought to a conclusion in a shorter time span. Mr Staley has indicated that he is aware of the great desire of residents of Eyre Peninsula to have what most other Australians have enjoyed for some time. He has instructed his officials to pursue the completion of this project and, if possible, to bring forward the date by which final decisions can be made.

page 2883

QUESTION

ALLEGED SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUDS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The other matter concerns a question raised by Senator Wriedt on 14, 15 and 20 November 1979 when he asked whether I would obtain from the Minister for Administrative Services details of an apparent conflict between advice given to a Minister of the Crown and evidence given before the court. I have been provided with an answer in writing and, as Senator Wriedt has been called away from the chamber, I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The information sought is not clear and relates to some matters which are the responsibility of other Ministers. As far as those matters relate to the position of the former Commonwealth Police who are within my area of responsibility, the factual position is clear on the two questions that have been raised, namely:

did the Commonwealth Police advise that they did not telephone tap?

what pan did the Commonwealth Police have in respect of consideration of payment of a reward to an informant?

The following basic information can be given but I am not prepared- nor is it my responsibility- to be drawn into sub judice matters of court evidence; these matters are for the courts, the Presiding Officers and the Attorney-General.

On (i), the former Commonwealth Police have advised throughout that they did not telephone tap as they did not intercept as denned in the I960 Act and that they did nothing illegal.

On (ii), the former Commonwealth Police informed the appropriate Departments in Canberra that they had an informant with valuable information about social security frauds and it would be appropriate for a reward for such valuable information to be of a special amount beyond the Police resources and the former Commonwealth Police assessed it as $30,000. The matter was left to the appropriate Departments to consider and the Department of Social Security advised that $30,000 could be made available in the event of a successful result to the inquiry but the approval of the Treasurer would be necessary. Although negotiations by a former Commonwealth Police officer were made with the Solicitor for the informant, in relation to the amount for any award, no Ministerial decision has been taken and no payment has been made.

page 2884

QUESTION

AUSTRALIA-JAPAN FISHERIES AGREEMENT

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Recently Senator Martin asked me the following question:

Will the Government give urgent consideration to the suggestion that observers be placed on Japanese fishing boats in order to monitor marlin catches in waters off north Queensland.

The Minister for Primary Industry has provided me with the following response: The Government has in hand arrangements for the monitoring of the marlin catch in waters off north Queensland this season. A working group has been established by the Government comprising Commonwealth and State fisheries officials, together with game fishing representatives, to monitor closely and to collate information on the marlin catch in this area during the 12 months that the Australia-Japan fisheries agreement is in operation. The working group is to have its first meeting towards the end of this month. In the meantime, the Department of Transport navigational aids vessels Lumen and the Cape Pilar, with Department of Primary Industry fisheries officers on board, are proceeding to assist in observing Japanese long-line operations in the area during December.

page 2884

QUESTION

COASTAL SURVEILLANCE

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-by leaveQuestion No. 2314 standing in my name on the Notice Paper includes the following words:

Was McDougall Airways which, under sub-contract with Executive Airlines, operates coastal surveillance between Cairns and Broome, one of the air chaner companies named in the Queensland Parliament on 20 November 1979 as being possibly involved in the drug trade . . .

Yesterday I received a telephone call from Mr Peter Sleigh who is the chairman and chief executive of H. C. Sleigh Ltd. There is some confusion over the ownership of the airline. I should like to correct the record by reading a few paragraphs into Hansard. The information I have is as follows:

  1. C. Sleigh Aviation Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of H.C. Sleigh Limited an Australian based and controlled public listed company. H.C. Sleigh Aviation Limited (also known in the industry as ‘Executive Air Services’)-

This is where the confusion crept in - carries on business throughout Australia and has extensive operations in Queensland. The operations in Queensland include littoral surveillance using 1 Nomad N22B and 4 Rockwell Commander Model SOO aircraft. These aircraft are supplied to the Commonwealth of Australia in accordance with conditions of contract to conduct daily visual surveillance of the littoral. They are each crewed by three persons, being one pilot and two observers. Each person employed by the company on surveillance duties is security cleared through normal government channels. At no time has H.C. Sleigh Aviation Limited (formerly named Executive Air Services Pty Ltd) had any financial operational or other business association with the companies and individuals mentioned by you in Federal Parliament on 21st November 1979. At no time have any of the directors of H.C. Sleigh Aviation Limited been associated in any official or financial capacity with those same companies. On no occasion has H.C. Sleigh Aviation chartered aircraft from or chartered aircraft to or employed any person currently employed by those same companies.

I think that should clarify the situation. I thank the Senate for allowing me to read that information into the record.

page 2884

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Motion ( by Senator Rae) agreed to:

page 2884

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINALS (RIGHT TO ELECTORAL ENROLMENT) BILL 1979

Motion (by Senator Mcintosh) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Mcintosh from moving:

a motion forthwith- That intervening Business be postponed till after consideration of General Business, Order of Day No. 248 ( Western Australian Aboriginals (Right to Electoral Enrolment) Bill 1979- Second Reading); and

b ) the motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Second Reading

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

-I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows:

It is necessary in speaking to this Bill to summarise the events which led ultimately to its introduction. Always Aboriginal people have faced impediments to exercising effectively the right to vote. Adult franchise as it has applied for all other Australian-born citizens, at least for the lower houses of our Parliaments, has never existed for Aborigines. Sometimes discrimination was oven- Aborigines had to be granted citizen rights before they could enrol. Even now under Commonwealth law and the law of most States Aborigines, though entitled to enrol and vote, are not compelled to do so as are other native-born or naturalised Australians. Even without deliberate legal impediments, the economic and cultural gap between many Aborigines and the mainstream of Australian society imposes a barrier between them and the effective use of the franchise. Other minority groups, as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) mentioned on June 6, may face similar difficulties.

This Bill applies only to Aborigines, not because we are indifferent to these other groups, but because the only Commonwealth power relevant in this context, is a restricted powerrestricted that is to make laws pertaining to Aborigines. The Bill ‘s scope is further restricted to enrolment to vote. It does not encompass actual voting procedures. The reasons I will detail later. The absence of overt legislative discrimination, though a pre-requisite to equality of opportunity to vote, does not of itself guarantee equal opportunity. Difficulties in oral, written or physical communication arising from a different cultural and geographic background constitute an impediment for some groups even if the letter of the law grants equality. Specifically complex or restrictive enrolment requirements present greater problems for people whose background and experience is outside the mainstream of our society.

Recent amendments to the Electoral Act of Western Australia impose more restrictive enrolment procedures than those of the Commonwealth or any other State with which Aborigines especially will have problems in complying. Whether that was the intention or not, that is the result. This Bill seeks to exempt Aborigines from complying with these restrictive procedures. It will require the State electoral registrar in Western Australia to enrol all Aborigines who are on the Commonwealth roll.

The chain of events leading to this Bill ‘s introduction starts from the Western Australia State Election in February 1977. Polling day in the electoral division of Kimberley was turbulent. I will not detail those events, but ultimately an appeal was lodged with a Court of Disputed Returns by the Australian Labor Party candidate, Ernie Bridge, who had been defeated by 93 votes. After prolonged hearings, judgment was given in favour of Bridge with costs against the defendant, Liberal candidate Alan Ridge, then and now a Minister in the Court Government. Justice Smith ordered a new election. When the appeal was first lodged the Court Government was asked to cover legal costs. It refused. Shortly before the judgment was given it magnanimously offered to pay the costs of both parties. Whether its change of policy was due to change of heart, or change of mind after the evidence was given leaving little doubt in anyone’s mind about who would win, remains a matter of conjecture.

Justice Smith found that 96 people had been improperly deprived of their right to vote for Ernie Bridge and for that reason declared the election void- the winning margin having been only 93 votes. The Premier, when confronted with the judgment, dismissed it as ‘one man’s opinion’. The improprieties found by Justice Smith were those of a group of Perth lawyers who were briefed by the Liberal Party in obstructive scrutineering tactics to be used in polling booths. The objective was to prevent Aborigines from recording votes, or if that failed, from recording valid votes. In one instance, the Liberal scrutineer told the presiding officer that he had telephoned the returning officer, who had told him that ‘how to vote’ cards were not to be accepted as evidence of voting intentions. The court found that the alleged conversation did not occur.

Numerous allegations were made by Western Australian Government members that Aborigines had been manipulated by Ernie Bridge or his supporters. One of those allegations, in the form of a letter by John Tozer, MLC, to the West Australian was the subject of a libel action by Bridge against Tozer and the newspaper. Judgment ultimately was given in favour of Bridge and $20,000 damages were awarded. The Smith judgment explicitly noted that no evidence of manipulation or malpractice, other than on polling day, had been presented to the court. Notwithstanding that fact, the State Government proceeded with a program based on the assertion that Aborigines were being manipulated and that irregularities were rife in postal voting.

Amendments to the Electoral Act were brought into the Western Australian Parliament’s 1977 spring session. So discriminatory against Aborigines were these amendments that they were opposed in the Legislative Assembly not only by the Labor Opposition, but by half the Country Party, and a Liberal backbencher, and were defeated by the casting vote of the Liberal Speaker. The Government’s next move was to establish an electoral inquiry under Magistrate Ray. Again the rationale was the elusive alleged manipulation and malpractice. Kay recommended changes to the Electoral Act aimed at eliminating or at least minimising malpractice pertaining to illiterate voters. Some might think this curious in view of the fact that yet again no evidence of malpractice was presented. More importantly, in the context of this Bill, the potential for malpractice which Kay identified, and to which Senator Chaney drew attention on 6 June, related to voting procedures, not enrolment.

The Western Australian Government, however, introduced another Bill this year which adopted most- not all- of the Kay recommendations. It was passed by the Parliament early in October. The major amendment to the State Electoral Act, the amendment which is the target of this Bill- Clause 8 in the Western Australian amendment- is that which requires applications for enrolment to be witnessed by either a justice of the peace, a police officer, a clerk of courts or an electoral officer. Previously applications could be witnessed by any elector, the same as the Commonwealth Act. That amendment, for which we and evidently every other Government in Australia can see no need, is obviously irksome to anyone wanting to enrol or change enrolment. To people with language or other communications problems it is a difficulty. For Aborigines, especially those living in remote areas like the Kimberleys, it is a major deterrent. Except for electoral officers, all the people permitted to witness applications represent authority in Aboriginal eyes. The probability is high that an Aborigine’s only previous contact with justices of the peace, policemen or clerks of court, would have been as a victim of the punitive or disciplinary arm of the law. It is no overstatement to say the Aborigines are apprehensive about approaching people in these positions. It may not even be an overstatement to say they are frightened of them. I concede there are Aboriginal justices of the peace at some settlements, but that is far from ubiquitous.

The Western Australian Government’s motives for taking that extraordinary action are, some would say, a matter of conjecture. I suggest, however, that it is not unrelated to the sentiments expressed by Alan Ridge in a letter to one of his supporters, John Fletcher, after the 1977 State elections. Ridge wrote:

I am hopeful that at some time in the future the Electoral Act will be amended with a view to overcoming some of the difficulties which were experienced on polling day. I can foresee that unless this is done, there could be anything up to 4,000 Aborigines on the roll at the next election and, under these circumstances, the Liberal Party would probably be fighting a lost cause.

Mr Ridge did not expect that letter to become a public document. It did so only because the court ordered it. Whether Mr Ridge’s hope provided the motive for the Western Australian Government decision to impose more stringent enrolment procedures which would apply with special force to Aborigines, clause 8 of the Government Electoral Amendment Bill will have that effect.

The intention of my Bill is to remove that deterrent or impediment to Aboriginal enrolment for Western Australian elections. It effectively ensures that all Aborigines who have complied with Commonwealth Electoral Act procedures will be included in the State roll for the appropriate district and province. The first two clauses are formal only, and clauses 3 to 8 provide:

Clause 3, ‘Aboriginal ‘ defined as in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975,

Other definitions taken from Western Australian Electoral Act.

Clause 4, Act binds Western Australia and Commonwealth.

Clause 5, States that an Aboriginal who is enrolled to vote in Commonwealth elections shall be entitled to enrol as an elector for Western Australian elections.

Clause 6. Supplements clause 5 by stating that a Western Australian Registrar shall not refuse to enrol an Aborigninal for a Western Australian election if that Aboriginal is enrolled as a Commonwealth elector.

Clause 7. Is a machinery clause that provides that where an Aboriginal is enrolled at a particular address for Commonwealth elections then he shall be enrolled for State elections for a division and province appropriate to that address.

Clause 8. Supplements the general purpose of the Act by stating that conditions or restrictions other than those set out in the Commonwealth Electoral Act shall apply to an Aboriginal enrolling for elections in Western Australia and in particular states that no requirement as to witnessing shall be placed on an Aboriginal seeking to enrol in Western Australian elections unless the Aboriginal chooses to comply with any general provisions that may exist.

In summary, therefore, the Bill does no more than guarantee that Aboriginals in Western Australia when enrolling for State elections will receive the same treatment under State electoral law as under Commonwealth law. It allows the State to continue to have its own electoral rolls and does not seek to interfere in the manner the State organises its own elections other than to the extent noted above. On Friday, 9 November Senator Walsh rang the office of the Minister, and spoke to his private secretary, whom he asked to tell Senator Chaney that if he or his Department believed the Bill had technical defects or was impractical, he and others who had helped prepare it would like to discuss the matter and that we would be willing to make changes.

Since we have not been approached, I assume that if Government members do oppose the Bill it will not be for technical reasons. I do not know what the view of Government members is, but for a variety of reasons I am hopeful they will support it. If a free vote were allowed, I am certain that many would. On 6 June 1979 the following urgency motion was moved in the Senate:

That Aborigines should have the same opportunity to enrol and vote in State Elections as in Federal Elections.

It received the support of the Government and was carried without dissent. In the debate Senator Chaney said:

I have indicated that the Government will support the resolution- it does, subject to the qualifications I am making in this speech.

The qualifications were of three kinds. Firstly, Senator Chaney said he separated what he called the ‘general abuse’ from the substance of the motion. The Government, he said, supported the latter but not the former. That qualification should not preclude Government members from supporting this motion. Secondly, he drew attention to a number of practical problems associated with voting and in particular the potential for malpractice associated with illiterate voters. All these qualifications, however, applied to voting practices. The Bill deals only with enrolment. Thirdly, Senator Chaney expressed a somewhat equivocal attitude to a question of Commonwealth power to control State electoral procedures. He said ‘I do not argue that the power does not exist’. I say that it is a matter which will almost certainly lead to legal disputation and about which I think one could mount arguments either way.

If the Commonwealth eschewed all legislation which could conceivably be successfully challenged in the High Court, given that court’s notorious record of both political and capricious judgments, the Commonwealth would scarcely legislate at all. None of the qualifications added by Senator Chaney on 6 June provide adequate grounds for opposing the Bill. Indeed, apart from the general support he expressed on behalf of the Government, he pointed out that all disadvantaged people- and most Aborigines are disadvantaged- being without other power, have a special interest in the political power conferred by the franchise. He said:

But the Government is absolutely committed to the idea that it is of great importance to Aboriginal people that they should be able to exercise their vote;

These people, being in greater need of assistance, have a particular interest in who forms the Government of the country. For that reason, it is important that they have some say in who should govern the country, or indeed their State.

In addition to the support given on behalf of the Government by Senator Chaney, the strong stand abroad of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) against actions which disadvantage other races must surely lead him towards supporting this Bill. I cannot visualise Mr Fraser exposing himself to a charge in international forums of failing to take action which was within his constitutional power to overrule a State government’s attempt to prevent Aboriginals from voting. I sincerely trust I will receive Government support and commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 2887

QUESTION

ASIA DAIRY INDUSTRIES (HONG KONG) LTD

The PRESIDENT:

– General Business Notice of Motion No. 17 standing in the name of Senator McLaren for the tabling of AuditorGeneral’s reports on Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd. Is this formal or not formal?

Senator McLaren:

– Formal.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Not formal.

Senator McLAREN (South Australia) C 1 1.22)- I move:

I want to set out my reasons for moving that motion. As a general principle, all AuditorGeneral’s reports should be tabled. The Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, has been questioned in the other place on this report on two occasions, once on 16 October and once on 15 November. On each occasion he dodged the issue. Not until notice was given to force the tabling in the Senate would Mr Nixon give any answers, Yesterday, through a statement put down in the Senate by Senator Webster, he said that he would not table the reports. It is unfortunate that when I approached the Senate Records Office this morning I was unable to get a copy of the statement and, due to the late issue of Hansard, I am unable to read what was in that statement. The crux of it was that the Minister, Mr Nixon, has refused to table the reports.

All honourable senators who vote against this motion will align themselves with Mr Nixon in refusing to give the Senate information to which it is entitled. In refusing to table the reports, Mr Nixon has used the excuse that it is a confidential matter. It is not a confidential matter, in the view of some members of the Senate. In the supplementary report of the Auditor-General, tabled on 13 November, at page 13, item 12, which concerns the Asia Dairy Corporation, it is stated:

A reply to the Audit representations did not include all specific information and comments requested, resulting in a further reference to the Chairman on 19 September 1979. The attention of the Minister has also been drawn to the need for particular actions considered necessary.

The Auditor-General’s supplementary report has been commented on in the newspapers. In the Age on 14 November an article by Simon Balderstone appeared headed ‘Dairy body attacked by Auditor-General’. I will not quote the article because of the time limits. However, as I said, the matter has been raised in the other place on two occasions. An Auditor-General is appointed to peruse public accounts, but it is unfortunate that when he makes a report the Minister involved is not prepared to make that document public. I ask you, Mr President: What is the use of having the office of the Auditor-General if his powers and his supervision of government and semi-government departments are to be ignored firstly by the Minister and then by the Parliament? How will we, as members of parliament, be able to make a decision whether any government department which is spending public money is doing so under the terms of its charter if we are not able to have access to the Auditor-General ‘s reports?

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I second the motion.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 29

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 2888

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 19 February 1980, 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.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In speaking to this motion, I ask the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) whether all the questions that have been unanswered during the year will be answered before the Senate resumes on 19 February 1980. 1 refer in particular to questions that were asked during the time when the Appropriation Bills were forced through this House in the early hoursbetween midnight and 5 o’clock- of Thursday morning. Many honourable senators were promised answers on certain things but they have not been forthcoming. I want an assurance from the Leader of the Government that we will get those answers as quickly as possible.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government · LP

– Throughout the sessions it has been my practice to endeavour as far as possible to get the number of questions standing on the Notice Paper to a minimum. I think that has been the general practice. I will endeavour to do so, with one qualification- the Appropriation Bills were not forced through this House at all. There was no gag applied.

Senator McLaren:

– We were kept here until twenty past five in the morning.

Senator CARRICK:

-We were kept here due to continuous intervention, largely by Senator McLaren. Had he asked the questions at the Government’s invitation and put them on the Notice Paper, we would have answered them for him. The fact that he was away, overseas or somewhere -

Senator McLaren:

– That is unfair.

Senator CARRICK:

-I do not want to be vexatious -

Senator McLaren:

– Of course you are vexatious. You j just can ‘t help yourself.

Senator CARRICK:

-I want to be helpful. If Senator McLaren wants to shout and scream, let him take that on himself. I am saying he was outside this Senate during the Estimates committees’ hearings and therefore missed the opportunity to ask questions. Since other honourable senators wanted to get on with the business, the honourable senator was invited to make a list of his questions, for which the answers would have been obtained. I repeat that invitation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2889

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveagreed 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 2889

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I refer to the report of Senate Estimates Committee B, dated October 1979. For the reasons which are set out in the body of that report, I move:

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– If I may speak very briefly to the motion and move for the adjournment of the debate. The position has been considered by the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs to which it is proposed to refer this matter. Some difficulties arise in this matter and require further investigation. It is a proposal to investigate legal aid services in the Australian Capital Territory. It is limited in that way. From reading the report, there are matters which indicate there ought to be investigation into them, but the question is whether the reference should be limited in that way. It is difficult to investigate legal aid in a Territory and not as it applies in other places, by comparison. In other States there are legal aid commissions, some of which have not even started operation yet. Therefore, I can see some difficulty in doing a large scale operation with them at this time. Because members of the Committee want to reconsider and discuss the position with those proposing this motion to see how it should be formulated and we cannot contemplate getting on with it during the recess period, I therefore seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2889

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This Bill is to obtain approval of the Parliament for an agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments to regulate the availability and the pricing of sugar. It contains the text of the Sugar

Agreement 1979 and provisions to implement the Commonwealth’s responsibilities under the agreement. We, in the Opposition, will not be opposing what is in fact an important Bill. It renews the previous Sugar Agreement Bill which expired on 30 June this year and which was extended for a period of three months.

The Agreement deals with the setting of the domestic price for sugar and the terms and conditions under which it will be sold. The Agreement is between the Queensland and Australian governments which resulted in delays to the presentation of this legislation. The Queensland sugar industry could be fairly described as highly institutionalised and because of the monocultura nature of sugar production and the long history of legislative and industry control, it is a peculiar example of private ownership and government control. The Industries Assistance Commission was asked last year to conduct a special inquiry into the industry. That inquiry was headed by Mr McKinnon, the Chairman of the IAC, with a Commonwealth and Queensland Government representative. The report was available earlier this year and on the question of domestic pricing arrangements the commissioners were divided.

This legislation represents a compromise between the Commonwealth view which coincides with the minority report of Mr McKinnon and the Queensland view which supported the majority report. The latter wished to see the domestic price adjusted entirely in relation to movement in cash costs and the former wished to see international prices taken into account. A compromise formula which takes limited account of movements in cash costs and export prices will now be used under this arrangement. It is important for the sugar industry that price adjustments are now to be made on a regular basis. This will avoid the position where prices were adjusted irregularly and no account was taken of the continual inflationary effects on the industry’s returns. Whilst there has been some criticism that the arrangements for the present Agreement entrench what is a restricted industry, it cannot be forgotten that the sugar industry has an obligation under this Agreement to supply the Australian market with raw sugar. At a time of depressed prices and of surpluses that guarantee might seem meaningless, but when prices rise and supplies are short that guarantee becomes significant.

We should also note that some of the major critics of the current pricing arrangements are the major soft drink and confectionery manufacturers. Whilst the costs of their products are often factors in the inflationary process, we cannot ignore the fact that companies such as the Coca Cola company- a good example I suppose- and the Cadbury-Schweppes company are large international companies which have made no attempt to introduce even a limited degree of local equity. There must also be some suspicion that even if the price of sugar to these users were reduced there would not be a reduction in the prices of their products. Had the major soft drink manufacturers and confectioners shown a genuine attempt to Australianise their operations, the Opposition would be more sympathetic to their pleas. But in contrast the sugar cane milling and exporting industries are owned and controlled by wholly Australian-owned organisations.

The other pertinent question that I would just touch on is the impact upon this Agreement if the Western Australian Government proceeds with its announced intention of growing 200,000 tonnes of raw sugar on the Ord River in the north of Western Australia. This Agreement runs for a period of five years and there is no provision for any agreement with the Western Australian Government should it proceed with its proposal. It is highly unlikely that that State Government would agree to have its sugar production controlled by the Queensland Government and there is a very real prospect that the balance in the existing sugar cane industry would bc destroyed by possible action by the Western Australian Government. It would be helpful if the Australian Government could indicate what might happen if Western Australia decided to proceed with its plans, because the impact on the stability which is part of this Agreement would almost certainly be quite dramatic.

We on this side of the chamber are also pleased that, rather belatedly, the International Sugar Agreement has started to take effect and that the international price of sugar is now above the ISA minimum. This in itself will minimise the possibility of income transfers between sugar consumers and producers. But we note that the Government has not pursued very actively the United States Government in an attempt to have it ratify the International Sugar Agreement. The consequence is that the $27m which is included in the Budget and which the Government has borrowed from the International Monetary Fund in accordance with the International Sugar Agreement will have to be repaid by the sugar industry. Of course, had the United States ratified the Agreement the stock financing fund would have come into operation and in the current circumstances the overseas sugar users would be bearing some of the costs of storing sugar stocks. We express some concern that the Government has not been as active as it might have been in attempting to influence- I suppose that is the proper word to use- the United States to ratify the Agreement.

We are not opposing the legislation. It has been an historical development over many years supported by governments of different political persuasions to maintain the stability which we have seen in the sugar industry in this country. We believe that this agreement takes that stability one step further and for that reason we are not opposing it.

Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland

– It is a great pleasure to speak to the Sugar Agreement Bill 1979 which, as Senator Wriedt has said, is one of the important Bills to come before the chamber this session. At the outset I compliment and support Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Opposition, on his speech on this subject. It was a closely reasoned speech and has my full agreement. It dealt with the technical side of the pricing agreement and thus saves me doing that. I wish to mention two matters very briefly this morning. Firstly, I wish to talk about the economic importance of the Bill to the sugar industry and at the same time I wish to talk about the economic importance of the sugar industry to Australia. It is not often appreciated how important this industry is to the whole of Australia.

This Bill provides a formula for domestic sugar which will run to 30 June 1984. It represents an advance on the present marketing agreements and will provide benefits both to the industry and to consumers. The producers, millers and refiners of sugar will have the advantage of getting a fair return and there will be provision for automatic price adjustments. The absence of price adjustments has been one of the things which has been the bane of the sugar industry because it is a very tightly controlled industry. The prices of all primary products fluctuate mainly in response to supply and demand, a consequence of seasonal changes and matters like that. Unlike prices for all other primary products- for example, beef or woolwhich do fluctuate, sugar has great difficulty in moving because, from the point of view of production and marketing, it is such a tightly controlled industry. In times of high inflation, such as we have had in the last five to 10 years, the sugar industry has suffered probably more than any other sector of primary industry.

The greatest consumer of sugar in Australia is, of course, the confectionary or food industry to which Senator Wriedt referred. It uses about 60 per cent of all sugar produced or rather sold in Australia. It has the great advantage, firstly, of having a guaranteed supply which is a real benefit in times of crop failure, and, secondly, a 12-month fixed price so that it can do its forward planning. This Bill maintains the previous marketing arrangements which are well known to all people associated with the sugar industry. The introduction of a new factor is in the provision of this maximum price, which is based on a simple formula allowing for some cost increases. Proportionate increases in the price of sugar cannot exceed proportionate rises in the consumer price index, and in relation to the export price in times of high export earnings the price increase is diminished and the converse applies. When export earnings are down, the increase which is permitted in the home market sale rises. For the benefit of those honourable senators who do not appreciate the situation, I point out that 65 per cent of the sugar crop is sold on the export market.

I have mentioned that historically it has been very difficult to get a fair price for sugar sold on the home market. It is a tightly regulated market. In January 1 978, the industry sought an increase from the Federal Government of $80 a tonne, in the price of sugar. In June of last year it was granted $30 a tonne which was quite inadequate. At the same time the Government set up a public inquiry chaired by Mr W. A. McKinnon, the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission. This inquiry took evidence from growers, millers, refiners, marketers, consumers and private individuals. One of its recommendations was that there be a maximum price for sugar. The recommendations of the McKinnon Committee form the basis for this Bill. Some of the witnesses appearing before the inquiry referred to the confidentiality of the sugar marketing arrangements in this country and hinted that there were probably excessive profits. They talked about the prohibition of imports which is one of the fundamental positions that the industry has in controlling its marketing.

Relating to the prohibition of imports of sugar to Australia, internationally there have been great fluctuations in supply, looking at it on a 10-year or 20-year scale, which is the minimum period one can use for commodities. As a result of crop failures and the like, sugar is in very short supply at various times. Not so many years ago the fact that sugar was not available in restaurants and cafes in the United States of America attracted a great deal of publicity in this country. We have never suffered such a shortage here. We have always had an adequate supply of sugar for the home market. That has been a consequence of the regulation which the Government has applied to the sugar industry.

One of the other arguments advanced by the proponents of the abolition of import restrictions has been the low prices which exist from time to time on the world market. But it is important to take more than a superficial view of that. Frequently, the low prices which exist from time to time are a consequence of dumping moves. The classic case in this area has been the dumping by the European Economic Community onto the New Guinea market through the immediate past, with sugar being released at a price well below the cost of production. The important thing to recognise is that an industry cannot be based on aberrant low prices because there is no continuity of supply and no real volume. The allegations of secrecy in the industry were dispelled by the evidence tabled by the producers before the inquiry. I think that that ghost has been laid to rest.

The suggestions that there are high profits in the sugar industry from the home market price simply cannot be sustained. The home market absorbs only 35 per cent of the production. As Senator Wriedt said, vested interests were operating here, particularly the confectionery and soft drink lobby, which was trying to obtain sugar- I guess this is a legitimate commercial ploy- at the lowest possible price. I think that all of us who were involved in parliament at the time were circularised by users of sugar in Australia, complaining about the inordinate price of sugar and all the rest. The most ludicrous proposition I saw was from the food industry council, which asked the Government to provide a direct subsidy from the taxpayers to the sugar growers. That is an incredible approach to economics in 1979; nevertheless the attempt was made.

While on the subject of economics I shall briefly point out what has happened to the home market. Since 1 967 the price of refined sugar in Australia has increased by only 3 1 per cent from a very low price with reference to world markets. In that period since 1967 the consumer price index has gone up by 1 34 per cent, the food producers have increased their prices by 117 per cent and the arch critics of the sugar industrythe ice cream and confectionery manufacturershave found it possible to increase their prices by 1 60 per cent, as opposed to the 3 1 per cent that has been granted to the sugar industry. The evidence given to the McKinnon committee showed that the returns from the domestic market were below the average export returns for the last five years. They were below the target prices of the International Sugar Agreement and they were below the average returns to the producers in the United States and the EEC. I quote one sentence from the McKinnon inquiry:

Examination of the arrangements for managing the industry does not lead to the conclusion that the industry has been over-protected or the consumer exploited in recent years.

The sugar industry has experienced enormous cost increases in the recent past. The cost of fuel, nitrogenous fertilisers, equipment and labour have been quite enormous and the sugar industry has been unable to recover all those cost increases by simple and frequent price revisions. Proportionately, the industry has suffered far higher cost increases than the confectioners who, as I said, have increased their prices by 160 per cent since 1967, as against the 30 per cent increase in the domestic price of sugar.

What this Bill will do, first of all, is guarantee supply, which is very important to the Australian market, particularly the manufacturers. Secondly, it will give us a very high quality product. Very few people stop to think about the quality of sugar on the Australian market. One of the great reputations Australia has as a trader on the world market is the consistent high quality of the product. In fact, the product is of the highest technical level in the world. The third point is that we have a very low price. Even after the last increase the sugar price is 47c a kilogram. The United States price is 49c a kilogram and the New Zealand price 57c a kilogram. The price in Denmark, which is at the other extreme of the scale, is $1.56 a kilogram. For the information of honourable senators I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the retail prices of sugar in selected countries as at 1 March 1979.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator MacGIBBON:

– We have had an artificially low domestic price when we compare the costs that the industry has to bear in relation to cost rises that have taken place in other industries.

What about the industry itself? I mentioned that I would like to talk briefly about the importance of the sugar economy to Australia. Seven per cent of all Australian agricultural output comes from the sugar industry. There are 7,200 growers and 33 mills. It is a capital intensive industry and it has provided a very substantial income to Australian engineers and engineering manufacturers and suppliers. All the mills and most of the equipment used- I refer in particular to the Australian cane harvester- has been designed and produced in this country. As Senator Wriedt said, the great virtue of this industry is that it is 100 per cent Australian owned, and that is something of enormous benefit to us in the development of this country.

The sugar industry covers an area from Mossman in north Queensland to the northern rivers of New South Wales and it uses land for which at the present time there is no obvious alternative crop. Whilst there are only 7,200 growers something like a quarter of a million people are directly involved in earning their income from this industry. The industry produces nearly three million tonnes of raw sugar a year, 65 per cent of which is exported and which is of great significance to Australia’s balance of trade. In 1977-78 the value of raw sugar sold was $536.6m, and that is the lowest export income the sugar industry has earned since 1973-74. The industry is vital for the regional economies of quite a few regions. By way of illustration, 65 per cent of the regional labour force at Mackay in Queensland is involved in the sugar industry. Technically it is a very efficient industry by any standards, rural or secondary. It is a world leader. It is a self-financing industry. It is an industry that is innovative and creative.

Some of the examples of the industry’s creativity are in its approach to the development of cane types and the selective breedings to increase yield and resistance to disease. Sugar cane is one of the most researched agricultural crops in Australia. The farming practices are intensive and well researched. The efficiency .of the milling of sugar cane is the highest in the world. Computerisation and automation have been introduced through the whole process. It has been done at cost to the industry and not to the taxpayer. The industry uses its own fuel. It makes little demand on imported hydrocarbons. It has its own arbitration scheme for setting prices from the grower to the mills. All of this has been developed over the years. The most significant development in the last decade or so has been the introduction of bulk handling and storage facilities which have enabled the product to be delivered to the consumers at the lowest possible cost.

This industry does not need protection. It does not need subsidy. All it needs is a fair go and a little bit of stability in the market place and this Bill provides that. The Sugar Agreement 1979 will have the practical effect of aiding the further development of an efficient industry and ensuring stable and reliable sugar supplies. Successive sugar agreements have been the foundation stone of the Australian sugar industry. As a result, the industry, Australian consumers and the Australian economy have all reaped tangible benefits. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill.

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

- Senator MacGibbon, coming from Queensland, has certainly pointed out to the Senate the importance of the sugar industry to that State and to this nation. The Sugar Agreement Bill which is before us seeks parliamentary approval of the Agreement which has been reached between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. That Agreement was made this year and we find that honourable senators from both sides of the Senate are in agreement with this piece of legislation. The long-standing prohibition on the importation of sugar, golden syrup and treacle continues under this Agreement. One important aspect of the Bill is that it provides for interest on accruing funds of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee which has been established under the Agreement and which is to be administered in accordance with section 60 of the Audit Act 1901. There is basically little which can be said which does not already appear in the second reading speech of this important Bill.

Senator Wriedt raised two matters and I shall respond to them. He said it would help if the Commonwealth could indicate arrangements to avoid the adverse impact of the existing situation between the Queensland and New South Wales governments if Western Australia commenced producing sugar. Recently the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Government concluded an inquiry. It was their belief that no prospect existed for investing in the foreseeable future but recommended that current research be continued in the Ord River area for, I think, at least another five years. There is agreement to that proposal. It is my understanding that the Western Australian Premier, Sir Charles Court, and the Queensland Premier consulted on this matter. I know that Queensland was anxious and that it agreed to assist the Western Australian Department of Agriculture in its interest in going ahead with sugar production. The further question raised by Senator Wriedt related to the situation in the United States of America in relation to its ratification of the International Sugar Agreement. I understand the Commonwealth has maintained close contact with the United States Administration to press Australia’s viewpoint that the United States should ratify the International Sugar Agreement as soon as possible. There has been delay. A congressional ploy was used to attempt to secure improved home industry support. Recently a Bill coupling approval of the International Sugar Agreement with higher home industry support was defeated. We know that recently the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee supported the ratification of the International Sugar Agreement. It is our understanding that the Senate is to consider that matter soon. I thank honourable senators from both sides of the chamber for their support of this important Bill. I ask that the Bill be read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2894

STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE) BILL 1979

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 15 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Senate has before it two Bills, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1979 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979. The Bills essentially deal with Federal allocation of finance to the States for schools and tertiary education. Recognising that there are some time constraints upon us, I do not intend to involve myself in any lengthy detailed argument concerning Government policy on education, other than to consider the broad aspect of what has transpired in the past four years. I do not think anyone would deny that over those four years and the four Budgets of the present Government there has been a significant decline in the importance of finance to education throughout Australia. I believe that there are ample figures to prove that proposition, which I will come to again in a moment. We need to look at the undertaking that was given on 20 May 1 976 by the then Treasurer, Mr Lynch. In a statement to the Parliament he made reference to the Government’s intentions in respect of education expenditure. On page 2339 of Hansard he is recorded as saying:

The Government has decided on significant further growth in real levels of expenditure in 1977 at each of the 4 levels of education . . .

He went on to itemise that for universities there would be a 2 per cent growth in real terms, for colleges of advanced education there would be a 5 per cent growth in real terms, for technical and further education institutions there would be a 7.5 per cent growth in real terms and for schools there would be a 2 per cent growth in real terms. On the following page of Hansard he is shown as making this statement when talking about the three-year rolling program:

As I indicated, new 3 year rolling program arrangements to replace the fixed triennial funding arrangements are to be introduced from the beginning of 1977. These new arrangements will provide greater budgetary flexibility for the Commonwealth while providing a proper planning framework for the commissions which, hopefully, will assist in avoiding the stop-start situation of recent years. In this latter connection the commissions are to be given minimum figures, for planning guidance only, for the second and third years of the initial rolling program, that is, 1978 and 1979.

This planning guidance is:

Tor universities, colleges and schools, 2 per cent growth in real terms per annum for technical and further education institutions, S per cent . . .

It is interesting to look at one or two remarks contained in the statement. He refers to the fact that he wants to avoid the stop-start situation of recent years. This is a fairly obvious reference to the financial arrangements for education that had been obtained during the three years of the previous Labor Government. As everybody knows, during those three years there was the greatest advance in support, by Commonwealth funding, for education in Australia in both the tertiary sector and the schools sector of any period in Australian history, to the point where it may be claimed that the Federal Government of the day was overly generous to the States in providing funding for education. However, it should be remembered that there had been many years of neglect until that period. I do not wish to canvass those arguments now other than to restate that the assistance given during that period was an attempt to make up for the years of neglect that had obtained prior to 1972. In 1976 we had these commitments about increases in real terms for the education sectors. But, of course, that had not happened.

I will turn to the figures of the Schools Commission and the total expenditures estimated at December 1978 price levels. In 1976 the expenditure on the Schools Commission program- I will keep these figures to the nearest million dollars- amounted to $635m. In 1977 it was $658m; in 1978, $66 lm; in 1979, $669m and in 1 980 it dropped to $63 1 m. We have a variation in these figures and we should cast our minds back to the original figure I mentioned in 1 976 of $635m. When we relate those figures in constant terms we find there is actually a decline of 0.6 of one per cent in expenditure in 1980 back to $63 lm. In other words, funding has not quite kept up in real terms with what it was five years ago. The commitment to maintain these real growth figures has not been kept. The argument advanced to support that reduction in real terms is that the school population is declining and will continue to decline for some years to come. The argument is true and can be substantiated. However, we are building up a legacy of reduced standards of education which we will not feel so much in the immediate years ahead but certainly will be felt in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In other words, we will be recreating the same position of neglect which we inherited in 1972. Due to this neglect, in 1 972 a very large injection of moneys was necessary to raise the standards of education to the levels that have been recommended by the Karmel Committee.

I put it to the Government that no matter how easy it may be from a budgetary point of view to freeze funding for education on the grounds that the need is no longer there as it was some years ago, it should consider very seriously the legacy which we, in this period of the late 1970s and early 1980s, will be handing on to other people who will have to deal with these matters in perhaps 10 or 15 years time. Perhaps the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) when he replies can give me some up-to-date information on this. It should be borne in mind that there was a proposal at the Australian Education Council meeting in December 1977 for a cost-sharing arrangement program to be introduced whereby the Commonwealth and the States would share all costs of education. At the present time, tertiary education- universities and colleges of advanced education- are funded wholly by the Commonwealth. A joint sharing arrangement exists already with technical education in schools. As I understand it, a proposal was put by Senator Carrick that there would be some uniform cost-sharing arrangement involving all sectors of education. Some of the States reacted very unfavourably to that information because they felt that a greater financial burden would be placed on them. I do not doubt that if that proposal comes to fruition there will be a greater financial burden on them because the States bearing a greater proportion of financial responsibility, not only in education but in most spheres of government is consistent with the federalism concept. I ask the Minister whether he can advise the Parliament on the position of those negotiations. Is it still the Government’s intention to pursue that proposal of two years ago? It is important for us to know because we know that in July this year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wrote to all the Premiers spelling out very clearly his intention not to maintain the present funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. In the letter to the Tasmanian Premier the Prime Minister said:

I must reiterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula is too generous, - too generous- and make the obvious point that any proposal for continuation in its present form would not be acceptable.

He was referring, of course, to the general purpose payments to the States through tax sharing arrangements under the federalism policy. If in fact the Prime Minister is adamant that that is his position- and everything I know from what I hear of discussions at official levels suggests that he means it- payments to the States in the immediate years ahead will become less generous than they are now which will mean a reduction in real terms. This has very significant implications for education funding by the States. So much of what they are able to do for education, both in recurrent and capital expenditure, is largely dependent on the tax sharing arrangements and Commonwealth payments to the States. I ask the Minister whether he can advise us of the present position. In respect of the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill I move:

In relation to the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Bill I move:

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Senate is debating two State grants measures, the aim of which is to provide the mechanism for the Commonwealth to pass to the States the Commonwealth’s share of funding for both the tertiary system and the schools system. The Bills are similar to other such Bills that are introduced each year. They follow the guidelines of the Government. There has been extensive debate in the Senate on this subject, so I will not weary honourable senators today. Suffice to say that the report which I tabled yesterday entitled Progress in Education 1 979-80 ‘ in respect of the period 1976 to 1979 totally refutes the arguments put up by Senator Wriedt. I wish simply to draw attention to the fact that the conclusions which he has reached are refuted in that document. Moreover, one has only to consider the fact that in government schools the Karmel targets have been achieved at least two years ahead of time and recurrent Federal-State funding has in the last few years risen by some 16-17 per cent in real money terms. To recite these facts- the huge gains that have taken place in technical and further education and the increase in the number of students- is to give a denial of what has been suggested.

I remind the Senate that the triennial system was set aside by the Whitlam Labor Government but has been restored in its current form. I also remind it- however gently in view of the nature of this debate- that the last Budget brought down by the Labor Government reflected a huge cut in funding for education. These Bills are not such as to invite a combative debate. The material that I presented yesterday in regard to the forward steps proposed by the Williams committee, the transition programs and the progress report for the three-year period demonstrates unprecedented forward movement in education- quite the contrary of what has been claimed.

Senator Wriedt suggested that if there were cost-sharing between the Commonwealth and the States the States would be required to carry a greater burden. I find that statement puzzling because, under the former Labor Government, the essence of the Commonwealth’s role in taking over the funding of universities and colleges was marked by one characteristic: The Commonwealth simply deducted what the States had been paying from the States’ share of its tax revenue and said, ‘See, we are clever fellows; we are paying.’ History is against Senator Wriedt in these matters. He addressed a question to me- I do not want to re-open the matter today- as to the position concerning cost sharing. The matter has been discussed between States and Commonwealth and there is a general feeling on the part of the States that they do not wish to alter the present financing arrangements in regard to the three segments of tertiary educationuniversities, colleges and technical and further education. The Commonwealth has before it no proposals to make any such arrangements at all. I believe that the documents that I tabled yesterday provide one of the most dramatic stories of education expansion in the history of Australia and these Bills provide for part of the financing involved. I commend them to the Senate.

Senator Wriedt:

– Does that apply also to the schools? You mentioned only tertiary education where, I take it, such proposals are virtually out now?

Senator CARRICK:

– There is no proposal for any changes at the moment in the arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States. I thought that I had tabled previously statements from the Australian Education Council, which has discussed the matter. The Government rejects the amendments and commends the Bills, in their entirety, to the Senate.

Amendments negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2897

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-The Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1 979 gives us one of the rare opportunities to discuss housing in the Senate. We know that the Government normally brings before the Senate each year legislation to allocate funds from the Commonwealth to the States for public housing. Under the Government’s new formula this matter is not now brought before Parliament for debate. Because these matters are interrelated, we may be able to discuss in the debate on this Bill, which seeks to amend the Home Savings Grant Scheme, the inadequacies of housing in this country, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘The Bill be withdrawn and redrafted because of the failure of the Homes Savings Grant Scheme to assist new home purchasers bridge the deposit gap in the context of rising housing prices, especially in the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Darwin where the Scheme is virtually unworkable’.

The Home Savings Grant Scheme was introduced as a means of helping young people get their feet on the first rung of the ladder of” home ownership. It was introduced by Sir Robert Menzies prior to the 1963 election. Of course conservative governments have updated the scheme from time to time.

The aim of the scheme is not opposed in principle by the Labor Party, and I stress that point. We are concerned, however, that the scheme is not achieving its aim. The Bill before the Senate which seeks to place a new ceiling on the value of homes that qualify for a grant fails to acknowledge the real problems facing home buyers who wish to apply for the home savings grant, especially those in the capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth. But I do not limit my comments just to those cities. I will give figures from the Real Estate Institute of Australia on medium priced housing. My figures will reveal a great disparity in the cost of housing from city to city. The two cities with the worst housing situation are, of course, Sydney and Melbourne, and we know that the great majority of Australians reside in those two cities. The Home Savings Grant Scheme, as it currently operates and as it will operate under the provisions of this Bill, does help some people. But more and more, the price of housing and land in the capital cities, where the majority of the people live, is rising to such a high level and at such a fast rate that the scheme is becoming almost irrelevant.

Let me make the Australian Labor Party’s position clear to those members on the Government side who would ask what the Labor Party proposes to do to improve access to home ownership. We will not abolish the Home Savings Grant Scheme after we gain victory in the 1 980 election. The scheme will not be abolished by us. Possibly the majority of people will contract out of it. We intend to put forward an alternative superior home ownership assistance program to assist low and middle income earners to buy their own homes. Details of that program will be announced at an appropriate time by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden. The Home Savings Grant Scheme will remain an option for those who are presently saving under it. If they can benefit from it and if they want to proceed with it, that is their option. We will permit them to do so, but they will be able to transfer to our new home ownership assistance program which will be much superior. I believe that most people will opt out of the existing scheme and shift to Labor’s new program.

The Home Savings Grant Scheme is just not good enough to meet the problems confronting the people who want to acquire their first home today, particularly young people. I will demonstrate the inadequacies of the Home Savings Grant Scheme in a moment. Firstly, I refer to Labor’s program of helping young people to get their feet on the first rung of the housing ladder in the context of a broad response to the problems facing people on low incomes in terms of basic housing security. These problems are becoming worse every day. They are problems which this Government turns its back on. The Government does not even want to try to control the serious situation that is before us. The housing problem in this country, next to unemployment, is the most serious social problem in this nation. For thousands of people the problem has now reached crisis proportions. There are 30,000 homeless people living in both Sydney and Melbourne. Many thousands of people in other cities and country towns cannot find homes. Some 250,000 people are permanently living in caravan parks. There are 75,000 families on the long waiting list for public housing. Thousands of tenants under private rental housing agreements face eviction because they cannot afford to pay their rent or because the houses have been sold from underneath them.

For all these thousands of people, whose housing security is threatened, there is an urgent need for an expansion of the provision of public rental housing in this country to provide secure accommodation. For those people that will be a major priority in Labor’s public housing policy. Some of the need can be met by the construction of new government dwellings in selected areas by the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing private rental stocks for the use of public housing or from the expansion of emergency accommodation services which at present are able to cater for less than half of those who are making requests. To tackle the problems facing people in need of housing, we need to develop programs on several fronts at once. There is no single program that can solve the many housing problems that this Government has allowed to develop over the years. We need a range of constructive programs for the planning of our cities and country centres.

A home ownership assistance program is one of the ways for a government to assist people in their housing needs. But it is not the only way. The Federal Government has relied too heavily on the Home Savings Grant Scheme as the only response. Of course, as we know, that response has been inadequate. The Government has neglected the need for emergency accommodation. It has reduced the provision of public housing. The housing problems that are now so obvious as a result of the narrowness of the Government’s housing policy and the tightness of its spending priorities are all too evident. One of the reasons we do not discuss each year as a national priority the transfer of funds from Federal Revenue to State for public housing, as has been done since 1947, is that there has been such a substantial reduction in those funds. In 1974- 75, the Labor Government made 3.9 per cent of all government expenditure available to the States for public housing. That amount has been cut to 1.1 per cent of government expenditure this year. That is why the Government does not want to debate the matter. It wants to sweep the matter under the carpet and to keep it hidden.

Let us examine building programs. In 1975- 76, the first half year of this Government’s administration, loans averaging $22,400 a dwelling were approved by banks and building societies in Australia for 134,000 new dwellings.

However, between 1975-76 and 1977-78, the number of new private dwellings fell by 12 per cent while the average value of loans approved rose by 30 per cent. In 1 978-79, loans amounting to $3.5 billion were approved for 118,000 new dwellings in Australia. The average loan was $29,000 a dwelling. The Government tries to suggest that the rise in housing loan approvals from a trough of 1 1 1,000 last year to 1 18,000 this year is a great upward surge. But in 1 975-76, the first year that it came into power, 134,000 new dwellings were approved. Again, the figure for last year was 1 1 8,000. If the Government wants the construction of new dwellings to reach its former level, it is a long way behind. That demonstrates the empty nature of the claims of the Government.

It is true that, in the last 12 months, there has been an upturn in the construction of new dwellings but we have to remember three things: First, new dwelling commencements last year reached their lowest level for 13 years. The decline in building activities has had a large impact on the capacity of the building industry as the Indicative Planning Council has notedin its last two reports. Between August 1 974 and August this year over 60,000 jobs were lost in the building and construction industry. This was caused in a large part by the reduction in this Government’s spending on capital works in health, education and social services. I have already given figures on reduced Government spending on the public housing sector. The industry has also suffered as a result of increasing spending on renovations and repairs to existing housing stock which, in turn, is creating an upward pressure on the price of established housing. The second related point to remember is that the price of housing has risen considerably over the last four years. The apparent upturn in housing construction is now occurring at a price level that is beyond the reach of most single income families. I stress that the real problem facing single income families earning up to 1 35 per cent of average weekly earnings whether they live in Sydney or Melbourne is that they are the victims of an almost impossible system when it comes to acquiring a home. That is a problem that we will have to overcome. This Government is doing nothing at all to overcome the problem.

The third point is that the Government allocated in the 1979-80 Budget less than onethird of the amount of funds which the Labor Government allocated for housing in 1974-75. The present Government’s housing program is a program on the cheap. Not only does it provide a minimal amount of funds to assist home ownership but also does it reduce the size of public housing significantly. In 1974-75, there were just under 20,000 new government dwelling approvals. In 1978-79, there were fewer than 10,000. Some of the State housing commissions are actually selling off more public housing than they are constructing. In Victoria, all of the funds provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement were directed to home purchase, to the neglect of public housing. The Government has a very narrow view of the role of public housing. It seems to think that public housing represents a threat to private enterprise in the housing market. But public housing is one of the few ways that the Government can intervene to plan the use of space in cities. Public housing is a means of ensuring some equity in the area of housing. It should not be an area for profitable exploitation by speculators. Public housing is a lever that the Government can use to contain some of the inflationary pressures in the housing market.

In 1978 there were about 700,000 tenants in Victoria. Only 40,000 rental units were publiclyowned. The expansion of public housing cannot by itself threaten private home ownership. What it can do is to ensure that there is some sanity in the way that governments respond to housing problems. It can take the heat off rising housing prices and therefore make home ownership more accessible to the majority of people, rather than restrict it to a few who can afford the exorbitant prices which exist in this country. Most importantly, public housing can provide the necessary minimum of security for low income earners who are in need of shelter. The decline in public housing is one of the reasons for the escalation of housing prices and rent levels in the major capital cities.

Rising housing prices will be aggravated by the increases in the cost of home building materials, which rose by 5.4 per cent in the year to September 1978, but by double that- by 1 1.4 per cent- in the year to September 1979. The ability of people to buy homes and keep up their repayments will be further restricted by any rise in interest rates. This Government has no policies for responding to these problems. It wasted over $400,000 on a housing allowance voucher experiment. Its housing policy is dangerously narrow. As a result, the needs of many people for shelter are seriously neglected. All of the Government’s efforts in respect of the Home Savings Grant Scheme are inadequate. A problem cannot be solved by attacking it on a single front. It has to be dealt with across the board as a whole.

According to the Real Estate Institute of Australia, the median price of an established home in September 1 979 was $59,000 in Sydney, $49,100 in Melbourne; $39,400 in Perth; $37,500 in Canberra; $34,100 in Adelaide and $32,600 in Brisbane. In Sydney in June 1978 the median price was $42,700. It is now $59,500, a rise of $16,800 or 40 per cent in 15 months. I do not want to put too much stress on the median price. What we are most concerned about are those persons who are trying to get into home ownership on the bottom rung. Their ability to buy a home is constrained by several factors. These include their income, the price of housing, the lending policies, the interest rates of lending institutions and the location of housing.

In the metropolitan area of Sydney the price of housing has been rising on average at $1,000 a month, or 10 per cent every three months. In the inner city areas, housing prices have risen even more rapidly. The people about whom we are concerned are being forced out of these areasareas where jobs are available, where their parents may have resided all their lives, and where the community services and cultural facilities are provided- because they cannot afford to buy homes that are being bought by people on higher incomes. In many metropolitan suburbs, particularly those of Sydney, Melbourne, Darwin and Perth, it is impossible to buy a home for less than $40,000. In those areas which are covered by the Home Savings Grant Scheme, the high cost of housing makes the Scheme almost useless.

The Government argues that about 60 per cent of home purchases in 1978-79 that attracted some grant, which on average was $1,100, were homes priced below $35,000. According to the figures the Government has provided, a sizable majority of home buyers eligible for grants bought homes at about that price, particularly in Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland. In Victoria, 4 1 .2 per cent of homes purchased under the Scheme were below $35,000. In Sydney, 22 per cent of eligible housing purchases were above $40,000. On the whole, 20 per cent of homes purchased under the Scheme in 1 978-79 were valued above $40,000. 1 also point out that pressures are causing prices in Sydney to rise at about $1,000 a month. The value limit on the price of homes eligible under the Home Savings Grants Scheme operates nationally to reduce grant recipients by about 20 per cent. In normal circumstances, the Labor Party would support the application of some type of means test so that the priority funds could be directed to those in need. Normally, the Labor Party would support that concept, but there are unusual circumstances at the moment created by the Government’s negative economic and housing policies.

The people most affected by rising housing prices are those who are renting. The Home Savings Grants Scheme does not begin to address the needs of people who have no security of shelter. The Scheme is not very useful to those people on single, low and middle incomes up to around $15,000 a year who are trying to purchase a home. A single income family on an income below $ 1 5,000 a year is virtually excluded from the Scheme. The people who can make most use of the Scheme are single persons on high incomes and young couples on two incomes. But there is a sizable group of needy people whom the Scheme does not help at all. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard two tables setting out a person’s ability to purchase a home in New South Wales. The tables have been prepared on request by the Parliamentary Library Research Service. The first table shows the situation for people obtaining a housing loan from the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The second table shows the situation for people obtaining a loan through a permanent building society. I passed these tables to the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster), who is at the table, but I am not sure whether they have reached him yet.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

The PRESIDENT:

– May I comment that in respect of requests for incorporation of material, I have been concerned at the extent of some of the incorporations. It is not desired to inhibit or restrict incorporations, but 1 ask my colleagues to remember that the incorporation of material, particularly statistics and figures, in large volume presents problems at times. I make that comment and suggest co-operation in that regard. As I have said before, it is not desired to restrict incorporations, as far as that is possible.

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate for that courtesy. Table 1 shows that for a person on a gross annual income of $12,000 a year, that is, about average weekly earnings, the maximum mortgage obtainable from the Commonwealth Savings Bank is $26,250. The full home savings grant of $2,000 covers the stamp duty and legal fees and leaves a remainder of about $500 to put towards the purchase of the home, If a person saved 1 5 per cent of his or her weekly income, it would take him or her five years to raise the $8,259 deposit required to obtain the loan. But by that time the price of a house in Sydney would have risen to well over $45,000. What about the family on an annual income of $8,000? We have to remember that 70 per cent of wage earners receive an income less than average weekly earnings. For a person on $8,000, the maximum mortgage available from a permanent building society is $17,600.

Table 2 shows that a person saving 15 percent of his or her income would have to save for 1 7 years to get the deposit of $16,439 required to obtain a loan. The homes savings grant is not of much help to people on those incomes. It does not help the home seekers to bridge the deposit gap and it does not bring a home within their economic means. Let us consider the case of a single income family in a Sydney suburb receiving a gross income of $ 10,000 and wishing to buy an average home in that area for $45,000. Even if the family saved 20 per cent of its income it would take 1 5 years to save the required deposit. Mr President, after your request a moment ago, I am not sure whether I should do this, but I seek leave to incorporate in

Hansard one further table showing the deposit gap for persons on average weekly earnings seeking to purchase a mediumpriced home in the five capital cities as at June 1979.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate. This table shows the inequity that exists between the different capital cities to such an extent that the situation in Sydney at present is that a person would need something like 200 per cent of average weekly earnings to buy a medium-priced dwelling. This is a long term problem that has been created by the Government. It is doing nothing to overcome the problem. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Robertson:

– I second the amendment.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-The Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill is fairly straightforward and it provides for the implementation of the policy decision which was announced on 25 May this year. I do not wish to go over a lot of historical information, but suffice to say that since 1964 about 130,000 families have been assisted and about $100m has been provided for the scheme. It has been successful. It has not been without weaknesses and I do not guarantee that even now it is not without some weaknesses, but it does provide assistance for those who need it.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide a value limit. I support this proposition although I recognise that the value of homes varies between States and between city and country areas and that various applicants are not treated in entirely the same way. My colleague, Senator Kilgariff, who represents the Northern Territory, can demonstrate the particular disadvantages of his area. I will certainly take up these matters with the responsible Minister in the form that the honourable senator has given them to me to see what can be done.

It seems to me that we should be doing all we can to encourage people to develop the outback areas such as the area which Senator Kilgariff represents. I believe that this is one of the schemes that may be able to be varied in some way to provide some assistance. I completely support that proposition. As honourable senators will know, the scheme provided $20m last year and $75m this year. Whilst I was never satisfied that the Home Savings Grants Scheme was the best scheme for assisting home ownership, it certainly has a considerable amount of merit, and I support it. It is part of a much wider housing assistance operation and is only one of the things that I believe are important in the housing of people who are trying to get homes. It is directed specifically to those people who have made an effort to try to put some funds together to become home owners. It does breach the gap that exists.

I regret that I cannot allow all of the comments that Senator Colston made to go by. Whilst he provided a lot of information, a considerable amount of that information was so far from being correct, and so much of it was provided in a manner that I believe demonstrated the reverse of the case he was putting, that it concerns me, if that is what he really believes the situation to be. The best comparison I can make is a comparison between the housing situation now and the situation when I came to this place in 1976. In spite of the percentages that Senator Colston may have cited, I did not near him compare the costs of materials now to what they were in 1974-75. 1 did not hear him compare the costs of wage rises in 1974-75 with those since. I did not hear him mention the increases in prices due to inflation then and since, nor the fact that over the last two or three years finance has become more readily and steadily available. I should add that housing interest rates have either stabilised or reduced universally, and that now we have largely overcome the over-run situation that arose in the heat of the moment, building activity is up again, as is employment in most areas- although my great regret is that it is certainly not up in Tasmania.

Housing involves money. The private sector, which was overlooked by Senator Colston, provides the vast majority of funds for housing. The public sector performs only a topping-up operation. In such an operation careful thought should be given to the areas where the needs are greatest. Activity in the public sector can do either so much good or so much harm. Over a period we have seen huge volumes of money totally wasted on tying up huge areas of land in various States. In some cases, land has been tied up with no prospect of its being used within 60 or 70 years. It will never be worth what it is now worth on the accounts of those States holding it. We have to see that we get the greatest possible utilisation of the public funding that is necessary for housing. Some States absolutely refuse to get their money revolving and they tie it up in houses and land. Many more people could be housed if this money were freed and directed towards homes for purchase. We want to see as many people as possible given the opportunity to buy. We want welfare funds to go to the people who need it. We do not want to see them spent on boats, caravans and such things, as much of the money is being spent now.

Some States recognise this and have excellent home purchase schemes for first home buyers. Western Australia and Victoria have schemes that I know particularly well, and Senator Kilgariff has given me details of the Northern Territory scheme, which will be of considerable assistance to people of the Territory and provide far better housing value than is available in other States. The Government wishes to make everybody independent of the Government if possible, so its tendency is to finance schemes that will get people away from being dependent on the Government. In my own State the tendency has been to make more and more people dependent and it has produced very disastrous results to both the building industry and home buyers. I wish to incorporate three tables.

Senator Tate:

– Is this proof of that statement?

Senator ARCHER:

– I have cleared these documents with the Opposition Whip and they will demonstrate clearly what I am talking about, if the honourable senator will restrain himself. One of these schedules shows the relative assistance provided by the States into helping occupants of government homes become home owners, and which States provide it and which do not. The second document demonstrates how the sale of houses relates to the funds received and the relativity between the States. The third document demonstrates the effects of the policies on the numbers of people seeking government assistance in rental accommodation. I seek leave to incorporate those documents.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

(Question No. 1830)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many houses financed under the States Grants Housing Act 1971 and previous legislation were sold during each year from 1973-74 to 1978-79.
  2. How much of the money thus collected has been released and re-invested in further housing.
Senator Webster:

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

The following data were supplied by the State Housing Authority in each State:

New South Wales

  1. 1 ) The number of houses financed from funds from the States Grants Housing Act 1971 and previous Commonwealth-State Housing Agreements which was sold during the years 1973-74 to 1978-79 is as follows: 1974-75-940; 1975-76-1,249; 1976-77-974; 1977-78-108 and 1978-79-265.
  2. A specific answer is not available. Part of the money collected was used for repayments of principal and interest to the Commonwealth and the remainder for purposes duly authorised by New South Wales Housing Act 1912-75 and Housing Act 1941-75, and having the approval of the State Government. The principal such purpose would be the construction of new housing for eligible applicants to the Housing Commission.

Victoria

  1. 1 ) The number of houses financed from funds from the States Grants Housing Act 1971 and the previous Commonwealth/State Housing Agreements which was sold during the years 1973-74 to 1978-79 is as follows: 1974-75-1,484; 1975-76-1,160; 1976-77-1,520; 1977-78-933 and 1978-79-538.
  2. A specific answer is not available. In general, as the great majority of houses sold were on a terms basis, such additional funds that were generated would have been reinvested in housing.

Queensland

  1. 1 ) The number of houses financed from funds from the States Grants Housing Act 1971 and previous Commonwealth/State Housing Agreements which was sold during the years 1 973-74 to 1978-79 is as follows: 1974-75-1,305; 1975-76-591; 1976-77-779; 1977-78-573 and 1978-79-330.
  2. All monies returned were re-used on welfare housing.

South Australia

  1. 1 ) The total number of rental houses sold by the South Australia Housing Trust during the years 1973-74 to 1978-79 is as follows: 1974-75-129; 1975-76-142; 1976-77-126; 1977-78-126 and 1978-79-134.

In supplying this information the Trust was not able to distinguish readily between dwellings financed under the States Grants Housing Act 1971 or previous Commonwealth-State Agreements and those financed under other arrangements.

  1. A specific answer is not available. It is the policy of the South Australian Housing Trust to re-invest monies received from the sale of rental houses into its building program.

Western Australia

  1. The number of houses financed under the States Grants Housing Act 1971 and previous Commonwealth/State Housing Agreements which was sold during the years 1973-74 to 1978-79 is as follows: 1974-75-364; 1975-76-608; 1976-77-733; 1977-78-103 and 1978-79-72.
  2. All monies so collected were re-invested in further housing.

Tasmania

  1. 1 ) The number of houses financed from funds from the States Grants Housing Act 1971 and previous Commonwealth/State Housing Agreements which was sold during the years 1973-74 to 1978-79 is as follows:

1974-75-44; 1975-76-15; 1976-77-3; 1977-78-2

and 1978-79-7.

  1. All funds received were re-invested in housing.
Senator ARCHER:

-The tables I have incorporated clearly demonstrate that the States whose policies involve home ownership and which do help people certainly have reduced their assistance waiting lists most. Tasmania, with the poorest record of home ownership assistance, also has the poorest record in waiting list reductions. The Bill does assist those modestly saving to become home owners and, if supplemented by the private sector and appropriate Government policies, will be an overall improvement where improvement is most desirable. I support the Bill.

Sitting suspended from 1.2 to 2.15 p.m.

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

– The Senate is debating the Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1979. 1 thank the senators from the Opposition and Senator Archer who spoke generally in support of this Bill. I recognise that Senator Colston indicated that the Opposition has some idea of producing a home savings grants scheme when it comes into office. I think it is well to note that while the Opposition was in office it was not particularly attracted by this type of scheme. But we as a government have held firmly to the view that we should support first home buyers and, indeed, this has been of enormous value to the community.

As a Minister I am particularly proud of the fact that we review the legislation and amend it in this particular year. The Government rejects the amendment proposed by the Opposition. The amendment recognises some problem in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Darwin, but the community is much larger than those four cities. We believe generally that the home savings grant is of considerable assistance to first home buyers. The amount of $2,000 is a substantial contribution towards the deposit on a home. I do not think that the comment made by Senator Colston is really supported by the facts.

I tabled an interim statement on the operations of the home savings grant earlier this year which indicates that for first home buyers in Sydney, 73 per cent bought homes for less than $40,000. In Melbourne the figure was 69 per cent. I think if those facts are compared with those that the Opposition has put forward, the Opposition’s case falls to the ground. The majority of people qualifying for grants are young married couples, buying moderately priced homes. The new value limit will enable assistance under the scheme to be continued to those people. I have the greatest pleasure in recommending to the Senate that the Bill be now read a second time.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2907

PATENTS AMENDMENT (PATENT COOPERATION TREATY) BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The Opposition intends to move an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. I move:

At the end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate calls upon the Government to take the steps necessary to develop complementary legislation aimed at achieving the potential benefits to Australia of accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty, including measures which would-

increase significantly indigenous industrial research and development activity in Australia, and

prohibit restrictive practices related to patents and licences, as recommended by, among others, the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment in its report on Industrial Research and Development in Australia’.

This legislation flows from Australia’s membership of the Patent Cooperation Treaty. That Treaty has about 25 signatories, including the United States and major countries in the European Common Market. I suppose it could be said that Australia’s annexation to membership does have its advantages. Probably budding or proven inventors will get some service from the searching and examining authorities. There is also the question of uniform recognition of patents. Honourable senators will note that the amendment tries to give the impression that the enactment of this legislation will simply not be the be-all and end-all. As a matter of fact, in respect of the marketing of technology, Australia spends $70m a year purchasing such industrial know-how but exports only about $9m-worth.

I do not know whether all members of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment share my view, but I believe that one of the problems we have to live with is the advent of the multinational company. The best way I can describe the situation is to apply to some of this locking up of technological knowhow the analogy of a football team which signs a full complement of players and then signs up another six but keeps them in second grade. I do not think this applies generally, but it does apply in strategic areas. I emphasise that theme because I just believe that, whatever we will gain by this legislation, it is essential that it is fully adhered to.

Whilst some of the witnesses who appeared before the Senate Committee in question tried to give the impression that the objects and aims of multinationals do not cut across the desires of a country, there is no doubt that those assertions remain unproven. It may be that in some areas there is a sort of mutual agreement, but there is no doubt that in other areas the situation is not quite the same. We have seen enough of the lack of, I suppose, moral standards in board room battles to know that if a technological breakthrough undercuts the method of production of a particular country multinationals will nobble whatever inventions they wish anywhere at all. I do not say that with sour grapes, as is indicated by the fact that we are seeking to amend only the motion that the Bill be now read a second time and are not opposing the Bill. We just feel that the Australian Government is tentatively joining this association of nations and that the Treaty in no way gives to Australian inventors all the protection that we suggest they should have. I know that today we have a difficult problem when people feel aggrieved- we have such a situation concerning the compensation to the Dillingham corporation in respect of Fraser Island- and that countries get fairly apprehensive when they talk to multinationals. I know- the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) would know better than I dothat the fact that the United States, with us, is supposed to be part of the free world does not mean that the Dillingham corporation is prepared to accept the initial compensation that the Government offered it. Without straying too far from the Bill, it is because of that sort of attitude that I remain unconvinced about membership of this body together with the European Economic Community nations and the United States of America. I would like to believe that the Australian delegate will probe this association to the full. As I said earlier, one is a bit diffident if one has to go to the International Court of Justice, or some other agency, and then finds a powerful government alongside a particular multinational.

That aside, the final report from the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment in relation to research and development makes it obvious that Australians want more encouragement in this technological battle. The people who pioneered the modern scanner apparatus gave public evidence to this Committee and said that Government aid was very limited. They were trying to avoid the minefields of international copyrights. Without naming anyone, they got to the stage where they lacked a couple of thousand dollars. It just happened that an in-law of one of the partners in this company made a killing at the trots. It seems incredible that the fate of an Australian invention was finally determined on a trotter coming home at Harold Park in Sydney.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What did it pay?

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I do not know what the dividend was. I do not bet on the gallopers or the trotters but I am not a puritan and I realise that those things have a place in society. I now say simply that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) should accept this amendment to the motion. After all, we are only asking for ratification of the views of the Senate Standing Committee headed by Senator Jessop, a Government senator.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I second the amendment.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

-In speaking to the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Bill I wish to emphasise that the Australian patent system has recently seen many innovations designed to ensure that it provides a reasonable incentive for invention and research and, at the same time, encourages a rapid and effective dissemination of technological information. Since June 1978 there have been three major legislative changes in the patents area. These changes have been necessary to keep pace with changes in industry.

The first legislative change to which I wish to refer was the Patents Amendment Bill 1978. The purpose of that Bill was to reduce the period in which technological information in patent document could not be made available to the public. This brought the publication date into conformity with that adopted by most other countries. The second legislative change was the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 1978. The Trade Marks Act 1955 provided for the registration and the statutory protection of marks used to distinguish the services provided by traders and persons engaged in business from the services provided by other businesses or persons. The amending Bill sought to bring the trademarks used in relation to services into line with the marks used for goods.

The most important legislative change occurred with the Patents Amendment Bill 1979 which sought to introduce a system of petty patents protection. That system was designed to provide short term protection which could be available in circumstances in which the applicant sought a quick, inexpensive and more readily obtained method on a short term basis. So that was intended to provide a mechanism which was specifically adapted to provide a protection for the simpler mechanical-type inventions which could be exploited by manufacturing industry and which were readily available, but which had a short term life or a short term commercial operation.

The Minister for Productivity, Mr Macphee, in his wisdom decided to effect certain changes to the patents system and sought a comprehensive review of it. As a result of Mr Macphee ‘s recommendations, an ongoing committee on industrial property was set up for the first time in Australia. This Committee is referred to as the Industrial Property Advisory Committee. Its purpose is to advise the Minister on matters concerning industrial property, of which the Patents Amendment Bill 1979-the petty patents Billwas one example. So it was set up for the main purpose of reflecting the views of Australian industry and to increase the effectiveness of the system of contributing to industrial exploitation of new technology by Australian industry and encouraging industrial research and development within Australia.

The Bill before us today actually seeks to amend the Patents Act 1 952 to provide accession by Australia to the Patent Cooperation Treaty. The PCT is an agreement for international cooperation in the field of patents and, most specifically, in the procedure for the protection of inventions and for the provision of technological information relating to such patents. As such, it seeks to eliminate much of the duplication of effort in the present system and obviates, therefore, the necessity for separate filing and consideration of applications in each of the countries in which the protection is sought. It assists not only the applicants but also the countries with which the applications are sought to be registered, particularly in the developing countries.

The flow of technological information is assured, not only by the patents that may be granted but also by their publication. This system provides a valuable bank of technological information, also the Patent Cooperation Treaty Countries automatically receive the PCT publications without charge. Therefore, it not only improves the access of the public to information, but also fosters and accelerates economic development. The whole purpose is to achieve a system of simplification and rationalisation which is provided by the system of standardisation of application requirements in each of the countries which participate in the Treaty to the extent that the applicants which are recognised in one country are also recognised in every other participating country in which the patent applicant desires protection.

There is a view by some people that patents should be a mere aggregation of individual private rights. This is probably an historic view and it ignores the capability of patents to contribute to national economic development. I commend this Bill to the Senate as a further step forward in bringing the patents system into line with changes in industrial research and thus promoting national development.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their speedy consideration of the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Bill. I thank Senator Watson for his support of it. For the reasons indicated by the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) in the House of Representatives, the Government does not propose to accept the amendment, which calls upon the Government to take certain steps which the Opposition says are necessary to develop complementary legislation. As was indicated in the House of Representatives and in a news release dated 15 November 1979 put out by the Minister for Productivity, the Industrial Property Advisory Committee has been asked to examine the effectiveness of the patents system in encouraging the adoption of new technology by Australia. It will also look at how the system aids or inhibits Australian inventions and the transfer of technology to Australia.

The reference to the Committee is a broad one and encompasses the areas of concern which have been raised by the Opposition. It is the view of the Government that this report is an appropriate step to be taken at this stage in respect of the matters of concern in the area of patents. I should mention, in case honourable senators are not aware, that the Industrial Property Advisory Committee is very broadly based. It comprises representatives from industry, the Department of Productivity, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, an economist, a lawyer, a patent attorney and the Commissioner of Patents. A fair spread of interests is involved. I commend the Bill to the Senate and hope that it will get a speedy passage.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I rise to express surprise at the refusal of the Government to accept the amendment. The amendment shows that every senator on this side of the House supports the Bill. The Opposition has expressed the opinion that the Senate should call upon the Government to do certain things. Would any individual in the Government parties disagree with what the Government has been called upon to do? The first part of the amendment calls upon the Government to increase significantly indigenous industrial research and development activity in Australia. Is anyone opposed to that? The second part of the amendment calls upon the Government to prohibit restrictive practices related to patents and licences. Is anyone opposed to that? Is the amendment not a good expression of our beliefs?

The important thing is that the steps which the Government has been called upon to take were recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. I have not been a great supporter of the standing committee system, but if the Senate appoints standing committees and puts them forward as a great innovation of the chamber it should not reject committee proposals. The second reading stage of the Bill has been agreed to by the Senate. We are so bound to a system of Executive control that we cannot accept decisions made by our committees. We are not a separate House; we are part of the Executive control system. We cannot express an opinion. No one genuinely could oppose the two expressions of opinion contained in the amendment. The Executive system simply prevents the Senate from agreeing to those opinions. We are condemning the decisions of our own creation because we are involved in a system whereby we have to accept what the Government says as correct and have to go along with it.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-As Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment I have an interest in this matter. I think that Senator Cavanagh will find that the Bill is a preliminary step to following up matters which the honourable senator discussed in his speech. In the course of the Committee’s undertaking this inquiry and examining the whole position of industrial research and development it had quite a bit of evidence from patent attorneys and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on the patent system in Australia. The Patent Cooperation Treaty recognises the universal requirement of patent validity and that this depends on whether the related invention is generally new. The basis on which the invention is judged is essentially the same in every country. Accordingly, when patent protection is sought in several countries, each patent office carries out very similar investigations. This duplication is eliminated through the establishment under the Treaty of a limited number of patent offices which undertake these investigations.

Under the Treaty which we are considering six patent offices are designated as international searching authorities. Following accession to the Treaty the Australian Patent Office is to become both a searching and a preliminary examination authority. This is probably one of the reasons why this piece of legislation is being brought forward. The publication of details of patents granted is one of the principal factors in any patent system because this facilitates the avoidance of patent infringement and provides information to industry permitting exploitation of inventions on the expiry of the patent. There are approximately one million new patent documents generated world wide which cover about 400,000 different inventions. Procedures under the PCT will have to operate cheaply, efficiently and quickly to deal with these 400,000 inventions. If this is achieved the Treaty could provide a useful source of technical knowledge for Australia.

International patent information- INPADOC, I think it is commonly known as- is currently available in Australia, but access to this is very expensive and is not easy, in some instances. The Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) has reminded me that the Patent Office has acquired the systems to facilitate access to INPADOC and that in applying those systems under the Treaty, the Patent Office will develop improved access techniques.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Tell me why you did not support the amendment to the motion for the second reading and endorse the decisions of your Committee?

Senator JESSOP:

– I do not want to get into a protracted argument. I now want to incorporate in Hansard letters from me, as the Committee Chairman, and replies from the Minister for Productivity on the subject. Perhaps those letters will provide Senator Cavanagh with further information and explain our concern in the matter.

Leave granted.

The letters read as follows- 13 September 1979

Telex AA62326

The Hon. Ian Macphee, M.P., Minister for Productivity, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Minister,

Patents Amendment ( PCT) Act 1 979

Section S.3 of my Committee’s recent report on Industrial Research and Development in Australia discusses patents. From evidence presented to the inquiry, the Committee came to the conclusion that the alleged benefits of Australia’s patent system are open to serious question. It went on to say that a strong case can be made as far as international treaties will allow, for an examination of the Australian patent system with a view to its realignment with national interest. There are quite good reasons for believing that accession by Australia to the Patents Co-operation Treaty (PCT) may well be contrary to the national interest.

Australia is a net importer of technology and is likely to continue to be so for many years. Of approximately 1 1,000 patent applications filed in Australia each year, only 1,000 are of Australian origin whilst the remaining 10,000 originate overseas. Each year many thousands of inventions are developed, the owners of which do not consider it worthwhile to seek protection in Australia. These inventions may accordingly be used by Australians without payment of overseas royalty. Through the Australian Patent Information Service (APIS), Australians can obtain information on overseas inventions. In particular, the APIS enables Australians to determine which inventions are not protected by an Australian patent. Please note, however, that my Committee recommended that access to patent information should be improved.

At present the method of obtaining an Australian patent is such that Australians are advantaged compared with overseas applicants. Even so, 90 per cent of Australian patents are granted to foreigners. Australian accession to the PCT will almost certainly reverse this situation with foreign applicants being advantaged vis-a-vis Australians. Therefore the probable result of Australian accession to PCT is a greatly increased number of Australian patents granted to overseas applicants. In consequence fewer inventions will be freely available for use by Australians.

One could argue in favour of the Bill that Australian accession to the PCT will make it easier for Australians to obtain foreign patents. However, out of 1,000 individuals and firms which file Australian patent applications in any year, only about 300 apply for foreign patents. This small number would not appear to outweigh the advantages of free access to overseas patent information.

It is argued that Australian accession to the PCT will assist in the transfer of technology to this country. This is a most dubious proposition. Improved access to overseas patent information is probably of much greater assistance.

In consequence of the above I believe that further careful consideration of the whole matter is warranted before the Bill introduced on 28 August becomes law. In your second reading speech you say that “without exception Australian industry has appreciated the benefits to be obtained from participation in the Treaty and expressed unqualified support for Australian accession”. I regret that my Committee would find it difficult to agree that this statement truly reflected the considered views of all representatives of industry. May I therefore, with the greatest respect, urge you before proceeding further with this Bill, to consider most carefully section S.3 of my Committee’s report on Industrial Research and Development in Australia. In particular, may I again draw your attention to page 139 where we say “Australia’s present patent system may well be acting against the country’s best interests. Once again absence of any clear policy or plan for national industrial development makes it very difficult to know where our best interests may lie. Even so, a review of our patent system in the light of the situation with respect to IR&D is clearly indicated. The Committee accordingly recommends that the Minister for Productivity undertake an examination of both the national and international relevance of present patent laws and agreements to Australian IR&D and the importation of technology”.

Action on this recommendation should be completed and the situation clearly understood before seriously contemplating Australian accession to the PCT.

Yours sincerely,

(D. S. JESSOP) CHAIRMAN

Minister for Productivity Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T.2600 5 October 1979

Senator D. S. Jessop, Chairman,

Australian Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T.2600

Dear Senator,

Your letter of 13 September 1979, drawing my attention to your Committee’s Report on Industrial Research and Development in Australia and requesting deferment of Australian accession to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) until the completion of the review of the patent system recommended in the Report, raises a number of extremely important issues. In view of the Committee’s conclusions on the effects of the patent system, I appreciate your concern with the question of Australian accession to the PCT. I have therefore taken the opportunity to reply to your letter in some detail.

I would point out that I gave careful consideration to the submissions critical of the Australian patent system which were presented to your Committee and the conclusions which it reached in the light of these submissions before introducing the Bill. In my view, although those submissions have a superficial plausibility, they reflect an approach to the patent system which is inherently unsound. For that reason, I made a particular point in my Second Reading Speech of explaining in detail the significance of Australian accession to the PCT in relation to the operation of the patent system and the benefits to Australian industry from participation in the operation of the Treaty. I believe that speech presents a more objective and accurate evaluation of the Australian patent system than that submitted to your Committee and I hope therefore that your Committee will give careful consideration before it adopts a concluded approach to the Bill.

Before discussing the particular issues referred to in your letter, I would express my concern with your remark that your Committee would find it difficult to accept that the statement in my speech that “without exception Australian industry has appreciated the benefits to be obtained from participation in the Treaty and expressed unqualified support for Australian accession” reflected the considered views of all representatives of industry. I trust that remark reflects an unawareness of the investigations conducted prior to the introduction of the Bill rather than a commitment to a preconceived assessment of its impact.

The fact of the matter is that the question of Australian accession to the PCT was widely publicised amongst interested parties and the attitude of industry sought well before accession was authorised by Cabinet. Responses were received from organisations widely representative of various sectors of Australian industry, including the Confederation of Australian Industry, Australian Manufacturers’ Patent, Industrial Designs, Copyright and Trade Mark Association, the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Association of Australia and the Australian Industrial Research Group, as well as individual Australian companies, both large and small, including BHP, AWA, APM Ltd, Simpson Pope Ltd and Alcan Australia Ltd. Although some non-industry bodies opposed accession, every response from industry, without exception, expressed unqualified support for early Australian accession. As the essential function of the patent system is to assist Australian industry and as accession to the PCT is intended to improve the operation of that system, I think it is essential that, if your Committee is to form a considered view of the Bill, it should be clearly aware of that response by industry.

As you correctly state in your letter, approximately 90 per cent of the 1 1,000 Australian patents granted annually in Australia, are granted to overseas patentees, notwithstanding that the present diversity of patent laws significantly advantages Australian applicants. Moreover, despite the high proportion of overseas applicants for Australian patents, numerically such applicants constitute only a small proportion of the applicants for patents in other countries. As a result, a large number of inventions, the subject of overseas patents, are freely available to Australian industry though publication of overseas patent documents in Australia.

One objective of the PCT is to rationalise patent application procedures, thereby facilitating foreign participation. Australian accession will therefore assist Australian inventors in obtaining foreign patents and, conversely, correspondingly assist foreign inventors in obtaining Australian patents. You acknowledge in your letter the benefits for the present relatively small number of Australian inventors in obtaining overseas protection but believe that increased foreign participation in the Australian patent system as a result of the PCT will disadvantage Australian industry by reducing the present free access to overseas inventions. It follows from that view that the foreign participation disadvantages Australian industry. I consider such view to be incorrect.

As I explained more fully in my Second Reading Speech, the essential basis of a patent system is to assist indigenous industrial development by enabling local industry to exploit new technological developments, initially, by the provision of an economic environment within which to create a commercial market by excluding competition through the grant of a patent and, subsequently, by the disclosure of the necessary information enabling industry generally to fully utilise those developments on the expiry of the patent.

When that basic fact is appreciated, it is clear that the nationality of a patentee is totally irrelevant to the operation of a patent system. Moreover, the increased utilisation of the patent system through the inclusion of overseas inventions contributes significantly to the effectiveness of the system. It is of course true that inadequate exploitation of patented technology can inhibit technological development. Such failure, however, is an abuse of a patent monopoly for which the Patents Act provides remedies by the grant of compulsory licences to interested parties or, in appropriate circumstances, by the revocation of the patent.

It is extremely difficult to quantify the precise extent to which a patent system contributes to innovation or to identify the specific casual relationships between patents and national development. The fact is, however, that those countries with the most extensively utilised patent systems have the greatest degree of industrial development and in all such countries an increasing utilisation of their patent system has accompanied their increasing level of development. Almost without exception, in every one of those countries, foreign participation constitutes a major source of the patents granted each year.

Overseas inventions constitute the major source of new technology and I believe that the increased utilisation of the Australian patent system by the inclusion of those inventions will significantly facilitate the transfer of overseas developed technology to this country. As I stated, I believe the provision of that assistance is a major function of the patent system and the failure to exploit it seriously diminishes the effectiveness of the patent system.

Your Committee’s conclusion that Australia’s present patent system may well be acting against the country’s best interests, raises a broader issue than the effects of foreign participation since it implies that the grant of patents generally may inhibit industrial development. So far as I am aware, there is no evidence to support that contention and the parallel development of patent activity and industrialisation strongly suggests otherwise. Your Committee may be interested to know that following a recent Court decision, patent protection in Italy will be extended to pharmaceuticals. In a paper in this subject, the Director of the Italian Patent Office noted that the absence of patent protection had condemned the Italian pharmaceutical industry to trail along behind foreign firms by simply copying their products without making any serious research effort. According to the Director, the most qualified Italian firms have been asking for many years for the patent system to be extended to pharmaceutical products and that the provision of such protection will stimulate research.

Although I cannot agree with your Committee’s conclusions on the questionable value of the Australian patent system and the desirability of deferring accession to the PCT, its recommendation for a review of the Australian patent sysetm is well taken. Overseas patent systems, as evidenced by the European Patent Convention and the Community Patent Convention, have been undergoing major development. Moreover, developing countries have developed an intense interest in exploiting patents as a means of accelerating technology transfer to those countries, as evidenced by their initiative in revising the major international industrial property agreement ( the Paris Convention ). I believe those developments indicate that the Australian patent system contains considerable potential for improvement as a mechanism for increasing industrial development and encouraging industrial research and development by Australian companies.

In the circumstances, I consider that there are no valid grounds for deferring Australian accession to the PCT and considerable benefits to be gained by early accession.

Although your letter indicates that your Committee presently holds an opposite view on that question, I trust that the explanation provided in this somewhat lengthy reply and in my Second Reading Speech will convince both you and the members of your Committee of the correctness of my point of view.

Notwithstanding any divergence of views, I believe your Committee’s concern with the patent system to be wholly beneficial in as much as the significance of the patent system in fostering technological development in Australia has been widely unappreciated and its role largely ignored.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Macphee 18 October 1979

Telex AA62326

The Hon. Ian Macphee, M.P., Minister for Productivity, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Minister,

Patents Amendment (PCT) Act 1979

Thank you for your letter of 5 October 1979 concerning the Patents Amendment (PCT) Act 1979. Your letter was considered at a meeting of my Committee members on 17 October 1979 at which appreciation was expressed for the detailed care you have given to responding to their apprehension that accession to the Patent Co-operation Treaty (PCT) may not be in the best national interest.

I must say at once that the Committee has at no time arrived at, nor expressed, a settled opinion for or against the Act, rather it has heard arguments of sufficient weight to give pause for further examination and reflection before making a firm commitment. Your letter has in large measure allayed the doubts felt by the committee members. They feel that if their comments in the report on ‘Industrial Research and Development in Australia’ and my letter of 13 September 1979 have assisted in stimulating a review of the patents system, then one of their major objectives has been attained.

May I suggest however, that review of the significance and application of the patent system in Australian technological development should, like development itself, be an ongoing process. It forms an important element in the formulation of national policies for science and technology.

In this connection I feel that much more yet needs to be done to ensure that Australians are provided with quick, easy and cheap access to information on overseas patents. May I therefore redraw your attention to recommendation 41 of the report on ‘Industrial Research and Development in Australia’. This proposes that you ‘examine the situation with respect to searches of overseas patents with a view of establishing a system to improve access to INPADOC information’.

If access to overseas patent information could be made really easy for Australians, then any remaining unease about the PCT would be almost completely dispelled. I think the benefits improved access could bring to Australian industry are well and widely appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

  1. S. JESSOP Chairman

Minister for Productivity Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 31 October 1979

Senator D. S. Jessop

Chairman Australian Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Senator Jessop

Your letter of 1 8 October indicating your Committee ‘s response to my previous reply concerning the Patents Amendment (PCT) Bill is greatly appreciated. As I explained in that reply, I believe that, in enabling early Australian participation in the PCT, the Bill significantly increases the potential of the Australian patent system for assisting technological development in Australia.

As you know, the Bill is one of a number of recent changes in the patents legislation introducing major developments in the Australian patent system. It is therefore appropriate that a review of the patents system be initiated in order to evaluate the collective impact of the various individual changes. The recommendation of your Committee that a comprehensive review of the patent system be undertaken is therefore particularly timely.

I would point out that the review I have proposed will be the first involving an evaluation of the Australian patent system as a mechanism for technological development. As such, it will involve extended consideration of the practical effects of the system on Australian industry. Approximately $7m is invested annually in official fees in obtaining and maintaining patent protection. The patent system is therefore clearly one of the major elements of a national policy for technology, notwithstanding that its significance in this respect is not yet widely appreciated.

A review of the kind I envisage will inevitably disclose specific areas requiring investigation and thus act as a catalyst in generating further inquiry. Accordingly, I see the review as essentially an ongoing process as you suggest.

Finally, in re-directing my attention to recommendation 41 in your Committee’s report on Industrial Research and Development in Australia you note the need for much more to be done to ensure that Australians are provided with quick, easy and cheap access to information on overseas patents. It is apparently not fully appreciated that the provision of efficient access in Australia to foreign patent documents was one of the considerations for Australian accession to the PCT. In negotiating early Australian participation in the Treaty, the Australian Patent Office obtained authorisation to act as an International Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority under the Treaty. As a Searching Authority, the Patent Office is required to provide for Australian applicants technical information derived from the patent documents of all major countries as well as certain technical periodical literature. To fulfil that commitment, the Patent Office has acquired a number of INPADOC systems providing access to international patent documentation and in using those systems under the PCT the Office will be continually developing improved access techniques. Suitable techniques are currently under development. The expertise acquired from operating as a Searching Authority and the techniques developed will be available for exploitation by other Australian users.

The sheer volume of current documentation makes the problem of providing effective access extremely complex. The value of the rationalisation obtained through international co-operation, as is provided by the PCT, may be better appreciated when it is realised that the current difficulties in obtaining access to foreign patent documents originally arose from the failure of patent offices to accept a collectively uniform system in classifying patent documents and opt instead for individually different national systems. The futility of that approach becomes even more obvious when it is realised that each patent office was classifying patent documents for the same purpose.

Information retrieval from international patent documents is an essential element of the PCT and for that purpose a single classification has been adopted for PCT applications. The use of a single access system will therefore significantly improve access to foreign patent documents. The Treaty makes a further important contribution in simplifying access by reducing the present duplication of documents where protection is sought in several countries. It is also specifically designed to increase the use of English in foreign patent documents. Increased utilisation of the PCT will therefore materially assist in simplifying access to information in foreign patent documents in Australia.

I trust the above comments will confirm that your Committee ‘s recommendation in respect of providing improved access to foreign patent documents has not been disregarded. I also believe that the present Bill is not irrelevant to that recommendation and that accession to the PCT will itself contribute to the provision of improved access systems available for general utilisation in Australia.

Yours sincerely

IAN MACPHEE

Senator JESSOP:

-I think I said initially that this Bill is a step towards doing something about the rationalisation of the patent system in Australia. I indicate that I have expressed some doubts about the Bill and ask the Minister for Productivity to bear this in mind as the effects of this particular legislation become evident. During the Committee’s inquiry the CSIRO put forward the view that many patents issued in Australia are bad. By this it was meant that the scope of monopoly created was too wide. In this connection it should be borne in mind that the costs of challenging a patent, once issued, are very considerable. There is no doubt that accession by Australia to the Patent Cooperation Treaty will help to rationalise the international patent system and reduce duplication. However, doubts remain as to who will derive the greatest benefit. Will it, for example, be of most benefit to countries producing many inventions, or will it be of no benefit? Will it be of disadvantage to countries such as Australia which have a small research and development effort?

I think that the CSIRO and others have raised some extremely important questions which should make us think. We should not take it for granted that the philosophy underlying patents in Australia has been good because as this was established in 1904 I think that we ought to be questioning some of the basic assumptions upon which the system has developed. I support the Bill. I am not prepared to support the amendment at this stage but I certainly recognise the spirit in which Senator Mulvihill has put it forward. As the effects of this legislation emerge it could well be that we may have to deal with amendments later.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– We have had the vision splendid from both Senator Hamer and Senator Chipp about the future overseeing role of the Senate as distinct from only providing Ministers. I felt that this amendment would usher in a new legislative dawn. If a committee puts its imprimatur on something it should mean that there is a united front. That is the message as far as we are concerned. If people hold to the doctrines about the future role of the Senate, then that is what should apply. I would like to believe that when there are problems in this area from time to time, the unanimous recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment would mean that the Government would use those recommendations as the structure on which to base further legislation. I hope that in succeeding years this Committee will consult with the Chief Scientist in the Northern Territory to see that the idea of the Fox report is implemented. The amendment put forward this afternoon is a pace-setter and it contains what we regard as an imprimatur on the assessment by a Senate committee such as this.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I think that both Senator Cavanagh and Senator Mulvihill have taken an unnecessarily doleful view of the fact that the amendment has not been accepted by the Government. It might have been of some assistance to the Senate’s consideration of the matter if the Opposition, instead of going off on a frolic of its own, had had some discussion with members of the Senate Select Committee on Science and the Environment. I understand that no one bothered to mention to Senator Jessop the attitude that was being adopted. If one is trying to promote this sort of co-operative approach, then it is a good idea to do it through a process of consultation rather than producing it from one side of the chamber. I draw the Committee’s attention to the comments which I made earlier and which referred to comments made by the Minister for Productivity, Mr Macphee, in reply, in the House of Representatives on 7 November 1 979. Those comments can be seen in full at page 27 1 9 of Hansard. I shall quote briefly from it. It will be seen that the Government is not saying that these matters should not be dealt with. Rather it is saying that we have instituted, through the Industrial Property Advisory Committee an examination of the system on a quite broad base and on a basis which the Minister believes takes up these two points. That is an appropriate step. In that context the Senate’s calling upon the Government to take the step necessary really is out of time because the Government has already taken steps to get this legislation moving. In that sense the motion is not necessary. Mr Macphee said:

The honourable member for Adelaide raised two points.

These are the points which appear in the motion-

I would like to assure him that each of the points which he has raised will be examined in the course of the inquiry into the patent system which I mentioned in my second reading speech and which I will formally announce … I assure him that in the light of his contribution today I will look again at the terms of reference and if I do not believe they cover the areas about which he has genuine misgivings then I will make sure that they are rectified. My recollection of them is that they are broad enough to encompass those parts of his amendment which are based on valid concerns.

In other words the recommendations and views of the Senate Committee have not been put aside. They have been put under examination through that Committee, which is not a partisan committee but an expert committee taking in the various interests in this field. I suggest that Senator Mulvihill need not feel that this is the end of the beginning of a new era, but rather that it indicates that if one is to approach legislation of this son by utilising the work done by committees in areas such as this, then perhaps the Opposition might take a little more care to consult with members of the Government who are concerned and who would perhaps be anxious to join in such an effort and to ensure that the suggestions are ahead of the play, and not behind it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee. I thank the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) for the information he has given, but it emphasises the lack of support given by this place to Senate committees. That is what I am concerned about. I have always accepted that the Senate committees are a joke. There are 37 committees bringing down reports which no one ever intends to adopt. They are established to occupy a large number of back benchers of the Liberal Party.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has informed us that the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee) has given us an assurance that this matter will be considered; that it has not been neglected. An expert committee will be set up to consider the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. This amendment gives us an opportunity to convey to the Senate Committee our support of its recommendations, but we are to reject the amendment because of the Government’s policy of not accepting committee decisions. It is a sorrowful day for committees when we make this decision. It is not a matter of the Opposition seeking to destroy Government legislation. We have supported it all along. But in our opinion we should express the view that the Committee was right, and the Government should do something about the Committee’s decision.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– Very briefly, I agree with what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) has said. He has indicated that the Government has had regard to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. This is borne out by the fact that the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee), following a letter from me as Chairman of the Committee registering some doubts about the legislation, held the legislation up for about a month until he was able to consider further correspondence and we were able to give an opinion on his reply. I believe that that is quite significant. I totally support the Senate standing committee system. An important point which honourable senators opposite should note is that the Government was prepared to hold back its legislation until such time as our questions were answered. I believe the Government is acting in good faith. If in the future we believe that amendments are necessary the Government will certainly consider it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2915

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1979

First Readings

Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bills be now read a first rime.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

-I understand that by arrangement with the Opposition and with the consent of Senator McLaren, who took the adjournment on Government Business Orders of the Day Nos 5 and 7, it is proposed that the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No 4) and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) be dealt with together in a cognate debate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Motion (by Senator Chaney)- by leaveagreed to:

  1. 1 ) That Government Business, Orders of the Day Nos 5 and 7 (Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1979 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979; and Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1979) be considered together.
  2. That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Questions with regard to the remaining stages of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979, the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 and the Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1979 being put in one morion at each stage, and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.
Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to speak in this first reading debate on the Customs Tariff Amendment Bills (No. 3) and (No. 4) on a number of matters affecting Aborigines. I suppose that if it had not been so close to the end of the session I would have made separate speeches on each of the three subjects in first reading debates. However, I propose to group them in this single contribution. I want to refer first of all to what I believe to be a matter of national importance for Aborigines. In case the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) is worried, I point out that the document I have in my possession again is one of those documents that blew out of somebody’s window. However, it was obtained honestly. It is a letter signed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). There seems to be a tendency to impose a good deal of secrecy- it appears to be getting worse- in respect of a number of very sensitive areas of government, not the least of which, of course, is Aboriginal affairs. I will read a copy of a letter that was forwarded by the Prime Minister to Senator Chaney on 4 October 1979. It states:

My Dear Minister,

I have been considering possible areas of further review, along the lines of the program effectiveness reviews initiated last year.

There was much of value in the previous round of PER ‘s. Although they were drawn upon, to varying degrees, in the 1979-80 Budget Cabinet process, they are not only, or even primarily, concerned with the appropriate level of funding for a program. The main focus is how to spend more effectively whatever money has been allocated to the particular programs in the Budget context. They provide a means of bringing together information about the effectiveness of the programs in question and their impact on clients, assessing the continuing appropriateness of the program objectives in the light of changing circumstances and presenting options to improve the future effectiveness of the programs. When appropriate they can assist the development of positive but effective new initiatives.

It seems to me it would be valuable if a review into Aboriginal health were conducted to draw together information on the broad range of Commonwealth programs which directly or indirectly aim to improve the health and lifestyle of Aboriginals, and to clarify the direction of Commonwealth policy. This would of course also involve reviewing the alcoholism problems and the extent to which Government policies and programs impact on it.

Attached for your consideration is an outline with a little more detail, on some of the issues which might usefully be examined. As with previous PER’s I would like to envisage that a senior level task force should undertake the reviewthe members of the task force drawn from the Departments of Aboriginal Affairs, Health and Finance, Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Social Welfare Secretariat. A report could be expected by early April 1980. If you agree that a review of the Aboriginal health programme would be of benefit, I would appreciate it if you could nominate an appropriate officer to co-ordinate with my Department. The relevant officer is Mrs A. Kern (725 853).

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to our colleague the Minister for Health.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Fraser

The letter sets out a series of areas for examination as follows:

Aborignal Health ( Including Alcoholism )

With reference to the future provision of assistance for Aboriginal healthExamine the quantum and quality of Aboriginal health programmes and their effectiveness in lifting health standards amongst all Aboriginals;

Identify areas requiring change or improvement;

Assess the impact of other programmes and policies for Aboriginals (such as housing, outstation movement, etc.) on Aboriginal health.

Nature of Review

Senior level task force drawn from PM&C, Aboriginal Affairs, Health, Social Welfare Policy Secretariat and Finance.

That last word ‘Finance’ is significant. I think this is what the letter is all about- a further cutting back on finance in this area. The Prime Minister’s letter continues:

The task force to take account of relevant studies such as the Hay report, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs reports on alcohol problems of Aboriginals (1977) and Aboriginal health (1979), the National Trachoma and Eye Health Programme’s draft report (Aug 1979) and the report on Aboriginal Statistics in Australia ‘A Survey and a Plan’.

The task force should familiarise itself with Aboriginal Health projects- there may be need for informal ‘In Confidence ‘ consultation with relevant State and Northern Territory officials.

This raises a number of issues. First, what is the point of having one more review? Already there have been a number. Each time the Government has a new look at Aboriginal affairs it establishes a new type of review, and a new committee. Why was there no consultation at all with the Aboriginal communities? I understand that this proposal has been seen by only a very limited number of people. Honourable senators will note from even the directive- for that is what it is- of the Prime Minister to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that it is not intended to consult Aboriginal people further. This worries me, particularly in view of the stated Government policies on self-determination and selfmanagement. Does it mean that there will be less money for Aboriginal health, or a cutting back in some of the more sensitive areas which are not readily available to the scrutiny of the Australian public? I refer to the trachoma plan and projects of that nature. On the other hand, if it is a fair dinkum approach- which I doubt greatly- one would expect that the first people to be consulted would be those in the Aborginal organisations. A number of months ago now a national black health program was proposed. It received lip support from representatives of the Government but no action concerning it was taken. If this is to be a back-door approach to such a program the Government ought not to be so secretive about it. The Government should at least tell the Opposition about it. Certainly it should tell the black communities of this country.

Representatives of some 14 Aboriginal medical services, meeting in a two-day conference in Sydney on 16 and 17 November, just last week, rejected unanimously the idea of another task force being appointed. Their decision contained the following proviso:

If in view of the inequitable distribution of funds from DAA to Aboriginal medical services in comparison to the ineffective and inefficient State and Territory programmes, this task force is the first step towards adopting the national black health programme then we would welcome it.

There is grave need for the Government to come clean in regard to these sorts of attitudes. I have no record of the response of Senator Chaney, but presumably he has agreed to the proposalagain without telling either the black organisations or the Parliament what is going on.

I wish now to make brief reference again to the Yarrabah problem. I understand that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is to go to Yarrabah towards the end of next week- I hope with his Queensland State Government counterparts and other people. Honourable senators will recall that Senator Bonner placed on record, in the course of a question earlier this week, the fact that a counter petition had been taken up in the Yarrabah community. I have here a list of names to be added to the petition which was referred to by both Senator Bonner and the Minister a few days ago. I read it again for the record:

We, the undersigned residents of Yarrabah solemnly declare that we fully support the present council, Mr P. Neil, Mr V. Schrieber, Mr Stan Connelly, Mr Charlie Fourmile and Mr Robert Smallwood in their attempts to negotiate self management and secure land rights for us, the people of Yarrabah.

The original petition, which is a vote of no confidence in the council and which I referred to in this chamber about a week ago, will now be dealt with by the Queensland Government. One wonders whether the suggested threat of the Director of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, Mr Killoran, to the State Minister will be followed through. These additional signatures increase the number who signed the counter petition.

I wish to refer now to another great problem which has been encountered at Hope Vale Mission near Cooktown in the course of an argument which has proceeded for a number of weeks. I have received the following letter from a group of teachers in Queensland:

Dear Jim,

RE HOPE VALE DISPUTE

We wish to express our thanks for your support in the present dispute. We realise that distance from the situation leaves you without some information, but we appreciate your concern in this important issue.

We hope that through this dispute, the transfer system will be improved and that outside departments will no longer interfere with education.

The situation is still unresolved. Consequently, support is still needed. We hope the situation will be resolved as soon as possible. Again many thanks for your support.

Yours sincerely, Hope Vale Teachers

Then there are five signatures. I have been very low key on this dispute which has caused a tremendous amount of psychological, physical and personal problems for a lot of people at the Hope Vale Mission. But I think it is time for the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to take an active role. I intend to incorporate a document- the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) who was at the table earlier and the Acting Deputy President have agreed to its incorporation- that sets out a good story that was made to the Queensland Teachers Union by the teacher who was most affected by the dispute.

At the beginning of the dispute, a State member of parliament, Mr Underwood, asked in the Queensland Parliament a series of relevant questions dealing with the Hope Vale dispute of the Minister for Education. The Minister’s reply was less than satisfactory. It is obvious that he was dominated by the Premier of Queensland and/or the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Charles Porter. I am particularly disturbed by a number of the points made by the

Minister. I think I could challenge every single one of the Minister’s answers. Jurgen Peterfeld. the teacher involved, was allegedly dismissed or given a punitive transfer because of his increasing involvement in mission and community administration matters. But this merely consisted of his objection to inaccurate and slanderous minutes of an administrative meeting. He organised an extraordinary administration meeting to have those minutes discussed. The Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and the Chairman of the Hope Vale Mission Board personally intervened to prevent the meeting taking place. However, the meeting was ultimately held.

A number of unsatisfactory features in relation to the organisation of the mission were exposed. The Minister claimed that on 31 August the teacher was in charge of a group of children witnessing a public meeting at which it was intended to announce, and perhaps even justify, the sacking of the farm project manager. He had an agreement with the Grade 6 teacher that he would supervise the children. In fact, this was not even in school hours; it was before school started. He was going to supervise the children at this public meeting as part of a social work project and then they would go back to school. This was taken as an incident to transfer a teacher who showed a very great degree of interest in the wellbeing of the children. Incidentally, when the argument developed, nobody could poke the finger of scorn at this teacher for lack of qualifications, inability to do the job or lack of devotion to the cause of education of black children. Another incident where he was alleged to have interfered was in asking why an Aboriginal was being taken away by police.

I have here another statutory declaration and I will read into the Hansard the relevant sections of it later. It reveals that another man on the mission, who also was known for his courageous attitudes, was recently arrested. When he asked why he was being arrested, they told him that after they had gaoled him they would let him know what he had been arrested for. These are terribly unsatisfactory actions which obviously have been carried out either under the direction or with the connivance of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and to a greater or lesser degree with the missionaries on that mission.

Part II section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, guarantees right to equality before the law. So irrespective of local by-laws or section 35 of the Vagrant, Gaming and other Offences Act 1 93 1 -7 1 , the Aborigine in question still had to be charged or arrested before he could be physically removed to gaol. If that is an open challenge to properly constituted authority- and this was the allegation against the teacher- then there is something pretty rotten with the laws in the State of Queensland. The Aboriginal who was taken away was never charged and the teacher has never been charged, but he was punished in that he received a punitive transfer to Gladstone West, two months before he would have finished the school year. As he was a teacher at one of the higher primary grades, quite obviously this was seriously going to affect the teaching of those children in the final weeks of the term.

There are a number of other points that I would like to raise, but because of limitation of time in this debate, I will not be able to cover them all. Protests were made from the Queensland Teachers Union. The DirectorGeneral of the Department of Education then admitted that the Department had received requests from both the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and the President of the Lutheran Church, Queensland District, to have this teacher transferred. This was an unfair interference by two organisations, neither of which has anything to do with the Department of Education. The very rudiments of democracy were not even observed. In situations involving teachers- this appeared to be a disciplinary procedure- one could demand adherence to the procedures outlined by the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the International Labour Organisation that every teacher should enjoy equitable safeguards at each stage of any disciplinary procedure and, in particular, the right to be informed in writing of the allegations and the grounds for them; the right to full access to the evidence in the case; the right to defend himself and to be defended by a representative of his choice; adequate time being given to the teacher for the preparation of his defence; the right to be informed in writing of the decisions reached and the reasons for them; and the right of appeal to clearly designated competent authorities or bodies.

A major report was presented by the Lutheran Mission dealing with Hope Vale and Bloomfield. It concerned a Cooktown visitation and a report compiled by H. P. V. Renner, K. J. Kirsch and G. L. Rose between 1 1 and 29 June 1978. There are a number of very interesting features in this report which will probably become the subject of a debate in this chamber as far as I am concerned, perhaps in the next session. Some criticisms are made. The document is still classified and very few copies are available, except within the Lutheran Mission organisation. The Aboriginal, who was arrested under the circumstances without charges being laid, has signed a statutory declaration saying that he was not drunk- he had a potential to be vocal- but he claims that on the morning of 3 1 August he had had only one 7-oz glass of wine just before the meeting, although he admitted that he had had a bit of grog the night before. He went to bed about midnight and had at least seven hours sleep before he appeared at that meeting. So there is no way in the world that he could have been accused of being under the influence of alcohol or of being a nuisance at the meeting. He was told not to participate in the meeting. He sets out all of these facts in a statutory declaration which has been duly signed and witnessed.

Roy Mclvor, who had occupied a prominent position in that community, has played a prominent role over a period in trying to democratise the mission, has also come in for a lot of criticism. Mr Leigh van der Hoek, who came to the mission on the Lutheran World Federation’s recommendation in the capacity of Project Supervisor and Agriculturalist, to help guide and teach the people at Hope Vale in this field, was also sacked. In other words, if a person disagrees with the DAIA at any stage, or even if a person is suspected of disagreeing with it, that person is for the big drop- to use an Australian slang phrase. That applied to Mr van der Hoek. It applied to Jurgen Peterfeld, the teacher, and it applies to any Aborigine on the settlement who does the wrong thing. I have shown a statement made by Mr Jurgen Peterfeld, of the Queensland Teachers Association, to the Minister and the Acting Deputy President in the chamber at the time. I seek leave to incorporate that statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

page 2918

IN DEFENCE AGAINST UNKNOWN CHARGES

or

page 2918

MY RESPONSE TO A PUNITIVE TRANSFER

by Jurgen Peterfeld 9.9.1979

I have been accused of something. I must have been, for, why else did the principal receive a phone call on Thursday, 26th July, from Regional Office inquiring into ‘my activities’ on the mission? And why else have I been advised on Tuesday, 4th Sept. of a transfer to Gladstone West effective from 1st Oct.?

So I must defend myself against charges unknown. The Union has achieved a Departmental Inquiry. I do not know what is going to be inquired into. Therefore I had to think back and consider all possibilities, everything I personally was ever involved in. For those who do not like what they read I stress that this report accounts only for my personal experiences.

There are more than five hundred people here who all have a story of their personal experiences, regarding at least a whole life time, to tell.

As an outsider and a relatively recent newcomer to the Hope Vale scene it seems to me that the present turmoil is a direct result of deeply experienced frustration within the native population. The symptoms manifest themselves in a variety of ways, mainly apathy, drunkenness and with the younger people a general decay of moral standards. All too common questions are, “What’s the use of education?”“Why bother?”- “Will it get you a job?” In fact it looks as if a great mass of nonswimmers are walloping in the sea without the slightest hope for rescue.

Can anyone be blamed for making a grab at even the slightest mirage of a lifebelt?

When Leigh van der Hoek appeared on the scene many people saw in him some kind of hope other than spirtiua and for a while it looked as if he was able to present something the people could identify with sufficiently to emerge fairly united from a quagmire of internal squabbles and feuds, contradicting interests and political or philosophical outlooks. (See copy of petition from combined Church Council and Community Council meeting, 12th July, which was signed by four Community Councillors and eight Church Councillors, a copy of which was sent to every member of the H. V. Mission Board, incl. the executive officer and the President and Vice-President of the Lutheran Church, Qld.; receipt of which was acknowledged by one person only, el)

Before the July 10th Administration Meeting I had only met Leigh once and we had a relatively brief discussion concerning his ideas for Hope Vale. I must admit that I was not very taken in by him and actually remained rather sceptical. To me he appeared too sure of himself and perhaps even boastful.

At the Administration Meeting Leigh presented his case in no uncertain, but unprintable terms. Though I did not agree with the method he used it resulted in a recommendation that agriculture be given top priority under the guidance of Leigh, which was carried unanimously.

Along with many others I saw in his presentations a positive and forward looking attitude as far as Hope Vale was concerned and I gave him my support. Nothing offensive was said by me and as far as I remember I made some comment on pine tree plantations and the importance of having some aim or objective for the future of Hope Vale.

The night after the meeting Leigh came to my quarters and thanked me for the support I had given him in the meeting. We talked till very late and I began to reassess my earlier opinion of him.

Again we rarely saw each other and only spoke in passing till Saturday, 21st July when he showed me a copy of the minutes of the earlier Administration Meeting. Since I had been at that meeting I honestly delcare that those minutes contained some gross inaccuracies, (see e2) (For exact details refer to Minutes of Extraordinary Administration Meeting, 24.7.79).

That night I saw Len Rosendale and asked him how he felt about those minutes. He seemed equally worked up about it and we discussed the possibility of holding an extraordinary meeting to talk about those minutes. Len informed me that he was in fact the Vice-Chairman of the Administration Meeting. On Sunday morning, together with Leigh I saw Roy and Thelma Mclvor. They supported the idea wholeheartedly and Roy gave it his blessing in his capacity of Chairman of the Church Council. Then he also showed me the stencil of the petition mentioned before, (el) After this Leigh and I saw Ted Bowen and he also liked the idea. Ted, Leigh and I then saw Ernie Bowen who was in fact delighted. Ernie and I saw Benny McGreen who agreed, but did not seem anywhere near as keen as the others. Willie Woibo was at the beach, but Ted reckoned he would go along. So we typed three notices for the Extraordinary Administration Meeting in the name of the Hope Vale Community Council & the Hope Vale Church Council and Leigh went to post one on the notice board on the store, the second on the old store and the third at the Post Office.

This was done on Sunday morning, 22nd July.

Around six p.m. Ted Bowen said that Ernie had just told him that the notices had been removed. I did not believe it and left to check for myself.

At about eight p.m. I went to see the manager E. Scheer about the disappearing notices. He was in his office behind shut doors in consultation with Barry Reid and Lex Deemal Mr Scheer said that he had only taken down the notice from the Post Office, because no notices should be displayed at a Post Office. He did not know where the others had disappeared to.

I told him that the meeting would go ahead as planned regardless because the Community Councillors had decided to hold the meeting. He said that the meeting could not go ahead, because he as the manager said it should not. Here the manager betrayed his ignorance of the Act which clearly states that as far as Local Government is concerned the Community Council is responsible for decision making. If Mr E. Scheer felt so deeply about it, he should have contacted the Minister, who in fact has the power to override a Community Council decision.

I emphasized that I was prepared to sign a statutory declaration that the minutes were incorrect and he said that that would be alright if I wanted to go to jail for seven years for perjury, because everything mentioned in the minutes was true. Neville Brown was standing by the phone box outside and overheard the whole discussion.

Later that night Leigh, Neville and I were at Roy and Thelma ‘s place. We all agreed that it was about time to settle the issue in a sensible way. So Roy asked Len Rosendale to come over too and they decided that it was best to ring either Pastor Mayer or Renner. The exact outcome of that call remained a little hazy, but essentially Pastor Roennfeldt was to come up and son things out.

Meanwhile ten more notices were typed and Len Rosendale signed them this time as the Vice-Chairman of the admin, meeting (see e3) and he placed one on the notice board of the store and another one on the old store and a third this time at the curio workshop.

Neville Brown went to Cooktown with a list of some twenty questions for legal advice. The main piece of information he got was that in fact anyone, and not necessarily the chairman only, can call an extraordinary meeting.

Monday afternoon I went to see Leigh and I had to find out that the meeting was to be postponed on Pastor Roennfeldt’s advice. By now we were more determined than ever to get to the bottom of this, so we all went around once more and the meeting was on again.

On Tuesday morning, 24th July, Pastor Roennfeldt flew in from Cape Flattery with the Director of D.A.I.A., Mr Killoran and the Council was asked not to hold the meeting. Pastor Roennfeldt asked Leigh to promise him not to hold the meeting.

Then Mr Killoran and Pastor Roennfeldt flew out again.

I have not had much experience with Aborigines, but with the little I have I knew that the Aborigine finds it very difficult to say ‘no’, especially when he really wants to say yes’, so it was only a matter of seeing each one again. Lester Rosendale (who was once doing the job Mr E. Scheer is now doing, but had the cheek to ask for white man’s wages, as a result of which Mr Scheer was sent here only to be trained by Lester Rosendale till he was fit to handle it after which Lester Rosendale left. Makes one think when one hears claims that the Aborigines are not skilled enough to take over. Who is supposed to train whom and how come Europeans are allowed to push Aborigines out of their jobs?) Len Rosendale Leigh and I went around. Then we informed each one of those who were at the last meeting with the exception of P. Deemal W. Bowen and Joe Reid who was inside the store behind locked doors, that the meeting was to be held on the date and time as advertised.

The manager now accepted the fact that the meeting was to be held as planned and on request gave me a handful of minutes of the Admin, meeting held on 10.7.79. (see e2).

Later Neville and I got photocopies of a declaration that the minutes are untrue which was signed by 10 out of the 18 present at the last admin, meeting. These were handed out at the meeting which started at 8:05 p.m. and was taped by myself and John Havilland, (see e4 and also Minutes of Extraord. Admin. Meet. e5).

The minutes of this meeting (e5) were posted on the notice board in front of the store at about 8:30 a.m. the following morning by Len and myself.

In the afternoon I asked the manager if I could have a look at the records of previous minutes from admin, meetings. But my request was met only with comments that the meeting was illegal and therefore I had no right to see records of earlier meetings.

Also to date there has never been another admin, meeting, both the September and August advisory or admin, meetings have been cancelled. Not that it is a great loss, according to Ted Bowen, ‘obstacle meetings’ were never really popular.

Anyway, that is where really the whole thing should have rested. But not so. On Thursday, 26th July, the principal received a phone call from Regional Office on behalf of the Director of Primary Education enquiring into ‘my activities’ on the Mission.

Shortly after Joe McGuinness dropped in quickly to see the Mclvors which despite being a pure coincident was viewed in a dim light.

When Pastor Roennfeldt and Mr Rose came to Hope Vale the proposed Monday, 30th July meeting turned out to be for mission employed staff, Church Council and Community Council members only.

When I went to visit Leigh that day I met Pastor Roennfeldt and Gordon Rose together with another mission employee (ex?). Various issues came under discussion and Leigh and the two mission board members appeared to be somewhat in agreement that it was worth another try.

I asked whether in the light of what has happened it was possible for me to attend the meeting at the Cafe. They were reluctant to agree, but finally came around when I promised not to say anything in the meeting unless my name was brought up in a contentious way. When, as one could have guessed, just that was about to happen I raised my pen (I was taking notes) in Pastor Roennfeldt’s direction. He looked at me and said inquiringly, “Yes, Jurgen?” I said firmly, that I was only looking at my pen. He took the hint. Yet the issue of my involvement was brought up once more during the meeting, but was also squelched. Halfway through the meeting Roy Mclvor made a very strong speech calling for the dismissal of certain white staff who had been here long enough to show some achievement. Keith Scholz apologized to Leigh, “If the minutes are inaccurate, then I apologize.” Ted Bowen, Neville Brown and others taped the meeting.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, 31st July, I met Pastor Roennfeldt at the store and he invited me to a staff meeting at 7:30 at the Office. He also asked me if I could persuade Leigh to attend, because he had indicated to Pastor Roennfeldt that he would not be able to come. I saw Leigh and found that he was genuinely sick, he was complaining of stomach aches and had been vomiting.

Despite demands at the meeting that Leigh should be present I asked those attending to show some form of compassion. I conveyed to the meeting his resolve that if concrete decisions were about to be arrived at he would make an all out effort to come.

First an attempt was made to blame the Council for Hope Vale’s problems, because they did not really know what they wanted. Then it came to light that in fact no constitution existed for the admin, meetings. We were also told why the orginal report of the 1978 visitation by Kirsch, Renner and Rose was not made public: Because it was felt that the information might fall into the wrong hands and could therefore be ‘used’. The Lutheran Church requested Pastor Kirsch, much to his dismay, to write a second, watered down version. Well, so much for the ‘information’ side of it.

At one stage someone virtually requested me to apologize, because now that K. Scholz had done so yesterday (. . . If the minutes are wrong . . . ) I should also be good enough to do the same. I did not get the drift of it, and I cannot see what I should apologize for. So I said that if I lived in East Germany I almost certainly would apologize, but since I live in Australia I am proud of what I had done. That’s the difference.

I asked the manager on four occasions about the phone call from the Dept of Ed. concerning ‘my activities’ on the mission. All he answered was that he had talked to Killoran about the ‘illegal meeting’ and that he felt not obliged as acting manager to tell me what exactly he had me accused of.

Eventually the discussion centered on the ‘illegal meeting’ again and various plans were put forward how it could be ignored and forgotten. Since I felt very strongly about the attempt to use minutes of meetings to manufacture ammunition for a private duel and also because of the fact that it was really up to the Council to decide what to do with it, I erupted then and I said how ashamed I felt for every one in the room and that I had enough of it (on full volume) and left.

Later I was told there was some stunned silence and Mr K. Scholz shortly afterwards admitted that the minutes were inaccurate which was followed by more stunned silence.

On Wednesday night a public meeting was held under the school at 7:30 p.m. The meeting finished after one o’clock in the morning. One thing that come through loud and clear was that certain well established mission staff was not welcome here. John Havilland and I taped that meeting.

When Pastors Mayer and Renner, President and VicePresident respectively (Lutheran Church, Qld) arrived at Hope Vale, both of them saw me one night and expressed dismay over the fact that the acting manager saw fit to accuse me, but did not see fit to tell me what the charges were. Pastor Renner especially said that it was in the interest of the Lutheran Church to see this rectified. However they did not seem to understand my primitive survival instinct and thought I was preoccupied with too many assumptions. Yet they were clearly worried about the tapes. Although I was asked some leading questions, like if I had connections with any subversive groups, the evening proceeded on the whole on an amiable note and we discoverd large areas of mutual concern- namely the future of Hope Vale. We mutually agreed that it was not in the interest of Hope Vale or the

Lutheran Church and various other bodies to publicly disclose all the information collected. I thought I left little room for doubt that I meant it, yet in retrospect I feel that I was wrong. I made my desire to stay in Hope Vale very clear and I gave the reasons. Now I wonder if they understood. At the time our expounded philosophies seemed to overlap in the essential areas where Hope Vale was the focal point and somehow once more my trust in humanity (which is infinite) and my Church was restored. 20th August, local member Bob Scott arrived in Hope Vale and talked to Leigh for some twenty minutes. I do not want to disclose all that Leigh has told me, but the visit gave him visibly new spirit, (the nonliquid variety).

Monday, 27th August, 1979 was a historic day for Hope Vale. For the first time ever the whole Mission Board arrived to do an on the spot investigation. Mr Des Pietsch, the executive officer and the President, Vice-President and Secretary of the Qld. Branch of the L.C. were with the party. The big question on everybody’s mind was, when would they give the public a chance to say what they had to say.

Tuesday, 28th August. Len Rosendale told me that Mr. T. Murphy after questioning admitted in front of the Community Council much to the consternation of the Mission Board that the Community Council is responsible for Local Government and the management has only an advisory capacity. Apparently the Mission Board members expressed surprise at this, but I find it incomprehensible how any member can be unaware of the existence of the Queensland Aborigines Act 1971 and subsequent amendments and especially ‘The Aborigines Regulations of 1972’, and their amendments.

The public did not have their chance on Tuesday either.

Wednesday, 29th August. At a white meeting (one exception) in B block at the school the gentlemen made us sit and wait for them to make an appearance, for one hour and ten minutes. During the meeting the teachers were the only ones who displayed a caring attitude by asking questions and making suggestions that showed interest and concern for Hope Vale- the mission staff had precious little to contribute. Uncomfortable questions were asked and I admit I asked how much the mission had received from the Cape Flattery silica mines in all their years of operation. The answer is beyond belief, but wait for it-a total of $7600. The Mission has a profit sharing areement with the company (operating within an Aboriginal Reserve) which is Japanese owned. Since the market for this product, one of the purest silica sands in the world, used mainly by the optical industry, is also in Japan one can visualize that it is sound company policy never to do more than break even. No profit- no cash for Hope Vale and no high Australian taxes, etc. etc.

There were claims that Cape Flattery provided jobs for some Aborigines, but this again is in favour of the company, because they do not provide the necessary infrastructure European personal is used to for their Aboriginal employees. Aborigines cannot live with their wives at Cape Flattery. And since the operations at Cape Flattery at the shipping end of it are rarely continuous the company can manage with a skeleton staff and at ship arrival employ casual labour flown in from the convenient labour pool of Hope Vale.

Sister Mary O’Hara enlightened Mr. Des Pietsch that a Nurse cannot be expected to be on call for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Therefore his milkmaid equation that if two nurses do for SOO people in Hope Vale, then 200 people in Bloomfield should be able to do with one, is indeed a good one. The flaw in logic is obvious and to base a statement that Bloomfield is overstaffed on that is totally ridiculous.

The almost complete lack of qualified staff at Hope Vale was brought up once again.

It came to light that the Mission Board never had produced any management objectives for Hope Vale and also has no spelled out policy or aims for the future of Hope Vale. The D.A.I.A. did have, at least in 1968. Let me quote: (from ABSCHOL 1 968 Director meets the press. Aboriginal Quarterly, 1(3): 10-11.)

Killoran: The Department’s policy is simply stated; ‘to work itself out of a job’. This will be achieved in a number of ways which might include:

Eleven years later we arrive at the Hope Vale situation where unqualified white staff still hang on to jobs that could be instantly taken over by an Aborigine. There are girls here who have Business College Certificates. A boilermaker who finished his apprenticeship in Cape Flattery just recently had to leave for Mr Isa, because he was told there were no jobs for him in Hope Vale. And so on, and so on . . .

Back to the meeting. Pastor Stolz showed a flow diagram explaining the power structure above Hope Vale. When it came down to management and Community Council level, they were shown together side by side to work in harmony on an equal basis. After questioning, the Deputy Director of D.A.I.A. (Mr. Tom. Murphy) admitted that this was in fact not so. Legally the Community Council was responsible for Local Government. The management had not even the right to veto. (Naturally the law allows for a safeguard and the Minister has the capacity to veto- my comment) When I asked twice if someone please would change the management/Council relationship no one did so and there was a convenient change of topic.

The principal, D. Scheiwe suggested the importance of more local decision making and a departmentalization of various services and industries with individual budgets under the supervision of a manager with the Council immediately above him. He also presented a rough flow diagram which showed the Council above the manager (subtalk among the ranks of some Mission Board members, ‘That’s dangerous’).

The works supervisor Mr K. Scholz said he had not the experience to work with a departmental budget and felt it would create initial difficulties. Mr Murphy suggested that the Depanment could assist with computer services, and that the idea is in fact already working in some reserves or communities.

Dissatisfaction was expressed by some with the kind of welcome new arrivals receive in Hope Vale by the established mission staff.

Leigh did not take the opportunity to speak and when I prompted him he quickly diverged onto generalities instead of dealing with specific facts. I was saddened by this, because I felt there and then in front of everyone he could have created some impact. The meeting was guillotined shortly after 10:30 p.m. and a few of us started to wonder what that meeting was actually all about. Afterwards I saw Pastor Renner and asked him if something had been done on my behalf with the Dept of Ed. He said that Pastor Mayer, President of L.C. (Qld.) had seen the Director of D.A.I.A., Mr Killoran on my behalf and had told him (Mr Killoran) that it was not in the interest of the L.C. to have me transferred or removed from Hope Vale. He also said that he would come by my place with Pastor Mayer, so that he could tell me himself.

And so they did on Thursday, 30th August, 1979 shortly before six p.m. and Pastor Mayer repeated basically what Pastor Renner had said the night before- with one small, but noticeable qualification: ‘at this stage’.

Nevenheless, a bird in the hand is worth . . ., so I thanked both of them and asked if I could have that in writing. Pregnant pause. Both Pastors could not see the necessity of this, I have seen so much backstabbing and changing with the wind in recent weeks that I’d now even ask my dog on barking if I could ha ve that in writing.

We talked again about Leigh, who just had been sacked in the morning under the pretext that his tentative resignation had to be accepted to spare him and his family further suffering and that after all he did not have to show much in the way of results after three months in Hope Vale. And somehow I mentioned that in the light of all that has happened one could be excused for thinking a degree of antisemitism was involved here. (You see, my dear reader, Leigh is a Jew who invaded a bastion of Christianity. Both his parents died in concentration camps in Germany) (see e6).

I also told Pastor Mayer that it was not in my interest to be transferred, on economic grounds, because my wife works in Cooktown as a field assistant with the Dept. of Health and also that I just had seven girls in my class finish, what I believe is the world’s largest magic square (standard), and we were now trying to have this recognized by the Guiness Book of Records.

Pastor Mayer said he would have to think about letting me have, in writing that he had made representation with Mr. Killoran on my behalf, and he intimated that I might ‘ use ‘ it.

Later they both saw Neville and Jenny Brown and when Neville said that in the light of all that had happened he was contemplating of leaving the Lutheran Church he was told that was a decision he had to make.

For Friday, 31st August, Miss Robinson and I had planned to let grade 6 and 7 attend the public meeting, scheduled for 8:00 a.m., as a social studies exercise. Those children who would not want to attend were expected at the school at 9:00 a.m. We agreed that I would supervise the children at school for the first half hour and Miss Robinson would then take over and I would go down to the meeting. We received the principal ‘s permission on Thursday.

Before the meeting started I asked one of the pastors if the power struggle between Council and Management was going to be resolved. “Why don’t you wait and then you’ll see,” was the answer. Pastor Renner came to my assistance and pointed out that I could not wait since I was expected back at school. Meanwhile Pastor Stolz set up a diagram on a portable blackboard leaning against the wall of the store which apart from other minor detail showed three columns:

It is obvious what has happened. The Act says one thing but some PEOPLE act in mysterious ways, acting as if they were above the law. Then I was angry and I asked where his concern for the PEOPLE was. Did he really go around and search for truth?

Thereafter I asked Pastor Mayer about his decision regarding the written statement in respect of Mr. Killoran. He stated that he could not give it to me in writing. I retorted that it looked to me that the talking had finished and we would soon read about it. I also said that he should remember what I had intimated the night before about antisemitism’ Doesn ‘t look good ‘. (see e6 ).

I sat down and waited for the meeting to begin, slowly more people came and about fifteen minutes later around 8:35 a.m. the meeting, correction, the PUBLIC MEETING BEGAN.

During the police incident at 8:50 a.m. Pastor Roennfeldt took three photos. Things must be desperate. It would have been far better if he had given an example as a church leader and showed a bit more concern for a fellow human being in crying need for a few human rights.

On Friday, Leigh left with wife and child. Adrian was weeping and I told him to cheer up, the rest of Australia was nothing like it and quite a different place. I doubt whether the boy understood, but how awful it must be to live in so much uncertainty.

The night before a friend of mine and I photocopied Leigh’s file and we got permission to use it in any way we feel fit. (see e7) He signed every photocopy and like everything else there were two sets for security reasons.

On Tuesday I received advice about my transfer to Gladstone West.

That was fast work, ah, well- back to the coal mines. ( Famous last words of future Siberian residents. )

A far as my crimes are concerned I admit to two things:

Now I only pray that common sense prevails. Epilogue

As far as Hope Vale is concerned the crucial issues have not been solved by the visit of the Board and other Church members. With a lid fitted tightly steam is gathering inside the pressure cooker. I wish they had not blocked the safety valve.

Under no circumstances will I accept a punitive transfer?

I think all those who have supported me and hope that the vindictive attitude of those responsible does not result in a casualty list that reads: (IvanPeitsch)

Lee van der Hoek

Geraldine van der Hoek

Adrian van der Hoek

Jurgen Peterfeld

Inga-Britt Peterfeld

Neville Brown

Jennifer Brown

Roy McIvor

Thelma Mclvor

Ted Bowen etc. etc.

Roy just informed me that he had resigned his chairmanship of the Hope Vale Church Council.

And I remind those who can read to keep in mind the six articles which explain the function and intention of the Lutheran World Federation:

  1. gegenueber der Welt die Einmueuge Bezeugung des Evangeliums von Jesus Christus als der seeligmachenden Kraft Gottes foerdern:
  2. Einigkeit des Glaubens, Bekennens und Bekenntnisses unter den Lutherischen Kirchen der Welt pflegen;
  3. Bruederlichkeit und gemeinsame Studienarbeit unter den Lutheranern entwickeln;
  4. d ) die Aufgeschlossenheit der lutherischen Kirchen fuer die oekumenischen Bestrebengen, das Bewusstsein ihrer Verantwortlichkeit fuer diese sowie ihre Beteiligung an diesen staerken;
  5. lutherische Kirchen und Gruppen bei ihren Bemuehungen unterstuetzen, die geistlichen Noete anderer Lutheraner mitzutragen und das Evangelium zu verbreiten;
  6. ein Werkzeug der lutherischen Kirchen and Gruppen zur gemeinsamen Bewaeltigung leiblicher Noete bilden.’

September 2.9.79

The last of the visiting Church Board members have now left for Brisbane, leaving behind a community more desperate then ever, more over having solved nothing. The Board members of the Lutheren Church have once again stooped to a half-truth and thereby complying with the shoddy if not shady inhumane government regulations and or policies, of “keep the black man down”! My unjust dismissal, has to the best of my knowledge been influenced by The Director of the D.A.I.A., in collaboration with the racist management, who on day to day observation, could not be described as other than society “drop outs”.

My knowledge of the hardships and suffering amongst the aborigines of Hope Vale, and perpetually induced by mismanagement and top heavy and corrupt “rule of thumb”, has led to my dismissal. Quite apart from this, I have not only been subjected to boycott by Mission Staff, I have also had to cope with Anti-Semitism by Hope Vale Mission Staff, and was subjected to and treated as a substandard human being, this plot being effectively led and masterminded by Hope Vale Mission Staff member K. D. Scholz, who made the statement “ that in better days, we would have killed such Jew Bastards at birth.” It can be seen clearly, that it is high time, for inhuman scandles such as described, to be exposed to the Australian public.

I have numerous friends amongst the native people of Hope Vale Mission, who have put up quite a battle to stop my dismissal, but in vain as all who dare to speak or reveal the truth, which is almost never in keeping with and frequently inconvenient to the present local filthy government policy. Therefore he who stands up, faces jail or total degradation, which is implemented by carefully brainwashed local native policemen, who appear to be aware of the discriminatory government practices.

I would like to end this testimony by saying that there is absolutely no justice or immediate hope for the future of those native people, as long as they are the recipients of present local government peacemeal, hand out and human rights infringement.

In further reference please quote-

page 2923

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AND ISLANDERS ADVANCEMENT

Telephones:

Telegraphic Address:

page 2923

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Reconsideration, and or rejection of minute No. 3 of meeting held on 10.7.79.

Minute No. 3, largely pertaining to the agricultural dilemma at H.V., showed itself to be an untrue and devious representation of the subjects under discussion at the time of the meeting, manifesting no more or less than a personal interpretation, if not a deformation of that subject matter, by the minutes secretary K. D. Scholz.

Comments of great significance showing foresight, accurate planning, quotations of facts and figures and viability for future plans, by self and J. Peterfeldt, were totally ignored and failed to be recorded at all. Statements of similar calibre by and on behalf of N. Brown, W. Bowen, and Lester Rosendale, suffered the same fate. During most of these discussions, Mr L. van der Hoek, was conveniently kept isolated and failed to be consulted.

It is therefore unanimously agreed that minute No. 3, and the untrue, and devious, if not damaging manner in which it has been thrown together, be deleted and or disregarded, as it is in part untrue, contains hints and fabrications solely influenced by the minutes secretary, and therefore not a record but a personal opinion to be declared null and void. Failing to honestly and accurately record discussions held.

E.Scheer…………….. R. Mclvor…………… W. Bowen

  1. Roll………………… B.McGreen………… T. Bowen……………..

N.Brown……………. J. Peterfeldt………… P.Wallace

  1. Bowen……………. Lest. Rosendale….. Len Rosendale……

D.Schewie………….. P.Deemal…………… J&BReid……………

  1. van der Hoek…..

At a combined Church Council and Community council meeting held on the 12th July the following decisions and recommendations were made and are being presented to you.

  1. 1 ) Much concern is felt by the fact that H.V. is not being productive, not bringing in any money and just relying on money handouts from the Government. This is felt to be somewhat degrading and not of the same benefit for our people’s self esteem as when money is earned. Also hard times are not far off so H.V. must be self-supporting in money for the community and in food.
  2. It is no longer appropriate that H.V. be propped up by ineffective, disruptive and unqualified staff. We want staff who are qualified in the fields of mechanics, bookkeeping, building, etc., and who are willing to train.

We want a manager with managerial experience and qualifications and with feelings for Bama’s needs, as Ivan Peitsch. If a Lutheran does not come up to these qualifications, then look elsewhere. With the present competition for jobs it should not take too long to get a good man.

  1. We also request the right and privilege of nominating and accepting staff favourable to Bama. That means we expect to be consulted in the acceptance of future staff.
  2. We like to see Lee Vander Hoeck be given every chance to succeed in his agricultural and stock ventures, as we see that these ventures could be successful and could being in money for H.V. He is well qualified and has the support of the Barna. If the staff cannot support him and put every obstacle in his way, then they must be removed. We want to see progress and not the present blind staggering and falling down of H.V. as a drunken person.
  3. We desire that Mr Ron Bennett, at present conducting training program under the Education Department, be employed by H.V. and be in charge of the whole rehousing project at H.V.
  4. We request that moneys granted for housing be not used to bring up ready constructed homes, but that it be used for homes using local materials such as timber and clay bricks, and that Ron Bennett be the supervisor and trainer in the building of these homes. This could provide more homes and more employment. Ron Bennett has been employed in a similar venture in NSW.
  5. We wish to bring to your notice the very good work that Sister Mary is conducting at H.V. We want you to give her your written support to her program and that all opposition to her work be put to a stop immediately. She is well liked by the Barna and the children just wait for her to come on her rounds. Mothers are already saying that they notice their children’s health improving.
  6. Mr Neil Sargent, a qualified cabinetmaker, wishes to work at H.V. and train your men in his trade. He could furnish all homes being built locally while training the young men.
Senator KEEFFE:

– There are a number of attachments to the document which I will not incorporate. They are nearly all statutory declarations. They were signed by Leigh van der Hoek, the man who was sacked; Roy Mclvor; Leo Rosendale, Justice of the Peace; and Ted Bowen, a council member. There are further declarations from Roy Mclvor and Jurgen Peterfeld. There are a number of minutes. I will not seek their incorporation in Hansard; I will merely refer to them. Probably the major statutory declaration was made by Roy Mclvor. It states:

I, Roy Mclvor of Hope Vale, in the State of Queensland, do solemnly and sincerely declare that on Friday, 9 November 1979 at 4.20 p.m. I saw Collin Roll and Benny McGreen pull up in a Land Rover in front of my house while I was working in the backyard trimming boomerangs. From under the house I saw Collin Roll get out of the car and approach the meter box. I suspected him having intentions of cutting off my power, because our account may have been overdue. I went inside and tried to turn the lights on without success. This made me very angry, because he showed no consideration or the decency of knocking on the door and informing me of his intentions especially since my wife had gone to the office at half past eight in the morning to settle the account, but Eileen Deemal-

The lass who accepts the payments- was not there to receive payments. If Collin Roll had approached me in a proper manner I would have accepted the fact that he was only doing his job (although I wonder whether he has the authority to do this) however, I can’t see why the electricity had to be disconnected on Friday which gives us no opportunity to have power put back on before Monday. Even the most inconsiderate person can imagine what will happen to our perishable food in the fridge over Saturday and Sunday.

This is typical of the harassment that goes on amongst the community on that mission if its members dare to speak up for themselves. There is a reference in the papers which were incorporated to the silica sand mine at Cape Flattery. There has been a veil of secrecy over where money goes and who was involved in the shifting of company ownership, although we know that the profits go to Japan. The mission itself over a period of many years allegedly has received only about $6,000 or $7,000. The statutory declaration continued:

After that I met my wife who was returning from the store and I told her to get the money so that we could catch up with Collin Roll to show him that we had the money and intended to pay the account. We went around the village to look for Collin Roll and Benny McGreen and found them in front of Alfie Cobus ‘ home, where Collin Roll was in the process of removing the fuse from the electric light pole in order to cut off the power to their house. Again he showed no courtesy at all and despite Mrs Cobus looking on from the front steps of her house he made absolutely no effort to inform her that he was about to cut off her power. By now I was furious and all the years of pent up frustration of seeing myself and my people treated worse than dogs made me grab this missionary by the shoulders. I shook him and I asked, ‘What are you doing? Why don’t you show some respect and treat our people like human beings?’ Then I grabbed that frightened man by the collar of his shin, the poor quality of which did not stand up to the treatment, and all the while he did not say much and the little he did say was a bit garbled and hard to understand. When my wife called out to me, ‘That’s enough! ‘ I let go of him, regrettably, because I didn’t even hit him. Benny McGreen was standing by and I said to him, Why don’t you as our council-chairman see that things are done in a proper way to our people?’ He said, ‘Don’t let’s fight about this. We should talk about these things at the office’. Collin Roll informed us, that if we wanted the lights back on Eileen Deemal was the one to receive the money.

So my wife and I immediately went to the office, but as usual she was not there-

That was Eileen Deemal-

We waited for a while, then drove off and met her on the way. We followed her back to the office and paid the amount owing. We spotted Benny McGreen and Collin Roll at the garage talking to some men and we went straight away to him and showed him the receipt. He said, ‘I can’t do anything until Eileen gives the word’. And he would not take the receipt as proof. We drove home and shortly after five o’clock Benny McGreen and Collin Roll returned to put the lights back on.

At S.30 p.m. the police van pulled up in front of our house and four policemen under the command of Sergeant Francis Woibo sang out from outside the gate for me to come out, because they wanted to speak to me. I asked them, ‘Why do you want to see me?’ But all Francis Woibo said was that I should come down to the police station. I asked again, ‘Why do you want me to go down there?’ He said, ‘You should not have done these silly things. I knew you would get into this mess. Just come down to the police station’. Because, as we all know, interfering with the police is a very dangerous thing to do at Hope Vale I went along to the Police Station knowing full well that I had not been charged or arrested.

Because of the limitation on time, I will not read the whole document. The statutory declaration continues:

At the police station I had to sit in silence until the police had rounded up all the councillors with the exception of Ernie Bowen. Finally the four councillors arrived and Bennie McGreen started off by saying that I almost choked Collin Roll and that I gave him a good punch up. I never punched Collin Roll so I replied, ‘You as our council Chairman have the responsibility to see that the right things are done by our people. How responsible are you, when you yourself were drunk in Cooktown the other Friday when you were supposed to be in charge of the bus? . . .

He then goes on to refer to a number of these things. The document continues:

We are not here to talk about that and what should be done to you is that you should be locked up’. Then he ordered Francis Woibo ‘Lock him up! ‘

He then asked what the charges were, and the policeman said:

Never mind the charges. That will come after. You have to go to gaol first.’ Willie Woibo said, ‘You deserve to go to gaol because you hit a respected staff member’.

According to the statutory declaration, he had not hit anybody. People can be pushed to the point where they become almost desperate. This is the sort of thing which is being carried out against this man. He goes on for the best part of another page. In order to keep the record straight, although this has not been shown to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), again because of the limitation on time I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the document in Hansard.

Leave granted. 77it? document read as follows-

I reminded Willie of the time when he threatened Chris with a knife and not very much had come of that either. I also said that this was going too far and that I wanted my wife who was a witness of the incident to be here and give her side of the story. Willie Woibo Benny McGreen and Francis Woibo insisted that I should be thrown into jail and that my wife should not come here. Benny McGreen stood up angrily and gave the final orders to sergeant Francis *080, ‘Just lock him up. That’s where he should be’. And with that he just walked off.

Ted Bowen said, ‘You can’t do these things. Roy is insisting on a proper hearing and charges have to be laid and you should explain to him in a proper way what you want to put him in jail for. As far as I can see what you are trying to do is not right’. By that time my wife had found out about my situation and walked with our two children into the police station. No-one made a move to restrain her. My wife asked Francis, ‘What are the charges?’ But he replied, ‘Don’t ask about that, he’s got to go to jail first’. Now Willie and Francis Woibo got furious and jumped down my throat saying that I got mixed up with bad company and that they knew who those people were and they were expecting me to get into a mess sooner or later. Willie accused me of having left God and I assured him that he was not the person to judge me in that area. I insisted that I wanted a proper hearing and if I had to be locked up I wanted to be jailed in Cooktown. They refused and said, ‘Are you too flash for our jail?’ (I believe conditions at the Hope Vale jail are an insult to human dignity) I pointed out to them, ‘Where is our democracy? Australia is a free country. But the things done here at Hope Vale are no better than things done in Communist countries. What happens now is not much different from what happened to Henry Bani’. Len Rosendale now spoke up and said, ‘You must remember we have the By-laws’. Francis Woibo said, ‘If you want to change the By-laws you have to write to Mr Killoran’. My wife said, ‘Len, you realize those By-laws are very discriminatory’. He did not seem to disagree but said that we still had to abide by them. Len Rosendale further stated, ‘A lot of shit has gone out from here and you have been mixed up with bad influences like Jurgen Peterfeld and Neville Brown. And I have been receiving letters from a commissioner (he could not remember the name) charging me with racial discrimination’. He also mentioned Benny McGreen and the manager receiving similar letters. He said that the best thing he thought that could happen was to remove Jurgen from Hope Vale and that would be for the well being of the people and solve their problems. He accused me of maintaining contacts with Jurgen and thus aggravating the strife at Hope Vale. I said to him that there was no doubt that Jurgen was a good teacher at Hope Vale and he agreed. I also reminded him that he once told me that Jurgen was teaching mathematics very well and that his own son Andrew for whom he had given up hope and whom he thought to be a slow learner in that subject had picked up mathematics very well. I then said, ‘You have betrayed Jurgen and your people’. Len still agreed that Jurgen was a good teacher, but he said that Jurgen had to go because he broke the By-laws.

Amongst other things that were said he accused my wife of brainwashing me, to which my wife replied that I was man enough to have my own opinions and that I did not need her to tell me what to think. Then Francis made another grab for me and Ted Bowen defended me again by saying that I should be charged first. My wife asked Francis Woibo, ‘Has Collin Roll laid a complaint?’ He said, ‘No’. And then he qualified this by saying that Collin had left it to the council to make a decision.

Francis Woibo ignored Ted completely and once more went for me. This time he knocked my five year old daughter onto the hard cement floor. She was crying and I picked her up saying, ‘Are you trying to kill my daughter?’ And he said, You are a terrible father’.

By that time I said, “I can’t stand this any more. I am going to get out of here!” And I walked towards the door which was blocked by Soiko Jacko, who said, “You can’t go out, this is not finished yet. “

Since my child could not be pacified and my wife was nearly breaking down in tears, the councillors after some further discussion decided to disband the gathering and I walked out of the Police Station together with my wife and children. Before leaving my wife asked once more, “Francis, are you laying charges?” Francis Woibo, sergeant of the Hope Vale police force, said,” “No, I am wiping my hands of this. I have nothing more to do with this.”

And I hereby make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the “Oaths Act of 1 867- 1 960.”

Senator KEEFFE:

-The statutory declaration is signed by R. Mclvor and witnessed by a Justice of the Peace. I conclude on that note. I think that puts the position as to the serious state of the situation at Hope Vale pretty squarely. I hope that the Minister and his Department will be able to take a greater interest in this deep social problem that has arisen there. There is no agricultural instructor left in an area which is eminently suitable for a major agricultural project.

If this sort of thing is to happen with teachers there, it will create more problems. I understand that the church has not been able to provide all its own teachers from within its own ranks, and there are a number of Department of Education teachers there. I understand- and I believe it to be true- that they cannot be employed there unless they are first of all vetted and approved by the Lutheran Church. There are only two missions left in Queensland- this one and the one at Bloomfield River, which is incorporated in the same church organisation. There is another church organisation which controls Doomadgee. Perhaps one might also in an indirect way include Hammond Island, in the Torres Stait, which is controlled to some extent by the Catholic Church.

A very great debt is owed to these people. I hope that as a result of this discussion today something definite can be done about it and that the Federal Minister will take a serious look through his Department to see how these people can be helped.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– Because of the program, I will be very brief. I respond very quickly particularly to the first point raised by the honourable senator relating to my Department. I should like to make it quite clear to the Senate that, whilst I might regret yet again that confidential documents have been leaked, I am not vaguely embarrassed or apologetic about the proposition that there should be a program effectiveness review into Aboriginal health programs. I should like to make it quite clear to you, sir, and to the Senate that I am certainly not satisfied that Aboriginal health programs are as effective as they should be. I am quite sure that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs report can only be read as indicating that it is not satisfied that the programs are as effective as they should be. I am quite sure that the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation is not satisfied that existing programs are as effective as they should be; I am quite sure that the public is not satisfied; and I am quite sure that Senator Keeffe is not satisfied. If he is in any present doubt, I remind him of his statements on such subjects as infant mortality among Aboriginals.

I think that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare has made the point, which ought to be self-evident anyway, that Government programs should be reviewed as to their effectiveness. There is no point in putting money into programs which do not have the effect for which they are designed, and my objective and that of my Department in this matter is to ascertain simply to what extent the programs which have been funded by my Department now over a period of years are achieving the effect that is sought, namely, the better health of Aboriginal people.

With respect to Yarrabah, I confirm what the Senate already knows. I will be going to Yarrabah next week. I would welcome precise information about additional signatures which have been obtained on that petition. That has not yet been sent to me. As far as Hope Vale is concerned, I do not have all of the material, much of which has been incorporated in Hansard. I say simply that I will study it.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) the facts concerning a legal action wrongly initiated against a club on King Island in Bass Strait. The club concerned, namely, the King Island Soldiers and Citizens Club, which has been incorporated under the name King Island Club Incorporated, was sued in error by Scott Bonnar Ltd of Adelaide for non-payment for a grass mower.

In 1978 the manager of the club, Mr Bill Anthony, was served with a summons issued out of a South Australian court claiming the price of the mower. When the local policeman served the summons Mr Anthony told him that his club had not purchased a mower and that it was not a debt incurred by that club. He told the policeman that the debt may have been incurred by one of a number of other clubs on the island. The policeman then apparently made some inquiries before returning the summons to the solicitors concerned and advised that a distinct and separate club- the Golf and Bowling Club- had been involved in the purchase of the mower concerned. Despite the advice of the policeman, the summons was again forwarded to the King Island police station with instructions to serve on Mr Anthony, as public officer of the King Island Club Incorporated. This was done according to instructions.

Although King Island has a population of 3,000 it has no resident solicitor. It was necessary for Mr Anthony to send the summons to Messrs Shields, Heritage, Stackhouse and Martin, solicitors, of Launceston with instructions to take the appropriate action to defend the summons. That firm then had to instruct an Adelaide firm of solicitors to act as agents to defend the action. The club’s defence was successful but costs of only $9 were awarded against Scott Bonnar. A bill of $2 1 7.30 was received from the club ‘s solicitors for services rendered by the Launceston and Adelaide firms.

So here we have the incredible position of a totally innocent, non-profit making soldiers and citizens club having to pay out $2 17.30 to prove that it had been wrongly sued. I am told the club has also been listed in the Dunn and Broadstreet gazette as a defaulting purchaser. I have not checked that personally. My colleague the honourable member for Braddon and Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom), at the request of the club, brought the facts of the case to the attention of Mr Rapson, General Manager and Director of Scott Bonnar, but all he received from Mr Rapson were rude and offensive replies. Obviously Mr Rapson had not bothered to check the facts of the case and refused to accept that the company had acted irresponsibly or, in fact, had done anything wrong.

I seek to incorporate in Hansard, relevant correspondence for the information of honourable senators, including a letter dated 17 January 1979 from the Secretary-Manager of the club, Mr Anthony; letters dated 9 February 1979, 9 April 1979 and 9 June 1979 from the honourable member for Braddon; and letters dated 28 March 1979 and 28 June 1979 from Scott Bonnar Ltd.

There are two matters which deserve the attention of the Senate. Firstly, it seems wrong that an innocent party can be mistakenly named as a defendant, incur costs of $2 1 7.30 to prove its innocence, and then have absolutely no redress of any kind. I ask the Attorney-General to give careful consideration to that issue to see whether something can be done to overcome it. Secondly, I believe it is important for the Senate to be made aware of the poor attitude of Scott Bonnar Ltd, which in this case caused the problem through its neglect or carelessness and surprisingly is not prepared to express any regret or concern at the action it has taken. I seek leave to incorporate the correspondence.

Senator Cavanagh:

-Mr President, in view of your appeal today, why should we clutter up Hansard with correspondence between a club and a commercial firm on a matter that has nothing to do with this House. It is a State matter.

Senator ARCHER:

– I sought the approval of the Opposition Whip and obtained it. I have shown the correspondence to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) and obtained his approval.

Leave granted.

The letters read as follows-

KING ISLAND CLUB INC.

Netherby Road, Currie 17 January 1979

Mr Ray Groom, M.H.R., 75 Wilson Street, Burnie, Tasmana 7320

Dear Sir,

Some 18 months ago, Scott Bonner of Adelaide served a summons on this Club for non payment for a grass mower.

When the Police served the summons I advised that it was not a debt incurred by this club, but in fact should have been served on the golf and bowling club.

I am advised by the police that they returned the summons and advised that the summons should be addressed to the golf and bowling club.

The summons was returned to the King Island police with instructions to serve upon W. Anthony, Public Officer of the King Island Club. This was done.

At no stage did this club ever purchase or contemplate the purchase of a mower.

I forwarded the summons to Shields, Heritage, Stackhouse and Martin, and instructed them to sort the problem out.

I believed we were listed in Dunn and Bradstreet which is not the best form of advertising in business.

Instructions were forwarded to an Adelaide solicitor to act on our behalf.

We have now received an account from Shields, Heritage, Stackhouse and Martin for $217.30 for costs. They have explained that costs were not awarded against Scott Bonner and there is nothing that can be done to recover this money.

My Committee have requested me to write and solicit your aid in this matter. It seems ridiculous that we be forced to pay money for goods and services that were never authorised or required.

Regards,

ANTHONY

Office of Ray Groom, M.P.

Member for Braddon

Minister for Housing and Construction 9 February 1979

Dear Mr Rapson,

I am writing to you in my capacity as the Federal member for Braddon with a special plea on behalf of a constituent body the King Island Club Incorporated.

I am advised that your solicitors recently issued a summons in error naming the King Island Club as the defendant in an action to recover the cost of a mower. The manager of the club, Mr Anthony explained to the policeman serving the summons that it was a mistake and that it was probably another club on the island. The policeman apparently checked with your solicitors and was told he must proceed to serve the summons on Mr Anthony as the authorised officer of the King Island Club Incorporated. This was done. The Club instructed solicitors to defend the summons and the action was later dismissed. The action apparently should have been against a quite distinct and separate organisation on the island.

The King Island Club Incorporated, a non profitmaking ritizens’club now has to pay a bill of $217.30 for legal costs. Their solicitors say that only $9 costs were awarded against Scott Bonnar in the Adelaide court.

I am told the club had also been listed in the Dunn and Bradstreet Gazette as a defaulting purchaser.

It seems very unfortunate that a club like this should become involved in the action initiated by your company and incur considerable expense to prove their innocence. Your solicitor’s error was apparently the cause of the problem and the expense.

I would be most grateful if you could look into this matter.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

RAY GROOM Member for Braddon

Mr S. Rapson, Managing Director, Scott Bonnar Pty Ltd, Holland Street, Thebarton503l

Minister for Housing and Construction 9 April 1979

Dear Mr. Rapson,

I refer to the reply signed by Miss Lyall of your company to my letter of the 9th February.

I wrote what I considered to be a courteous letter pointing out to you the problems confronting an aggrieved constituent who had been wrongly sued by your company’s agent.

The reply I received was plainly offensive and does no credit to the good reputation of your company.

Yours sincerely,

J. GROOM

Mr. S. Rapson, Managing Directo , Scott Bonnar Pty. Ltd., Holland Street, Thebarton.503 1 9 June 1979

Dear Mr Rapson,

I refer to your letter to me of 28th June.

I find your letter to be quite unsatisfactory in its content and tone. You have made little effort to understand the points I have been putting to you.

The simple fact is that the King Island Club Incorporated, which is a non profit making soldiers and citizens club, has never purchased any equipment from your Company. Your Company wrongly and carelessly instituted proceedings against this Club. King Island has a population of some 3,000 people and several clubs. My enquiries reveal that another club, the King Island Golf and Bowling Club, a quite separate and distinct organisation, did purchase a mower from King Island Dairy Products Ltd. That Company was paid the price of the mower.

Your Company has obviously sued the wrong Club and has caused it to incur a debt of $2 17.30. As I said in my earlier letter, I find it surprising that your Company would not at least express its regret at the action it has taken.

A Senate colleague intends raising the case in the Federal Parliament during the forthcoming Budget Session.

Yours sincerely,

J. GROOM

Mr. Rapson, Managing Director, Scott Bonnar Limited, 33 to 47 Holland Street, Thebarton. S.A. 5031 28th March, 1979

Mr. R. Groom, M.P.,

P.O. Box 7 12, Burnie,Tas., 7320

Dear Sir,

Reference is hereby made to your letter to Mr. S. Rapson concerning legal fees incurred by the King Island Club Incorporated.

In your letter, received by us on the 9th February, 1979, you state that you were advised that a summons was “recently” issued against the Club. We have checked with our solicitors and wish to advise that the summons was not issued “recently” but some time in the first half of 1977. Upon the discovery that a different club was involved the proceedings were transferred against three named individuals from the other club which was not incorporated.

Our solicitors advise that the proceedings against the King Island Club Inc. were quite short and did not involve any costs. The proceedings against the three individuals were, however, of more substance and involved some argument at Court. The legal costs of $217.30 against which we were ordered to pay $9.00 were the result of the second action and not, we repeat, not in respect of the King Island Club Inc.

The question of costs was argued at length before a Magistrate in the Local Court of Adelaide and he found that we were only legally liable to pay $9.00 and not the vastly larger sum claimed by the three defendants.

In view of the above information, and the substantial losses already incurred by us through the failure of legal action to recover the debt, we wish to advise that we intend to stand by the Court’s decision and will not therefore be making any voluntary payments of additional legal expenses to the King Island Club Inc. or anyone else.

Yours faithfully,

SCOTT BONNAR LIMITED

LYALL (Miss)

CREDIT MANAGER-Head Office

SCOTT BONNAR LIMITED

28th June, 1979

Mr R. Groom M.H.R., 75 Wilson Street, Burnie Tas. 7320

Dear Mr Groom,

With reference to your letter of 21st June regarding the situation with the King Island Club.

Since receiving your letter I have checked back through correspondence and there would seem to be a misunderstanding as to the true situation on King Island. You have made no mention of the fact that we have supplied in excess of $5,000 worth of equipment to which we have received no payment at all.

On checking with our solicitors they assure me there was no cost to be incurred by the King Island Club at all as the initial hearing was quite short and they were not involved in any costs. There were costs amounting to $217.30 allocated by the court to the 3 representatives of the Club that were involved with the proceedings and as the Court ruled that they were to pay this amount it is surprising that you are suggesting the decision of the Court should be reversed and that we be asked to pay this amount.

In reviewing all correspondence it was indicated to me that there was little intention of ever paying for this equipment and while you believe the Club may well have been disadvantaged through the proceedings the fact still remains that they are in possession and still operating over $5,000 worth of this Company’s equipment to which we have received no payment at all.

Yours sincerely,

SCOTT BONNAR LIMITED

(S. M. Rapson

General Manager/Director

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to raise two matters in the first reading debate on this money Bill. I would not have had to raise the first matter I want to talk about but for the actions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) earlier today when I spoke, I thought quite reasonably, to a motion he had moved. All I asked was whether he could give us a guarantee that we would get answers to questions prior to the Senate resuming on 19 February next year. Of course, as did the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) during the debate on the Appropriation Bills, he became quite vicious and referred again to an overseas trip I had had this year as though it were something that I should not have undertaken and as though I had negelected my parliamentary duties during the course of that overseas trip.

I was elected by the Parliament to go on that overseas trip. A Government senator, Senator Thomas, went as well. If there is any criticism to be levelled at anyone it should be levelled at us both and at the House of Representatives who were representing the Parliament at an InterParliamentary Union Conference at Caracas in South America. Of course, the implication was that I had neglected my duties as a member of parliament in not attending Senate Estimates committee hearings. Mr President, as you well know, if one is at one Senate Estimates committee hearing one is unable to attend another hearing if it is being held on the same day. A senator has the right to ask questions in this chamber about those estimates, even if he has been a member of the committee which examined them. I was unable to attend those committee hearings because of my absence overseas. It was not a holiday jaunt, as has been implied by Senator Webster and Senator Carrick.

I wish for the record to remind Senator Carrick of some of the places that I visited outside my obligations as a delegate to the IPU Conference. I visited several provinces in Canada on behalf of primary producers, because I am the secretary of the Parliamentary Labor Party Resources Committee. On my way to Caracus I took the opportunity to talk to farmers, farmers’ organisations and government representatives in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. In order that honourable senators who sit opposite will not in future try to denigrate any member of parliament who goes overseas on parliamentary duties, I just want to put it on the record that I had discussions with the senior marketing officer of International Marketing in Calgary. I also paid a visit to the Lambco Plant which is a division of AADA in Innisfail. I also went to the Alberta Hereford Test Centre and visited the Little Red Deer Hereford Ranch.

I had discussions with Lord and Lady Roderick Gordon, who are major importers and breeders of Murray Grey cattle. I am sure that if the late Senator Prowse were alive today he would be very pleased to hear that I visited this property. I had the pleasure while I was there to present to Lady Gordon a trophy which they had won with one of their champion bulls. Then I went to Western Breeders Ltd and had a look at that company’s property. The next day I went on a lamb tour, visiting farms whose owners are importing sheep from both Australia and New Zealand. Then I went to the Highfield Stock Farms and had discussions. I then had further discussions with Mr Ben McEwen, the Assistant Deputy Minister of International Marketing, followed by further visits to farming properties.

After those couple of days in Alberta I then went to Saskatchewan and had lengthy discussions with officials of the Saskatchewan Land Bank Scheme. I visited many wheat farms in Saskatchewan. I just wished to point this out for the benefit of honourable senators opposite, some of whom, when they go overseas, probably do not take the time that is available to them to talk to farmers and to find out how the marketing arrangements are operating in other countries and also to look at properties and visit personally the people who run them. I took the opportunity to do that. I think it ill becomes people like Senator Webster and Senator Carrick to make such implications in this Parliament. I was most consistent in debating the issues in the Appropriation Bills and in seeking answers, and that is used as an excuse for saying that I am wasting the taxpayers’ money.

Another matter has arisen which is of grave concern to all of my colleagues. Senator Carrick stands condemned for this. When Senator Carrick was asked to grant pairs to Senator Mulvihill and Senator Sibraa so that they could attend the funeral at 1.30 p.m. today of the late Mr Bill Colbourne, who was the former Federal President of the Australian Labor Party and was General Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party for a very long time, those pairs were refused. This is hardly the sort of treatment one would expect from a person who for a very long period was the Secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party. That was a quite genuine request, as was my request for answers in relation to the Estimates. That is the way in which we are treated. Yet it is being said around the corridors that honourable senators on this side of the chamber were responsible for the very late sittings of the Senate this week. It is not our fault at all. We were given a program some months ago indicating that the Senate would sit until Friday of next week. The Government saw fit to try to cram all of that legislation into this week and to force to sit here for long hours not only the members of parliament, but also- these are the people for whom I have sympathy- the Hansard writers, who have had hardly any sleep all week, and the officials who serve this Parliament. They are walking around and some of them need to prop open their eyelids with matches to keep awake. That shows the responsibility of the people who sit opposite; it is because of the stupid actions that they have taken. I hope they have learned their lesson from the way that they have carried on.

I have another matter to raise and I hoped to speak on it during debate on another Bill, but because of the shortage of time and the amount of legislation that has yet to be crammed through this Parliament, I will raise it now, to save time. It is the matter of television for the west coast of South Australia. For a long time this has been a burning question for the people who live in that area. There have been many false and misleading statements made to them by honourable senators in this place which are cheap political propaganda. Mr Wallis, the Australian Labor Party member for Grey, has worked untiringly over the years to try to get television for the people who live on the west coast. I want to refer briefly to some of the things that have transpired. I am referring to Senator Jessop, who has a real flair for making Press releases which in many cases- as we were able to show during our search for television for Leigh Creek- prove to be unfounded. In the West Coast Sentinel of 23 August last year is to be found the following headline: ‘4- Year Wait for Bay TV?’ The article states:

People on the West Coast are up in arms over a statement by the Prime Minister that it could possibly be four years before there is any proper TV service in the Streaky Bay area.

Why was that criticism made? The article continues:

Liberal Senator Don Jessop, when contacted in Canberra yesterday, said that he would not accept responsibility for the statement he made prior to last December’s Federal election.

That was in 1977. It further states:

He said then that he had received a definite undertaking from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (then Mr Robinson) that a satisfactory television service would be operating on Eyre Peninsula and the West Coast within the next 12 months.

This is a definite public undertaking and providing the present Government is returned, people on Eyre pensinsula will be able to enjoy a decent television service at long last’, Senator Jessop said . . .

Senator Jessop said that his statement was exactly what he had been told by the Minister at the time.

Of course, he was a member of the Government who went over there and made this promise to the people, and when the Government dishonoured its pledge he then dissociated himself from remarks of the Minister. One can imagine what criticism would have come from the people who made these statements if the Labor Party had done that when it was in government. On the same day that newspaper ran an editorial, stating that it was a scandalous situation. On 3 October 1979 that newspaper ran the headline: “No Money” for E.P. Television’. An editorial in the same newspaper on 17 October, headed Accusations’, refers to that headline. It states:

A fortnight ago the Sentinel published an article headed No money for E.P. television’ on page 1. This headline referred to a statement made by the First Assistant Secretary in the Department of Post and Telecommunications, Mr Payne, in the House of representatives on September 26.

There is still a lot of pussyfooting about on this matter. The only news that Eyre Peninsula people want to hear is when they can turn on their TV sets and get a good picture.

All the mumbo jumbo of planning, financing, surveys, estimates, allocations, locations, promises, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, is getting old hat. It’s time for some action.

That is what the people on Eyre Peninsula want- they want some action. On 13 June last year I wrote to Mr Bruce Gyngell and told him that I would be grateful if he could advise me when the residents of the west coast area could expect to be provided with a television service. It was my understanding that this service was promised within 12 months of the 1977 election campaign, and residents of the west coast areas were anxious to know if this promise would be fulfilled. I received a reply from Mr Payne, from the Postal and Telecommunications Department, Post Office Box 84, O’Connor, dated 2 August 1978. In part, he stated:

Planning for the provision of television services to the Eyre Peninsula/Spencer Gulf area is still being undertaken by this Department. The size of the project, involving a currently assessed cost of approximately S2m, together with a number of quite complex technical problems which have required solution, has made it necessary to schedule the commencement of this project in the 1979-80 financial year. Provided funds are available in 1979-80, it is expected the necessary work will carry through until mid- 1982.

While the timing of this project is not as originally anticipated -

I interpose here to say ‘as promised ‘- you are assured that the provision of a television service for this area has not been overlooked and that work will proceed as quickly as possible within the present constraints on resources available to us.

Yesterday in the Senate, Senator Jessop asked a question of Senator Chaney, the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley). Senator Jessop was again trying to pass the buck to somebody else. We remember that he would not accept responsibility when a statement he made on behalf of the Government was not honoured. I refer to page 2756 of yesterday’s Hansard. It records that Senator Jessop asked when the extension program for television on the Eyre Peninsula would commence. His question in part reads:

Is it a fact that this delay is due to the indecision of the engineering section of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal? In view of the undertaking by the Government that the program will be completed in three years, does the Minister agree that the residents of Eyre Peninsula, unable to receive a reliable television service, could be excused for thinking that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is incompetent?

There again, he is passing the buck to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. In reply, Senator Chaney stated in part:

My recollection of the information I had at that time -

He was talking about answering previous questions from Senator Jessop- is that there is no financial problem with respect to this matter. The finance is available.

I received a letter from Mr B. J. Connolly dated 4 July 1 978 in which he said to me in part:

As you may know, under the provisions of Section 1 1 lc of the Broadcasting and Television Act, 1942, which became effective from 1 January, 1977, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications has the responsibility for planning the development of Australian radio and television services. The Tribunal becomes involved in the licensing process after the Minister has invited applications.

So the Secretary of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal tells us that the Minister is responsible. Yet yesterday Senator Jessop accused the Tribunal of being responsible for the television service not being provided. I refer to an answer which is quite contrary to the one given by Senator Chaney yesterday. It was an answer given to a question by Mr Wallis in the House of Representatives Estimates Committee B on Wednesday, 26 September 1 979. As reported at page 1 1 1 of Hansard Mr Wallis said:

This is something I have discussed with you before, Mr Minister. I refer to the provision of new television services . . . You may remember that two years ago statements were made that Eyre Peninsula would have television in 12 months but to date that has not been forthcoming. You have indicated that a program will go ahead in that area and you have indicated where the stations are likely to be, but do you have any idea when those stations will come into operation?

In reply, Mr Staley said:

I understand it will take some years to implement fully this very extensive program on the Eyre Peninsula. I am advised it will cost well in excess of Sim. . . . I cannot advise on which locations will begin first.

The Minister turned to his adviser, Mr Payne, for some further advice. The Minister asked:

Do we have an indication as to when the first transmissions might begin?

Mr Payne stated:

I am sorry to say to Mr Wallis that there is no money. A $5m capital program has been approved this year for the extension and upgrading of television services but there is no plan to spend money on the Eyre Peninsula area.

So there we have it, direct from the Minister’s adviser during the Estimates hearings. Yet Senator Chaney, in answer to Senator Jessop yesterday, said that finance is available. Mr President, I ask you, who is misleading the Parliament? Who is giving us the correct advice, Mr Staley through his adviser in the House of Representatives Estimates Committee hearing or Senator Chaney in this chamber? I hope that the person giving the correct advice is Senator Chaney. If he is correct, we can expect, mainly through the efforts of Mr Wallis, the honourable member for Grey, that the people on Eyre Peninsula will see the commencement of work for the provision of a television service on Eyre Peninsula without delay. That is another of the matters to which I was referring when I asked what I thought was a civil question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and received that very vindictive answer. I will not say any more about it at this stage but, in conjunction with Mr Wallis, I will be pursuing this matter during the parliamentary recess by way of correspondence.

I would like to say at this stage that Mr Wallis, the honourable member for Grey, has been congratulated by many councils on Eyre Peninsula- I have the Press copies here- for the magnificent effort he has put in on behalf of the residents of Eyre Peninsula in an endeavour to get television receptions for them. He has not indulged in any cheap political tricks. He has been honest in his endeavours. I hope that his genuine endeavours on behalf of the people who live on Eyre Peninsula will be successful, in view of the answer that Senator Chaney has given today. If Senator Chaney has heard what I have said I hope that before the Parliament rises he will be able to give us a unconditional guarantee that his answer was correct and that the answer given by Mr Payne, at the behest of the Minister, was incorrect.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I regret having to take the time of the Senate for a short moment to rebut a scurrilous attack by Senator Archer just before the suspension of the sitting for lunch on the housing policies of the Tasmanian Government. He made two comments. The first was that the Tasmanian Government has the worst housing record in the Commonwealth. There are problems in regard to the housing of elderly persons, one area against another, but overall the Tasmanian Government has a housing commission which is the envy of many other States. The fact that in my area of Devonport one can get a three-bedroom house within a year of making an application and that in some areas of Hobart one can get a home within about 12 months of making an application gives the lie to the sort of political propaganda which was put forward by Senator Archer earlier today. He also said that the Tasmanian Government had a policy of not encouraging or even permitting, he implied, the purchase of housing commission homes by tenants. In fact, 15 months ago 3,500 letters were sent out to the tenants of housing commission homes throughout Tasmania asking them whether they would like to purchase their homes. Eight hundred tenants replied affirmatively.

Negotiations were entered into with the Agricultural Bank acting as the mediator. That bank offers, on a deposit of something like $2,000 or $3,000, tailor-made low interest loans to enable people to buy their homes. Of 100 persons, to date only 46 have been able to take advantage of the policy of the Tasmanian Government to encourage them to obtain homes from the housing commission pool. In Tasmania we have a lower household income than in the south-east mainland, as I have pointed out in this chamber previously. In the housing commission area alone, 5 1 per cent of tenants receive rental rebates. So it is no wonder that the tenants of housing commission homes cannot take advantage of the home purchase policies of the Tasmanian Government. That policy exists and it is scurrilous of Senator Archer to spout political propaganda in here rather than to be genuinely concerned with the housing of Australians in decent and comfortable homes.

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 (No. 3) 1979

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) now before the Senate proposes amendments to Schedule 2 to the Customs Tariff Act 1966.

The Bill follows a complete review of the operation and application of the 2 per cent revenue duty imposed on 1 July 1979 as part of the Government’s overall budgetary policy. As a result of this review the Government has decided to exempt two specific areas of imports from the 2 per cent duty. While remaining committed to the retention of the levy, the Government had decided to exempt two specific areas from its application.

The areas involved are: Ships and other vessels temporarily imported into Australia on the authority of the Minister for Transport under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations; and goods for use in connection with the exploration for petroleum or the development of petroleum wells to the point where the well-head assembly is attached.

Exemption from the 2 per cent duty on these goods has been made because of the temporary nature of imports of ships and similar vessels and the Government’s desire not to impede oil exploration in Australia.

Whilst the Government appreciates the effect of the revenue duty on other goods and areas of industry it could not see its say clear to extending exemptions beyond the two areas referred to. I commend the Bill.

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979

The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. The Bill, which contains 20 Schedules, is necessary to enact tariff changes made by Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 16-30 (1979) which have been introduced into the House of Representatives at different times since April 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 and the Temporary Assistance Authority:

Acetyl products

Australian citrus industry

Bags, sacks and certain polyolefin fabrics

Ceramic floor and wall tiles

Chemical products (Part A)

Confectionery, chocolate and cocoa products

Continuation of assistance for insulators

Hoists, pulley tackle and winches

Miscellaneous industrial machinery

Nuts, bolts and screws, etc.

Oxo alcohols, butyl acetates, etc.

Paper products

Spanners and wrenches

Sporting and recreational equipment

Travelgoods, briefcases, toilet cases and similar goods

Vices

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.

Customs Tariff Validation Bill (No. 2) 1979

This Bill provides for the validation until 30 June 1980 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 31 to 35 introduced into the Parliament at various times since 25 October 1979 and not covered by Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979 introduced into the Parliament on 8 November 1 979. Under section 226 of the Customs Act the collection of duties in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals is protected against legal challenge for six months or until the close of the session of Parliament, which ever occurs first. The introduction and passage of a Validation Bill is therefore a necessary machinery measure which takes over from section 226 pending the introduction of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to formally enact the changes contained in the Proposals.

The tariff changes validated by the Bill relate to:

Decisions of the Government resulting from Industries Assistance Commission reports on-

Furniture- Proposals No. 3 1

Grapes and Wine; Spirits and Spirituous Beverages, etc.- Proposals No. 34;

Administrative changes only. No change in duties is involved- Proposals Nos. 32 and 33;

Changes to certain developing country duty rates following a limited review of the Australian system of tariff preferences for developing countries- Proposals No. 35.

I commend the Bill.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-The Opposition does not oppose these Bills although we will be moving an amendment to the motion that the Bills be now read a second time to express a certain point of view on the part of the Opposition; that is, that whilst we do not condemn the Customs Tariff Amendment Bills, we take the view that the Government should be condemned for continuing to impose a 2 per cent ad valorem levy on goods entering this country. This 2 per cent levy on imported goods was introduced on 1 July this year. It had the effect of adding to inflationary pressures within the economy because many of the goods coming in are inputs into our industrial and commercial life. One finds it very contradictory to the Government’s stated aim of combating inflation that it should undertake to levy an extra 2 per cent on the value of goods imported into Australia. Like so many budgetary measures initiated by this Government, like the horrendous increase in the taxation on petroleum products which has turned every petrol pump in Australia into a sub-branch of the Taxation Commissioner’s revenue raising facilities, this decision was taken simply to raise revenue. What the Opposition objects to in this measure is that there is no response to the strong representations of the many organisations throughout our nation and our commercial life- not left wing radical organisations but organisations such as the Confederation of Australian Industry or the Chemical Importers and Exporters Council of Australia Ltd- which submitted to the Government that this 2 per cent import levy is destroying the competitive position of Australian firms not only within Australia but also in trying to secure markets for the export of their goods.

The thing that worries the Opposition is that this Bill makes two concessions only; concessions which obviously have been given because of the effectiveness of the lobbies which were behind the seeking of these two concessions. They may well be concessions which ought to be granted. But I ask: Why these two, and why only two? This is what one finds disconcerting about the measure presently before the Parliament. It is a response to effective lobbying by two groups only amongst the many who find that this particular levy is crippling their enterprise within the economic situation that we presently have in the country.

Senator Puplick:

– How can you complain about higher petrol prices and complain about the reducing of duty on exploration equipment at the same time?

Senator TATE:

– I doubt whether the listening public would have picked up that interjection. There is nothing inconsistent in my remarks. I simply said that the granting of this concession to the importers of equipment for oil exploration is probably well deserved. But I am asking: Why, after the myriad of submissions made to the Government since the introduction of this levy on 1 July, is it the only concession to be made? It shows the effectiveness of that particular lobby. The Confederation of Australian Industry, which made a plea on behalf of all importers, ought to have had its plea listened to. It was not listened to because of the desperate need of this Government to raise revenue by indirect methods.

It is very clear that this socially regressive policy of the Government, of turning to indirect taxation rather than the progressive tax scales, will bring it undone as it makes these politically advantageous decisions from time to time. Their accumulative impact will destroy much of the commercial life of this country which relies on imports for the industrial process being at a reasonable cost. The Opposition does not want to detain the chamber at any great length on this particular Bill. I move:

The PRESIDENT:

– Are the amendments seconded?

Senator Colston:

– I second the amendments, Mr President.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am pleased that the Opposition does not oppose these Bills. Senator Tate has moved an amendment to the motion that the Bills be now read a second time. That amendment seeks to condemn the Government for continuing to impose a two per cent ad valorem revenue customs duty on most goods which were imported duty free prior to 1 July 1979. I simply point out that that is a Budget measure. It is estimated that it will raise $75m in revenue this year. I think that when the Opposition moves an amendment or opposes a measure contained in the Budget which will raise revenue of that size and importance, it is its responsibility to indicate how else that revenue might be raised. What taxes would the Opposition rather impose? Would it rather that we forgo some of the income tax cuts which will be made as a result of our passing the legislation which passed through the Senate in the past day or two? That legislation will complete the process of introducing a tax cut which will take effect for millions of wage earners on 1 December. What does the Opposition suggest should be done?

Senator Tate:

– What about family trusts?

Senator DURACK:

– Why did Senator Tate not make some suggestions? All we got was an indication that we should not continue with this revenue raising measure of such magnitude. As far as the Government is concerned, this is the priority it has determined. It is a Budget measure providing for a significant reduction in personal income tax, which is the Government’s first priority. It is part of that general package and it ought to proceed.

Amendments negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2935

CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

First Readings

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

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

-Once again we are seeing a session of the Parliament folding up in something of a hurry. It makes me wonder as I am sure it does all honourable senators on this side of the House why this parliamentary period could not have been extended for at least another week. It is still over a month to Christmas. It appears to have been a fairly rough year for the Government and therefore it wants to close down this session of Parliament as rapidly as it can. For that reason I am forced to speak to the first reading stage of these Bills and to curtail the length of my speech out of courtesy to everybody else.

I want to raise a few matters for the record. Earlier this year the international Press and, as I recall it, the Press in Australia carried reports on allegations of the use of systematic torture in Israeli gaols. The Sunday Times of London was one paper that carried quite substantial reports. Time magazine was another. It would appear that those articles emanated from a report, a copy of which I have here. It is headed: Report on Human Rights Practices in Countries Receiving US Aid. Report Submitted to the Committee on Foreign Relations U.S. Senate and Committee on Foreign Affairs U.S. House of Representatives by the Department of State. The report is dated 8 February 1979. The report of the Department of State, under the heading ‘Israel’, states:

  1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person, including Freedom from:

    1. Torture.

Torture is prohibited by law in Israel, and is virtually unheard of.

  1. Cruel, Inhuman or degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Although there may have been rare exceptions in the past, the Department of State knows of no instances in the last year of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The report runs to some number of pages, and at page 566 states:

There have been reports of instances of degrading treatment of some suspects in connection with interrogations in the first hours following arrests.

It continues on page 571:

The ICRC -

That is the International Committee of the Red Cross- regularly inspects prison conditions in the occupied territories and has made recommendations for improvement.

This implies, of course, that the prison conditions have not been the best. It goes on:

In 1970, the Israeli Government authorised Amnesty International to conduct an investigation into reports of illtreatment of prisoners and detainees. Amnesty International issued a report which described accounts of several cases of mistreatment it had received. Its recommendation of a formal inquiry with international participation was rejected by Israel.

In October 1976, Amnesty International renewed its request for an investigation. Since then, it has expressed its concern about the imprisonment or treatment of a number of individual prisoners, Israeli Jews as well as Arabs, in several letters to Israel’s Attorney-General.

For several years, the United Nations Human Rights Commission and other United Nations bodies have adopted resolutions condemning alleged Israeli human rights violations in the occupied territories.

I refer now to a document which was given to me by a constituent recently. It is headed ‘Palestinians in Israeli Gaols’. It states:

This study is an attempt to probe the affairs of the Palestinians in the Israeli prisons of the occupied West Bank and Gaza, and to present a documented picture of the torture, persecution, torment and humiliation meted out to these prisoners.

The document states:

Prisons and detention camps housing the Palestinian prisoners are widely spread in the West Bank and Gaza and also inside occupied Palestine. The occupation authorities maintained a close watch for any form of national struggle and sent to prison and detention camps thousands of Palestinian citizens to subject them to the most savage methods of physical and psychological torture with the aim of crushing the resistance and silencing any voice raised against the occupation. The Israeli authorities aimed at terrorising those who think of resisting occupation and discovering any secret moves against occupation. Therefore the Shin Beit or the Israeli intelligence department is greatly interested in interrogation because this will give them information on the political and military activities of the Palestinian insistence and the Arab armies. Any slight suspicion that a prisoner might have information will prompt the interrogator to torture him. Their unchanging threat is: ‘Either you give us the information you have or we will liquidate you here and nobody will know that you are here’.

Interrogation begins with persuasion and threats. Persuasion includes tempting the prisoner to deal with the Israelis. If this fails they try their fiendish methods of torture.

I want to refer to another document headed Special Committee on Israeli Practices Hears Sixteen Witnesses’. It states:

The General Assembly’s Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Population in the Occupied Territories, Heard the Testimonies of Sixteen Witnesses.

This Committee, sponsored by the United Nations, is headed by a Professor of Law at a University in Yugoslavia. The Committee was given the mandate two years ago in General Assembly resolution 32/9 1C to report on the condition of detainees in the occupied territories. The document continues:

During the current session, the Committee intends to hear altogether 18 witnesses selected from among 76 former detainees who were released from various prisons in the occupied territories and exchanged for an Israeli pilot at Cointrin Airport, Geneva on 1 4 March 1 979. But two of these 1 8 witnesses were unable to come to Geneva for health reasons.

The witnesses limit themselves to facts known to them personally; the Committee does not accept statements based either on the experience of others or statements of a speculative nature.

Three witnesses, Hafez Dalkamouni, Omaar Mohamed Abu Rashed and Imad Okal, who were detained in the same prisons told the Committee that they were arrested immediately after the 1967 war and were interrogated by Israeli military force before being brought to the court which sentenced them to life imprisonment plus 10 years. They said they were tortured during interrogation and during the years they spent in prison. They were tortured physically (beatings, deprivation of food, solitary confinement, dirtiness of cells, impossibility to sleep, etc.); they were also tortured morally.

All three witnesses complained about the inadequacy of the interpretation during their trial. They were denied the possibility of being assisted by lawyers or of making statements.

During the years they spent in prison, the three witnesses said they had to resort to hunger strikes on several occasions in order to obtain some improvement in prison conditions which they described as particularly hard. They were not allowed to study or read. The food was scanty and bad; one such strike was inspired by an Israeli attempt to impose on the Palestinian detainees the task of manufacturing camouflage nets for the army.

The witnesses complained about deprivation of medical care; one of them had however been allowed after the intervention of the Red Cross to see a doctor of his own choice at his own expense. Several detainees would suffer for the rest of their lives, they said, from the results of the maltreatment they suffered in Israeli prisons.

The document goes on with a precis of evidence given by 12 witnesses and, if time was available, I would like to read them into Hansard. However, some grizzly details of how prisoners have allegedly been handled do not make nice reading for anybody who may be a little bit weak in the stomach. I raise this matter to put a case for the human rights for those people who have been and who are still detained in gaol. Despite the fact, as I stated earlier and as mentioned in the State Department report, the state of Israel says that it is a state where torture is not allowed. I do not believe that I have read the constitution of any country which does not have written into it some passages about human rights in that country. As far as I know, every country proclaims that it is a country where human rights are held in the highest esteem and where torture is not used. Anybody who believes that some sorts of systems of torture are not used in our own gaols should talk to the prisoners who have been in them. Our Constitution also has certain rights built into it for citizens. But if honourable senators visit a gaol they will find ‘a screw is a screw is a screw’ regardless of nationality, wherever he or she may be. Anybody who served in the Army and anybody unfortunate enough to be on the wrong side of the authorities in the Army during World War II will tell honourable senators of the activities of screws and the methods and the inhuman treatment that those screws meted out to their fellow countrymen. I raise thise matter purely and simply to put it on the record and in the hope that our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) may make some investigation to see whether these allegations are true.

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-

Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1979

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to amend the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to enact the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) proposals which were tabled in the other place on 25 October 1979. The majority of the changes to the coal export duty, as proposed by this Bill, were foreshadowed by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in the Budget Speech on 21 August 1979. As mentioned by the Treasurer, from 1 November 1979 the revised export duty applicable to high quality coking coal is $1 per tonne if that coal is extracted from an underground mine, a new open-cut mine commencing production on or after 30 June 1980 or a major extension commencing on or after 30 June 1980 to an existing open-cut mine.

In addition to the changes announced by the Treasurer, this Bill proposes two further changes, with effect from I November 1979, to the application of the coal export duty. Firstly, certain coal which attracts a rate of duty as coking coal in terms of the definitions in the existing legislation is in fact only saleable as steaming coal because of its high ash content. To remove this anomaly the Government has decided that coal which contains an ash content of more than 12 per cent on an air dried basis will be exempt from the payment of duty under the Act. Secondly, in recognition that open-cut mining technologies involving specialised high cost equipment are coming into use which make possible the excavation of coal at depths significantly greater than current technology, the Government has further decided that high quality coking coal extracted from existing open-cut mines at a depth of greater than 60 metres will attract a rate of duty of $ 1 per tonne. The cost to the revenue of the changes in relation to steaming coal and coal extracted at a depth below 60 metres is estimated to be $50,000 in 1979-80, $2.5m in 1980-81 and $3.1 min 1981-82.

Honourable Senators’ attention is invited to one aspect of significance in the Bill which relates to declarations by my colleague the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony ). Clause 5 of the Bill enables the Minister for Trade and Resources to declare new coal mines or major extensions to existing coal mines for the purposes of the Act.

For the benefit of honourable senators, I point out that the Government considers that a major extension to an existing mine should be of such magnitude that it would, in other circumstances, be regarded as a new mine. Therefore, to qualify as a major extension, the extension should result in a substantial and ongoing increase in production which will generally require significant additions to the whole operational chain. Clearly, there will be a variety of circumstances which must be taken into account in the judgments of the merits of a particular case. For this reason the Government believes that that judgment is of sufficient magnitude to warrant ministerial declaration. Clause 5 of the Bill further provides, in relation to major extensions, a power for the Minister for Trade and Resources to revoke an earlier declaration if he is satisfied that the conditions upon which the declaration was issued no longer apply.

Consistent with the Government’s policy of expanding, wherever possible, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to administrative decisions, I will be introducing a further Bill which proposes amendments to the Customs Act 1 90 1 to provide a right to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of administrative decisions by the Minister for Trade and Resources or a collector of customs which affect the liability for duty of persons under the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1 975, as proposed to be amended.

Finally although it has not been possible to remove the export duty in respect of coal in its entirety, the Government is of the view that the measures in the Bill now before the Senate will provide significant assistance to the industry. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979

The purpose of this Bill now before the Senate is to amend Section 133 of the Customs Act 1901, consequent upon the proposed Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1 979, to provide a right to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of administrative decisions by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) or a collector of customs which affect the liability for duty of persons under the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 as proposed to be amended. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– We are dealing with the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1979 and the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1979. Both Bills, although being considered cognately, deal with different measures. The Customs Amendment Bill (No. 3) provides for a right to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of administrative decisions which affect the liability to pay duty under the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act. The Opposition does not oppose that measure. Therefore, I do not propose to take the time of the Senate dealing with it.

The other Bill is of greater significance. This Bill introduces the Budget decision to decrease the rate of duty on high quality coking coal from $3.50 a tonne to $1 a tonne for coal produced from underground mines or from a mine commencing production after 30 June 1 980 and from a major extension of an existing mine if production commenced after that date. The Bill also makes changes in respect of coal mined from depths of more than 60 metres. It exempts from duty coal with a ash content of more than 1 2 per cent. This Bill continues what has become the standard Government policy of reducing the coal export levy without substituting an appropriate measure. We oppose the Bill as we have done in recent years with similar legislation and because of that I will be moving an amendment at the end of the second reading. Consistent with its policy of attracting development at any price, the Government has set about removing the levy on the export of coal. It is true that that levy imposes a burden on some marginal producers. I think that that applies more in some underground mines in New South Wales rather than anywhere else, but that in itself is no justification for the Government taking the present course.

The effect of these policies is to encourage capital-intensive extractive industries such as uranium and coal, under conditions which we believe are detrimental to the country as a whole. The Government has a very strong desire to maximise or attract investment of one sort or another. Consequently, it has watered down its foreign investment guidelines. That, in effect, is encouraging the transfer of Australia’s resources to overseas ownership. Tax concessions have been made to encourage these developments but not much thought has been given to the provision of the infrastructure that is necessary in the development of these projects. That infrastructure is eventually being paid for by the taxpayers through the new infrastructure borrowing arrangements with the State governments.

The net effect is that the major companiesUtah is one that immediately comes to mindare making very great profits, most of which are repatriated overseas, which in turn compounds our balance of payments problems. We of the Opposition take a different view. We believe that there should be orderly and balanced development of our natural resources. That view is backed by a very clear and long standing commitment which we of the Opposition have had on this matter for many years. Our energy policy is based on the need to improve energy efficiency and the need to identify new energy reserves. What is needed is a policy, to be worked out in consultation with industry and the trade union movement, which will provide a proper climate for long-term investment in the development of our resources so that the benefits of those resources and their development can be shared equitably between those who produce them and the community at large.

On that basis it is essential that the coal export levy be replaced with some alternative form of resource tax which is based on the profits of the producers and which must be equitable but must recognise the rights of the Australian community to benefit from the development of those resources. Australia’s resources belong to the Australian people. As such, the benefits should be shared amongst the community as a whole. The profits to which I have referred- the windfall profits, as they are so often called, which often result from dramatic increases in world prices or from pricing decisions of governments- should be shared as equitably as possible. If we continue to direct our tax policies towards encouraging capital intensive industries we must resign ourselves to the fact that there will be a continuing increase in the number of people looking for work. There must be some mechanism for distributing the large and growing profits which come from exploiting Australia’s resources, such as coal and other mineral developments. A future Labor Government would take the stand that we must apply a resource rent tax to the coal industry. The tax would be, as I have said, carefully considered in conjunction with industry and the unions. We feel that that is the most effective way in which we can benefit from the development of these industries. I move:

In respect of the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1 979, leave out all words after That ‘, insert the Senate declines to give the Bill a second reading as it is of the opinion that the existing coal export levies are indiscriminate and unworkable and their variations have resulted in a lower level of receipts from highly profitable coal ventures than would have been the case had a profits related taxing mechanism been established, and therefore calls upon the Government to introduce legislation to abolish the coal levies and replace the same with a resource rent tax which takes into account the real level of costs and profit’.

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

– I thank Senator Wriedt for his brief remarks on these Bills. I am aware that, because the Senate is expected to rise shortly, Senator Wriedt did not speak at length on a matter which is of importance to the Opposition. It is important to the Government that these Bills, being tariff measures, be passed. Underlying the amendment which the Opposition has moved is the principle which indicates the difference in the attitude and approach between the Government and the Opposition in relation to resources. I suggest that a reading of the speeches that were made on these Bills in the House of Representatives will reveal the Opposition’s proposals. Basically what we are seeing brought forward at this time in this amendment is the Labor Party’s attitude in relation to a resources tax and resource development companies. It may be that in the next session an opportunity will be given for the Opposition to expand further its views on this sort of legislation.

The Government stands firm in its attitude. The Government does not agree with the proposition of imposing a secondary profits tax or what is referred to by the Opposition as a resources rent tax.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2939

EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1979

First Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorney General · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to validate all duties of excise demanded or collected on or before 30 June 1980 in respect of stabilised crude petroleum oil, saccharin and cyclamates and grape brandies pursuant to Excise Tariff Proposals Nos 5, 6 and 1 which were moved in the other place on 21 August 1979 and 8 November 1979 respectively. The increase in the excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil from $70.98 to $102.27 per kilolitre with effect from 1 July 1979 followed determination, by my colleague the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman), of new import parity prices in accordance with the Government’s decision that all crude oil be priced to refineries at import parity levels.

Abolition of duties of excise on saccharin and cyclamates has been made as a result of the Government’s decision to adopt the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission contained in its report No. 2 12 of 4 May 1979 on chemical products (Part A). Duties of excise payable on grape brandies have been reduced by $2.75 per litre of alcohol as a result of the Government’s decision to enhance the competitive position of this product following consideration of the recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission in its reports on grapes and wine and spirits, spirituous beverages, et cetera. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The purpose of the Excise Tariff Validation Bill is to validate all duties of excise collected on or before 30 June 1980 in respect of stabilised crude petroleum oil, saccharin, cyclamates and grape brandies. We are not concerned about the increase in excise on saccharin or cyclamates, therefore we will not oppose the increase on those items. But we are opposed to the increase in excise on crude oil from $ 1 1.30 a barrel to $16.25 a barrel with effect from 1 July as a result of the determination on new import parity prices.

I have indicated basically why we are opposing the increase in excise on crude oil from $1 1.30 to $16.25. As we know, the increase is a direct result of the policy that the Government has adopted, which is essentially one whereby the price of Australian oil increases as world parity price increases. We believe this to be a most inequitable means of taxing oil production. It has imposed a considerable burden on the great majority of Australians who are, of course, motorists. Whenever the world price of oil goes up, Australia’s prices go up by the same amount. As a result, we are locked into paying international oil prices with the consequences of those increases. To give a quick example, in the last four years the price of petrol has doubled. Even this year there has been an increase of 25c a gallon, which has resulted directly from this policy of continually increasing prices.

The reason for the Bill is to ensure that the Government gets most of the increase in the price of oil. Although the Australian consumer is forced to pay higher petrol prices, most of the revenue from that increase goes straight to Government revenue. Every petrol pump in Australia has become a branch of the Taxation Office. This year the Government will raise approximately $2, 500m from excise on crude oil and company tax on oil producers. It will raise almost $ 1 , 000m in excise on petroleum products. The total revenue from crude oil and petroleum products will be around $3,500m. These figures do not take into account possible further steep increases in the price of oil as a result of decisions of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries which, because of the policy that has been adopted, will automatically add further to the price of petrol in Australia. It is argued that, for a number of reasons, import parity is essential. The Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) claims constantly that it will lead to energy conservation. But the public does need a means of transport. We know the condition of public transport in this country. People are compelled to fall back on the use of private vehicles. Despite the fact that petrol prices continue to rise, consumption is also going up- exactly as it has in Europe in recent years, when prices have been escalating rapidly.

It is also argued that import parity pricing leads to further exploration. A more sensible policy was that of the previous Government, which provided that the world parity price would be paid for any discoveries made after 1975. Such a policy provides a genuine stimulus for exploration. The payment of high prices for oil discovered 10 years ago offers no incentive for exploration. Nor is there any certainty that windfall profits made as a result would be directed to that end. It is also claimed by the Government that world parity pricing leads to the use of substitute fuels or other sources of energy. This is a fair enough argument and could be true if price increases were slow enough to enable those changes to take place. But, as we know, the rapid oil price increases, which have been mainly the result of the deliberate policy of the Government, have not allowed time for the development of those substitutes. Currently, we are having the worst of both worlds. No one can take the Government seriously when it talks about substitute fuels. Although it is raising $3, 500m in revenue, it is spending only $ 15m on energy research and development.

The fact is that the adoption of world parity pricing is merely to raise revenue and is a substitute for developing an energy policy. Not a great deal has been done by the Government to secure adequate supplies for this country. It seems that the whole of the oil producing area in the world is involved in one crisis after another. The Government has continued to rely on the availability of Australian oil and the continuation of overseas supplies from places such as Saudi Arabia to keep us going. But it does not appear to have done much to secure our position should there be a diversion of our overseas supplies. It has been claimed by the Minister for National Development that the situation in Iran is of no real concern to us because we get only one per cent of our crude oil from that country; yet at the moment, much of our avgas comes from Iran. The avgas shortages show that the Government has no long-range plans to deal with the oil supply problem.

The issue of government-to-government negotiations is allegedly being considered by the Government but we never seem to get anywhere with it. Next Tuesday I believe it will appear again before Cabinet but we have little hope of any decision arising from that meeting. We are largely at the mercy of the oil companies and, because of that factor, alternatives are difficult to find. The original idea of having the government-to-government negotiations was undoubtedly a sound one. In fact, in principle the idea is very much the same as that proposed by the previous Labor Government. I move:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to exclude the validation of the collection of any increase in excise duty on stabilised crude petroleum oil’.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The amendment moved by the Opposition, to exclude the validation of the new excise duty on crude petroleum oil, would have an enormous impact on the revenue side of the Budget. From what Senator Wriedt said, it is not clear to me whether his proposal indicates any alternative sources of revenue. I would have thought that any amendment having such an impact on the Budget and such implications for Australia’s economic policy as a whole would have had attached to it some clear indication of what alternative revenue was in mind.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is a very clear admission that you are primarily concerned with revenue, is it not?

Senator DURACK:

– No, it is not. I am just coming to that. The other point is that the Government has said at all times that the policy of import parity pricing is very vital to the proper allocation of resources. That is another major reason why this measure should proceed. The value of import parity pricing has already been shown. Senator Wriedt said that there has not been a significant reduction in consumption but, in fact, as a result of import parity pricing there has been a considerable improvement in exploration and I think a very much greater awareness in the community of the problems that we face as a nation in relation to our energy resources and energy supplies. The Government is particularly committed to these policies. This amendment would cut away completely the policy that is being pursued and it does not, as I said, suggest any alternative policy either to raise revenue or to encourage conservation and exploration measures. For those reasons the Government strongly opposes this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2940

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I bring up the 14th report of the Publications Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2941

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

– I speak in support of the Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill 1979. Before I start debating the Bill I would like to read from the second reading speech by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John McLeay), in which he said:

Honourable members will be aware of the Government’s policy to strengthen the parliamentary system and to enable Parliament adequately to review the activities of government administration. One facet of this process is the broadening of parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditure.

The Public Accounts Committee is one of the committees that undertakes that parliamentary scrutiny. It is one of the oldest committees of this Parliament. It was established under the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951. The Public Accounts Committee is constituted by seven members of the House of Representatives and three members of the Senate. I was appointed to this Committee in March 1977. 1 am serving on it together with distinguished honourable senators from this chamber who have taken part in the deliberations of the Committee over the years. This is one of the first occasions that substantial amendments to the Act have been made since the Committee was established. The amendments are being put to the Parliament to update the Committee’s procedures and operations.

Unfortunately, little is known about the functions of the Public Accounts Committee by members of the Parliament. Even less is known by the media. They are completely ignored by the general public. For that I blame the media. If the media would take a little more interest in the works of the standing committees, particularly the joint parliamentary committees, perhaps the public would be able to judge the work of the parliamentarians differently. The vice-chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the honourable member for Banks, Mr Martin, in a speech in the other place said:

The Commonwealth Public Service has a healthy respect for the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. In fact, I have seen very senior officers in the Service coming before our Committee with the Joe Blakes, as we say- the shakes. That is something which has surprised me.

I agree with the honourable member for Banks, but only partially. My experience in the last two and a half years sometimes has been quite different. I have found the attitudes of some public servants to be quite the opposite. Their attitudes have surprised me. They thought that the members were there just to listen to what they had to say. They answered our questions in a half joking way. Some of them completely disregarded our questions. The attitudes of some public servants- I emphasise some- are such that I feel that the Parliament ought to know that sometimes when a public servant is given a directive by the Government, the Parliament or the Cabinet as was the case in the incident I have in mind, he gives instructions to his subordinates to disregard it. He says: ‘We are not morally or legally obliged to take directions from the Cabinet’. I feel that the public should know who has the power to run this country. We often hear from the other side of the chamber that it is the Executive which has the power to govern. In my two and a half years as a senator I have found that some public servants reckon that that is their prerogative. I object to that. I hope that the people of Australia will hear what I am saying today. They will be able to judge that some public servants are hiding behind the anonymity of the Public Service. They should serve the public and not take the arrogant view that they know all. The servants of the public, which all members of the Parliament are, should be given reasonable answers to their questions when they try to find out how departments are governed and run.

The duty of the Public Accounts Committee is to oversee expenditure which has already taken place. Further, it is to examine the accounts of receipts and expenditure for the whole of the Commonwealth and report to the Parliament. Our examinations were limited until now. The Public Accounts Committee Amendment Bill provides that we will be able to look into the accounts of statutory bodies. We have heard a lot about statutory bodies. There are about 250 of them compared with 31 federal departments. Clause 5 (c) of the Bill inserts new sub-sections. The purpose of the change is to bring the financial affairs of authorities and intergovernmental bodies subject to certain limitations described below within the ambit of the Committee’s scrutiny.

Clause 5(b) provides for the substitution of the following paragraph in section 8 of the Principal Act: (ab) to examine all reports of the Auditor-General (including reports of the results of efficiency audits) copies of which have been laid before the Houses of Parliament; . . .

Section 8a of the Principal Act now restricts the Committee’s examination to reports made in pursuance of sub-section 53 ( 1 ) of the Audit Act. It is also important that the amendment which I am now supporting will enable the Committee to function during the parliamentary recess, and further that it will reduce the present quorum of members from six to four, giving the Committee far greater flexibility and increasing the capability to examine many more items of government departments. In the Parliament three committees are examining the functioning and running of departments. One is in the House of Representatives, the Standing Committee on Expenditure; the second is the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations; and the third is the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Accounts.

In conclusion, I should like to mention one point. If all members of the Parliament took part in the committee examination in detail of the expenditure by the Government, no one would be able to finish his or her work, and it is important that the taxpayers’ interests are guarded by us, the servants of the public. I support the Bill.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– I thank Senator Lajovic for his speech, which I think was made on behalf of all senators. The Joint Statutory Committee on Public Accounts is a most important Committee, and the widening of its jurisdiction is welcomed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2942

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Before the commencement of the second reading debate, may I suggest that we deal with the Telecommunications (Interception) Amendment Bill 1979 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Amendment Bill 1 979 cognately with this Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– It is a matter of great regret to the Opposition that these important Bills have been brought on at the tail end of what for all of us has been a gruelling week and a gruelling session. However, the Bills must be debated because they are of very considerable significance. They reflect the decision forced upon the Government, much to its embarrassment, by the recent report of Mr Justice Williams containing a recommendation to disband the Federal Narcotics Bureau and to vest the Federal narcotics law enforcement powers in the new Australian Federal Police. It is not my intention at this stage of the session to canvass at any great length the many issues that are raised by these Bills. After all, many of the issues have been debated extensively in various other contexts in recent months. Moreover, the Government has shown, regrettably, no disposition whatsoever to listen to reasoned argument on this subject. Accordingly, a long debate would be somewhat futile. Nonetheless, a number of points must be made by the Opposition to explain its quite serious reservations about these Bills and, in particular, to explain why it does not want them to go on to the statute book in any permanent form at this stage. Rather, we argue that they should contain a sunset provision which would enable this Parliament to reconsider them in their entirety when it resumes in February next year.

The first point to be made about the Bills in question is that they involve conferring on the Australian Federal Police powers which in their scope and nature are sweeping and unprecedented. They include powers to tap telephones, hitherto available only in the limited context of national security; powers to install listening devices, previously not available at all under Commonwealth law but only under certain State laws; and powers to intercept mail and other forms of telecommunications, unprecedented in any jurisdiction. It may be that the horrifying nature of the drug trade, as it has recently built up, demands such measures. Indeed, the Opposition, with certain qualifications, has accepted that view. Nonetheless, we make the point, as we have on the many occasions on which we have debated these matters in recent months, that powers of this kind have an enormously destructive potential for civil liberties. Powers in relation to the tapping of telephones and the installation of listening devices in particular by their very nature involve unselective, exploratory and indiscriminate invasions of people’s privacy. The question that must be asked constantly by the Government, by the Opposition, and by this Parliament is this: Is the price worth it? Is the price too high to pay in any particular case? That question must be central in our minds.

Throughout the argument on these matters the Opposition has taken the view that if these powers are going to be available to anyone they must be accompanied by a range of appropriate safeguards governing their exercise. Accordingly we have moved, so far unsuccessfully, that when these powers are exercised they should be exercised only in accordance with judicial warrants which are granted on the basis of extensive affidavits sworn in support of the applications for such warrants. We have moved further, again unsuccessfully, to require that the judges issuing such warrants do so only when they are persuaded that less extreme measures of law enforcement either have been tried and proved unsuccessful or would be manifestly inappropriate. We have moved, again unsuccessfully, on previous occasions, that there be quite significant limitations of time attached to these warrants.

These attempts to write in safeguards of this kind have assumed particular importance in this narcotics context when one remembers the nature of the offences in relation to which these powers can be exercised. These powers relate not only to large-scale heroin traffickers whose activities we would all deplore and condemn, but also, under the terms of the Customs legislation as it now stands, are available for pursuit of what are, on any view, quite minor offenders. I refer to people who, for example, are suspected of having been in possession at some stage of less than one gramme of imported cannabis. Bearing all this in mind we see that the Parliament must scrutinise very carefully indeed the vesting of powers of this kind in anybody. As I have said, it is now proposed to vest these powers not in the Narcotics Bureau, which has been disbanded, but rather in the Australian Federal Police. However, it is proposed to vest them in Australian Federal Police at a time when that organisation is under a serious cloud as a result of facts which have been emerging daily in the conduct of the social security frauds case now taking place in Sydney.

Is it really necessary to remind the Senate that the Opposition made exactly these same points a few months ago when we were debating the vesting of these powers in the Narcotics Bureau? Is it necessary to remind the Senate that having made those points we have been thoroughly vindicated by the subsequent course of events? It will be remembered, of course, that we said that however desirable it might be in the abstract for powers of this kind to be available for narcotics law enforcement, it would be indefensible for the

Government to be proposing to vest such powers in a narcotics bureau which was itself then under a serious cloud, with unanswered allegations outstanding in respect of both its competence and, more particularly and more seriously still, its integrity and its freedom from corruption of an internal kind. It will be remembered that that debate took place against the backdrop of the Wilson murders, the allegations made in the Halpin book and further allegations made in the Delaney book about what was going on then in the Bureau of Customs. It took place against a background of the extraordinary resignation and reinstatement of Mr Harvey Bates in circumstances which at the time remained utterly mysterious.

But then, of course, the legislation having gone through, having been forced through by this Government under these circumstances, we had tabled in this Parliament just a few weeks ago the interim report of Mr Justice Williams’ Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs recommending the disbanding of that narcotics bureau. That is a public report that we have all seen. It makes out an absolutely unassailable case, which certainly the Government could not ignore, about the incompetence of that bureau and the way in which it had been preoccupied with public relations at the expense of substantive achievement. It indicated the total lack of confidence which judges and courts had had, notwithstanding those public relations, in the activities of that bureau. Moreover, it subsequently appeared that the confidential report which Mr Justice Williams issued at the same time takes those allegations rather further than simple incompetence to the extent that there are very grave reasons to suppose that that organisation was not free from corruption of a high order. It emerged further, as a result of those reports and in the course of the subsequent debates, that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) and the Government had knowledge of the circumstances of that report and the likely recommendations of the Williams royal commission. At the very time that this legislation was being debated in Parliament they had knowledge of the situation to which the Opposition was drawing attention.

The Narcotics Bureau has now been disbanded. That is all history. It is proposed to vest those very same powers in the new Australian Federal Police. Surely we can be forgiven for having an awful sense of deja vu about this situation. At the very time that this Government is forcing this legislation through the Parliament in the dying hours of this session we have a situation of revelations, emerging again on an almost daily basis, about a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs which has existed and which must, in the absence of contrary evidence, be presumed to be continuing to exist in the former Commonwealth Police which is now the main component of the new Australian Federal Police. Those revelations have emerged in the course of the conduct of the social security conspiracy case, as it has been labelled. Perhaps most importantly of all, we have had evidence emerging in relation to serious illegalities having been committed by members of what is now the Australian Federal Police in the conduct of criminal investigations- the investigations leading up to the prosecutions in that social security case.

It emerged clearly, it will be remembered from the evidence of Inspector Thomas a couple of weeks ago that the then Commonwealth Police had been engaging regularly in the interception and recording of telephone communications in circumstances which were conceded to be a clear breach of section 5 of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act as it then existed, and probably also a breach of Telecommunication By-law No. 1 9. We have had a demonstration in the evidence of Inspector Thomas in that case not only of an ignorance, and an acknowledgement of ignorance, of the laws in question but also a demonstration of indifference to the existence of court decisions- not only the recent Padman case but also the Victorian case in 1 972 of Matthews and Ford, which clearly established the illegality of the procedures which were then being employed by the Police Force.

In the course of this Sydney case we have had a further emerging of evidence of a startling kind relating to the cavalier indifference of the then Commonwealth Police to the conduct of arrests. Circumstances have emerged both in the course of this case and in the run up to it whereby statutory declarations have been made about the Commonwealth Police having engaged in the original raid on the Greek community, which involved forcible entry in a number of cases without a warrant either having been in existence or at least having been produced to the persons in question on request. Arrests- or at least detentions, to use the euphemism- have been made without warrant or in circumstances where an arrest without warrant was unjustified, as indeed has been demonstrated by the unwillingness of the police subsequently to proceed to the prosectuion of a number of those persons so detained. We have had circumstances again emerging in the course of the evidence recently given in that case -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Evans, do not refer to any evidence given in that case.

Senator EVANS:

– Let me say this, Mr President: In that case we have Inspector Thomas, in explanation of the decision to prosecute the particular persons before the court rather than others, saying that the choice of the 182 who were to be prosecuted was not based on any more rational consideration than ‘the operation of the fickle finger of fate’. Extraordinarily enough, Inspector Thomas used that expression in answer to questions in the course of that trial to explain why it was that some people were prosecuted and others were not. Those who were prosecuted happened to be at home at the time when the police made their raids. There was no more rational basis than that. Again, we have had clearly emerging from the course of those proceedings- without referring to any individual litigant or defendant- evidence of very dubious behaviour on the part of those police officers with respect to the conduct of the prosecutions. I refer in particular to their failure to inform the prosecuting authorities in the Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office and elsewhere about the circumstances in which the basic evidence which led to the raids in question had been obtained from informers, and the nature of the relationship between the police force and those informers.

I mention those matters only very quickly but they are significant because they demonstrate that there is a great deal still to be explained and a good deal still to be answered for so far as the conduct of the Commonwealth Police is concerned. Of course, presumably it will be said by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) that it is not good enough to say that any conclusions can be drawn from the behaviour of the Commonwealth Police in that context. It will be said that that was the Commonwealth Police and now we have a new organisation, the Australian Federal Police, with new leadership, and that now, whatever might have been the case before, there are no reasonable grounds for concern. But it has to be understood that that is just not so. The Commonwealth Police has been incorporated lock, stock and barrel into the new Australian Federal Police and is the major component of it.

The high level leadership of the new Australian Federal Police is essentially the same as that of the previous Commonwealth Police. There is, of course, an exception with the appointment of Sir Colin Woods as the new

Commissioner. His record in the United Kingdom is such as to encourage, I readily acknowledge, the greatest confidence in both his capacity and his integrity. But he no more than anyone else can work miracles overnight and it simply cannot be assumed with the new Australian Federal Police that we have at the momentwhatever may prove to be the case in the months ahead- an organisation which is a different kind of animal from the old Commonwealth Police. Further, there is still no criminal investigation Act on the statute book at a federal level to set a proper legal framework or safeguards within which that new police force can perform criminal investigations. There is still no complaints legislation on the statute book, notwithstanding the absolutely unequivocal undertaking of the Minister for Administrative Services, Mr John McLeay, on 1 3 June that such legislation would be introduced this session.

In the light of all these things, the circumstance that the Opposition puts, and puts very strongly, to the Government is that there is just no basis on which we can be confident that things have changed. These considerations lead the Opposition not to oppose this Bill outright, because we acknowledge that the war against drug crime cannot just simply be consigned to limbo after a period of some months, but rather to urge the Government to make this legislation temporary only and subject to reconsideration by this Parliament at the first opportunity. Accordingly, I foreshadow an amendment at the Committee stage to require reconsideration of this legislation no later than 28 February 1980- a sunset provision, if you like, but one that will require this legislation to be re-enacted by this Parliament if it is to stay on foot.

The police and the Government accordingly have three months to get their houses in order. If they cannot do so to the satisfaction of this Parliament and the public by next February, they must not have these sweeping powers. They are too wide, too savage, too destructive to be left in the hands of any organisation except one whose competence and integrity is absolutely and unequivocally beyond doubt.

There is one remaining matter which is a major area of concern to the Opposition. There are some other lesser matters which we can pursue in the Committee stage. The remaining major matter relates to the opportunity that this legislation affords for the Australian Federal Police- indeed, other agencies, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation- to acquire new powers by stealth. I refer to the provisions in these Bills enabling the communication of information obtained by narcotics investigations, through the use of telephone taps, listening devices and so on, to other members of the Australian Federal Police, to State and Territory police forces and, in the context of security matters that may emerge from such investigations, to ASIO.

These powers to communicate information, derived from investigations of a notionally quite different kind, were alarming enough when they were vested in the Narcotics Bureau; but in many ways they are even more alarming when they are found vested, as they are by this legislation, in the Australian Federal Police, given the much wider range of ordinary law enforcement functions which are vested in that agency and the consequently greater temptation to use the narcotics powers for the obtaining of evidence and information in relation to other classes of offences. The Opposition acknowledges that if genuine windfall information, if I can describe it that way, is obtained with respect to the commission of other serious offences or even serious matters of national security and if that information is obtained in the course of genuine narcotics inquiries, it does offend common sense for that information not to be capable of being used in respect of those other offences. Nonetheless, we are concerned at a possible insufficiency of safeguards governing such communications.

The Government, it is true and I readily acknowledge, has referred to and provided for three such safeguards. In the first place, so far as information as to other offences is concerned, the Govenment in these Bills has set a threshold requirement as to the seriousness of such offences. They must be ones which are punishable by three years imprisonment or more. Again there is a new requirement which the Opposition welcomes that any information which is obtained by the use of listening devices and so on in the course of narcotics inquiries and which is communicated to other officers of the Australian Federal Police, of State police forces or of ASIO must be the subject of a written report from the police to the Minister. That is an innovation. It was also provided in a recent ministerial directive on 23 October, the status of which remains a little equivocal when one compares it with the formal powers in the text of the legislation, that personal information so described should not be communicated at all.

As I said, the Opposition welcomes all three of these safeguards and acknowledges that they may in fact prove sufficient to allay the kinds of fears that I have expressed. But the Opposition, I submit, can be forgiven a degree of scepticism. I think we can be forgiven a degree of concern about the looseness with which security matters are described and, accordingly, about the wide diversity of information derived in the course of narcotics inquiries which might legitimately be communicated to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Again I think we can be forgiven a degree of scepticism and caution about the likely utility of the requirement of a report to the Minister. Ministerial responsibility of this kind is all very well on paper, but we have found some difficulties with the practical application of that concept in recent weeks. I suggest that there are likely to be particular difficulties unless there is in office a particular Minister who is somewhat more capable, more alert and more sensitive to the issues than the present Minister, Mr McLeay, has proved to be, if the evidence of his contributions to debate in the other place is any guide.

The Opposition acknowledges that the way in which these powers to communicate information are exercised depends ultimately on the internal control that will be exercised within the Police Force and on how the disciplinary provisions which operate within the Police Force are applied; in other words, how straight the Police Force plays it. It may be that with the new leadership of that force there are grounds for confidence that the Australian Federal Police will play it straight in these matters in the future, but- and this is the central theme of the Opposition’s reaction to this Bill- we believe we are not entitled to have that confidence in the Australian Federal Police at the moment. Accordingly, again we believe that this adds further weight and force to our desire that this legislation not assume a permanent or an entrenched place on the statute book as legislation normally does- although, of course, it is capable of amendment at a later stage- but that it be given a specific short lifetime and be subject to further consideration by this Parliament next February so that the progress that the Police Force is making is able to be re-evaluated. For all those reasons the Opposition has a grave concern and grave reservations about this legislation. We will not formally oppose the second reading of the Bill, but at the Committee stage we will press, along with a number of less significant amendments, the particular amendment which provides for a sunset clause to enable that reconsideration by this Parliament to which I have referred.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I am pleased that the Opposition is not opposing the Customs Amendment Bill and related Bills. The Opposition has confined itself to the moving of a sunset clause.

That sunset clause is to take effect at the end of February 1980 which means that the Bills would have to be reconsidered within three months. That is a very sudden death for a sunset clause. One wonders what would be the purpose of passing a measure which is to take effect for such a short time, particularly as the Parliament will be in recess for almost all of that time? It is important to realise that the powers contained in this legislation, namely, powers to intercept telephone conversations for investigations into likely narcotic offences, and the installation of listening devices for these same purposes, are powers which have been the subject of a great deal of debate this year in the Parliament. In principle these powers have been acknowledged as necessary for the purposes of such investigations. They are new powers. In the course of the debate this year and in view of the legislation which has been passed, the Parliament has agreed that those powers are necessary for that purpose.

The only purpose of this legislation is to transfer the exercise of those powers from the Narcotics Bureau, which was located in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, to the Australian Federal Police. That follows as a result of the recommendations of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs which was acted upon recently by the Government. The Narcotics Bureau was transferred from the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and its officers were transferred to the Australian Federal Police. The Narcotics Bureau has been disbanded and the functions of that organisation have been assumed by the Australian Federal Police. Now that is the one and only purpose of this legislation.

The important thing to recognise is that the powers that are being given to the Australian Federal Police through this measure can be exercised only under a warrant obtained by a Federal Court judge or a State Supreme Court judge. Judges of the superior courts of this nation have to give authority to Federal Police who wish to intercept telephones and install listening devices. This is provided for in this measure. I believe that it was most irresponsible of Senator Evans to talk about the Australian Federal Police as being under a cloud. He proceeded to make some critisisms of the Australian Federal Police. Most of the matters to which he referred have not been determined by a court. As far as I am aware they are the subject of evidence or allegations which have been made and which have not been resolved in any court. I consider his wide, general allegation that the Federal Police is under a cloud, is the height of irresponsibility.

Senator Evans:

– Were we wrong about the Narcotics Bureau?

Senator DURACK:

- Senator Evans is talking about recommendations in relation to the Narcotics Bureau. The judge was critical of the Narcotics Bureau. One of the major reasons for the recommendation that it be transferred to the police was that the areas of narcotics investigations are right in the heart of criminal activities and criminal elements in the community. That is a proper subject for investigation by the police. Apparently Senator Evans wants the matter of who should exercise these powers to be reconsidered. He has not suggested who should exercise such powers. He has been critical of the Narcotics Bureau and he is now critical of the Australian Federal Police. One begins to wonder whether Senator Evans has faith in anyone. Presumably he has faith in himself. As I have explained, this measure will simply transfer powers from one body which has now been disbanded to the Australian Federal Police. The Parliament has agreed that those powers should be available to people engaged in the investigation of narcotics offences. They can be exercised only on a warrant from superior court judges. I trust that this Bill will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

Clause 4 ( Use of listening devices).

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-The Opposition has circulated a proposed amendment to clause 4, which is in substitution of a provision in the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1979.I shall explain it as succinctly as I can. The amendment relates to section 2 19 Bof the Customs Act, as proposed to be amended by this Bill. That section, when amended, would limit the circumstances under which Australian Federal Police officers could use listening devices for the purposes of narcotics inquiries, but the amending clause mentions nothing about the use of listening devices by such officers in relation to other offences. At the moment the reality is that the use of listening devices by Australian police officers is sanctioned by State law.

The Opposition believes that it is inappropriate that powers as significant as powers involved in the use of listening devices should be exercised by Commonwealth officers pursuant to State laws. If the Commonwealth proposes by future legislation to vest in Australian Federal Police officers a power to use listening devices in relation to non-narcotics offences, that is something which we can debate in that context at another time. But for the moment the Opposition takes the view that this opportunity should be grasped to limit the power of Australian Federal Police officers to install and utilise listening devices to narcotics offences and to remove the power to use listening devices in non-narcotics areas. That is the substance of paragraph (a) of the proposed amendment. Paragraph (b) simply repeats the proposed provision in the existing Bill. I move:

Page 2, clause 4, lines 14 and 15, leave out all words after amended’, insert the following paragraphs:

by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) “for the purpose of narcotics inquiries that are being made by officers of Customs”; and

by inserting in sub-section (2) “narcotics” before “inquiries”.’.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is opposed to the amendment. If it were accepted, it would limit the powers available to the Australian Federal Police in investigations of offences other than narcotics offences.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 5 A.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I move:

Page 2, after clause 5, insert the following new clause: 5a. Section 2 1 9f of the Principal Act is amended-

by inserting after sub-section (I) the following sub-section: (1a) In sub-section (I), “person” includes a court.’; and

by inserting after sub-section (3) the following new sub-sections: (3a) Where, in proceedings in a court in respect of an offence, objection is taken to the admission of evidence on the ground that the evidence was obtained in contravention of, or in consequence of a contravention of, or in consequence of a failure to comply with, a provision of this Act, in relation to a person, the court shall not admit the evidence unless it is, on the balance of probabilities, satisfied that admission of the evidence would specifically and substantially benefit the public interest without unduly prejudicing the rights and freedoms of any person. (3b) The matters that a court may have regard to in deciding whether, in proceedings in respect of an offence, it is satisfied as required by sub-section (3a), include-

a ) the seriousness of the offence in the course of the investigation of which the provision was contravened, or was not complied with, the urgency and difficulty of detecting the offender and the urgency of the need to preserve evidence of the fact;

the nature and seriousness of the contravention or failure; and

the extent to which the evidence that was obtained in contravention, in consequence of the contravention of, or in consequence of the failure to comply with, the provision might have been lawfully obtained. (3c) The burden of satisfying the court that evidence obtained in contravention of, in consequence of the contravention of, or in consequence of the failure to comply with, a provision of this Act should be admitted in proceedings lies on the party who seeks to have the evidence admitted. (3d) This section is in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law or rule under which a court may refuse to admit evidence in proceedings. ‘. “.

This amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause 5A after clause 5. The effect of it would be to amend section 2 1 9f of the principal Act in certain respects, as set out in the text of the amendment. The first part of the amendment enables the use of the word ‘person’ to extend to and include the concept of a court. The reality is that as a result of the law articulated in Padman ‘s case, there is no basic restriction as the law now stands on the ability of witnesses in court cases to communicate information obtained in the course of narcotics inquiries to that court for the purposes of adducing evidence of some other offence, not being a narcotics offence. That follows from the way in which the word ‘person’, as it appears in the present text of the legislation, has been construed by the judiciary as not extending to and including courts. Essentially this is a technical amendment. I cannot imagine that the thrust of it, in principle or in policy, would be opposed by the Government. I think that the Government would welcome the opportunity to advance further the spirit of this legislation which is to confine the use of listening devices to narcotics type offences and not to enable such information obtained in that way to be communicated at large for the purposes of establishing other kinds of offences.

The second part of the amendment relates to the status of illegally obtained evidence under these new powers. At the moment the general law is that the mere fact that evidence is obtained illegally will not necessarily lead to its exclusion. It is a matter for the court to determine whether in all the circumstances consideration and fairness demand that it be left in or rather that it be kept out. The Opposition proposes an amendment which will create a reverse onus discretionary exclusion rule of the kind that was recommended by the Australian Law Reform

Commission in its 1975 report on criminal investigation, which proposal has not only been the subject of a good deal of debate in other contexts in this chamber but also was picked up by the Government and incorporated into the criminal investigation Bill which it introduced in 1977. Again, I cannot imagine why the Government would have any objection in policy or principle to this amendment. I hope, accordingly, that it will be accepted.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government does not accept the amendment. We believe, without going into very technical and legal arguments, that it is unnecessary. Let me refer to the point made by Senator Evans. The courts do have discretions which they exercise. The High Court of Australia has recently given a very informative judgment on how the discretion should be exercised. We do not think that with a Bill such as this we should get involved in matters which are not directly germane to the issue. The matter could be debated in relation to legislation involving criminal investigation generally.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 6 to 14- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 1 5.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I move:

The third and last of the Opposition’s amendments to the Customs Amendment Bill (No. 4) proposes to insert what is in fact, the sunset clause to which I referred in my speech at the second reading stage of the Bill. I make it clear that the Opposition does not generally embrace the principle of sunset clauses with anything like the general enthusiasm that they seem to attract some Government members. Nonetheless, we think that it is an appropriate mechanism to employ in particular circumstances when those circumstances warrant it. I do not think there is any cause for the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to have advanced the kind of scepticism and general distaste for this proposal that he did in his reply to the second reading debate. The reality is that the Opposition is not being in any way irresponsible by moving this amendment. We do not propose that there would be any kind of legislative vacuum with no agency being able to exercise these new powers. In effect it is a kind of tropical sunset clause, I suppose, in that not much time is involved. We think it appropriate in all the circumstances for this legislation to be reconsidered at the first possible opportunity.

This Parliament reconvenes on 19 February. Ample time exists in the period between then and 28 February for the Government to bring forward enabling legislation to keep these powers on foot. The bringing foward of such legislation would, in fact, enable this Parliament and the Australian people to make a reevaluation of the performance of the Australian Federal Police three months hence in order to reach conclusions to our own satisfaction, and not just to the satisfaction of the AttorneyGeneral, that the Australian Federal Police is, in fact, an organisation of quality, competence and integrity-conclusions which it is just not possible to draw on the state of the evidence at the moment.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– For the reasons I gave during the second reading debate the Government is opposed to this amendment.

Question put:

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

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 16

NOES: 29

Majority……. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2949

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I seek leave to move the amendments together.

Leave granted.

Senator EVANS:

-I move:

Amendments negatived.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2950

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2950

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BILL 1979

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 19 November.

Human Rights Commission Bill 1979

Clause 12.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) will move in regard to anonymity an amendment in identical terms to the one which I have given notice. I certainly support the amendment. I take it that the Attorney does not wish me to move my amendment in its present form. A similar one has been moved by the Government. Therefore I will be happy to defer.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorney General · LP

– I move:

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I wish to speak generally on the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979. I wish to make some final comments on behalf of the Australian Democrats on the so called Human Rights Commission Bill because we believe that the point needs to be clearly made that the Australian public is being sold a pup.

Senator Durack:

– I take a point of order. We are in Committee. We are dealing with a particular clause. The only relevant debate is in relation to that clause, not to the Human Rights Commission generally.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I call Senator Mason.

Senator MASON:

-I take the AttorneyGeneral’s point. Nevertheless, I think the point remains that what I have said is relevant to this clause of the Bill, just as it is to others. I do not think that the Attorney-General is in a position to stifle debate on this matter, particularly the sort of comment that I wish to make and which I think any honourable senator has the right to make. The amendment to clause 12 would allow a very valuable right to be brought forward, that is, that if a person wished not to disclose his identity, or there were circumstances in which a person, having produced a document, felt in danger of losing his employment, reputation or any one of a number of things, he would have moral backing. But the fact that this amendment will not be carried is a further indication that the Human Rights Commission to be established under this legislation is perhaps better than nothing.

Senator Evans:

– The Government has agreed to it.

Senator Baume:

– You are part of a community, Senator.

Senator MASON:

– Despite what Government senators are saying I assert my right to speak to this amendment. I do not think it is against Standing Orders. I seek your ruling on it, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no opposition to the amendment, Senator.

Senator MASON:

– I am seeking your ruling on whether an honourable senator may speak to a clause regardless of that.

The CHAIRMAN:

– You have the call to speak to the clause.

Senator MASON:

– Thank you. I am speaking to the clause and I am delighted that the Government will agree to that.

Senator Hamer:

– It is the Government’s amendment.

Senator MASON:

– It is an amendment from a Government senator. Since you have raised that point, Senator Hamer, I think we have to look again. I think this is relevant to the point. Honourable senators on the Government side were going to bring forward certain amendments to this Bill but they decided not to bring them forward because the Government said that if they did the Bill would be withdrawn. I think a Press statement was made recently stating that the amendments were withdrawn because it was felt that it was better to have even this emasculated Bill, this fraud perpetrated on the Australian public, rather than no Bill at all.

Senator Missen:

– You are on the wrong clause.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Give him his human rights.

Senator MASON:

– I am speaking generally to the matter of human rights. If we are not to be permitted to speak in this place about human rights I suggest it is about time we were. All I wish to say to the members of the public who may be listening to the broadcast of these proceedings is that they are being taken for a ride with the Human Rights Commission Bill; they have been sold short and they are not getting a Commission that will guarantee the human rights of anybody.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I will say only this: Senator Mason has been speaking to the wrong clause. The amendment was put by me earlier. It has been accepted by the Government. The Government is now moving one in the same terms, and that will be carried. Amnesty International originally suggested that it was an excellent amendment. It is now a Government amendment, and I support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 13 and 14- by leave-taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 15.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– I move:

The Opposition believes that the time has long passed when, by the uncontested decisions of a political officer, namely, the Attorney-General, very important evidence can be withheld from the Human Rights Commission relating to the alleged violation of a human right. Very recently the High Court suggested that that particular almost sacrosanct quality attaching to the Cabinet’s decision to withhold evidence needs to be modified. The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs came to the same conclusion in its report on the Freedom of Information Bill. The effect of the Opposition ‘s plea tonight is to say to the executive arm of Government: When the highest judicial body in the land and a group of senators come to the same conclusion, that conclusive certificates are at variance with modern ways of conducting the business of government, we would expect this particular amendment of the Opposition to be supported. When a human right is alleged to have been violated, every piece of evidence that is relevant ought to be presented to the Commission, not withheld by the fiat of a political officer such as the Attorney-General.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-This amendment is in terms identical with those of an amendment which Senator Bonner, Senator Puplick and I had proposed to move but, for reasons set out in a public statement- which I will seek to have incorporated in Hansard- we will not now move. We will neither support it nor oppose it. We will not vote on the amendment. If there is a division upon it we will withdraw from the chamber. I have set out our attitude in regard to this amendment and in regard to that which would insert a new clause 16a. I will not repeat what I say now if that amendment is presented by the Opposition. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the statement which I and my two colleagues made explaining why, in order to get this debate on, we have been prepared to forgo offering these amendments.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Does that answer Senator Mason’s criticism?

Senator MISSEN:

– No. I am not bothering about that.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

We refer to the current debate in the Senate on the Human Rights Commission Bill and to the amendments which we have supported to strengthen the proposed Human Rights Commission and, to ensure that it would operate effectively in compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

We note that, after debate on the Bill proceeded for limited periods on the Tuesday and Wednesday of last week, the Bill has been placed No. 22 on Thursday’s Notice Paper, and its further debate during this session is now in doubt.

It has been made clear to us that the Government is concerned that an amendment proposed by Senator Missen and supported by us and other senators, providing for enforcement proceedings for human rights violations by way of civil proceedings, is likely to be pased by the Senate and will not be acceptable to the Government. The Government is likewise concerned with the proposed amendment to delete pans of Clause 1 S ( because of their freedom of information implications). The Government is accordingly not willing to permit further debate on the Bill unless it is assured that neither amendment will be made to the Bill.

We therefore have given serious reconsideration to that situation. We are firmly of the opinion that such amendments are necessary to ensure that the Human Rights Commission Bill has ‘teeth’ and will provide suitable and effective remedies for complaints.

However, we are also concerned that the Commission should be created at an early date and realise that it cannot be done in the face of such Government opposition which would be decisive, in any event, in the House of Representatives. We have already said, in the second reading debate, that we support the Bill and the establishment of the Commission, even in a limited form, and that we look for later action to strengthen the Commission.

We believe that the lack of enforcement rights is a grave defect and a limitation on the effective operation of the legislation.

In the circumstances, we will not, in the further debate on this Bill, proceed with the two proposed amendments, which the Government opposes and requires their omission as vital to the passage of the Bill. However, we will continue to press for the other amendments sought by us. We hope thereby to facilitate the resumption of debate on this Bil! before the end of this session.

We also refer to our initial amendments which proposed increased powers for the Commission to undertake investigations of human rights issues on its own initiative and also to widen the access and standing of persons to lodge complaints with the Commission. These proposals have now been agreed to and are picked up in the Attorney-General’s tabled amendments. 16 November 1979 Canberra

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I support the amendment. The arguments against conclusive certificates in fields such as this were set out very persuasively in the report of the Senate’s Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee on freedom of information. Exactly the same arguments apply here. I supported them in that Committee and I support them now.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorney General · LP

– Clause 15 deals with the power of the Attorney-General to give a certificate that certain evidence which it is sought to place before the Commission should not be given on grounds such as security, that they are Cabinet documents, or something of such a major character.

The clause is in a form that is broadly similar to that of clauses which appear in a number of other measures, such as the Ombudsman Act and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. It is what one might term a fairly standard provision in legislation. The Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs has submitted a major report on the Freedom of Information Bill which raises these matters for debate and consideration by the Government. The Government has not yet had an opportunity to consider what policy it will adopt in relation to these matters. In other debates this year, in which the same question has arisen- for instance, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation- I have said that the Government, when it determines its policy in relation to freedom of information, will reconsider these types of clauses in various measures. They are all bound up with, and relevant to, the question of freedom of information but at this stage, pending that policy’s being determined by either the Government or the Parliament, the Government believes that this clause, which is similar to clauses in other legislation, should stand. Therefore, it opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 1 6 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 1 6a.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I move:

This amendment is an attempt to give this ineffectual, tame pussy cat Bill some teeth, to create a situation in which, if the Commission does investigate an act or practice and finds, that it does offend human rights, it can give a certification which will enable an aggrieved individual to take the matter to court and obtain some appropriate remedy- an enforcement procedure which is entirely lacking in the Bill as it now stands. It is also an enforcement procedure which is entirely in accordance with the existing provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act which this Government has not been minded to oppose or to seek to amend. This enforcement procedure would have been even more effective had an earlier amendment proposed by the Opposition been accepted. It would have extended the range of operation of this enforcement mechanism not only to the Commonwealth but also to the States. Regrettably, that amendment was negatived. So the enforcement clause that I have just moved is confined in its effect only to the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Nonetheless, it is worth having. The Opposition regards it as a matter of regret that Senators Missen, Puplick and Bonner- the joint signatories of the statement which has been referred to this evening- have, apparently against their better instincts, decided not to support it. Perhaps it is another illustration of Senator Missen and his colleagues standing up for something but not quite long enough to be counted. Nonetheless, the Opposition regards it as an amendment which is worth pursuing to a vote, even in the absence of that regrettably missing support from Senator Missen.

I make only one further comment and that is that it might not be as effective as one would like, even within its own terms, to the extent that the Opposition would regard it desirable not only that an aggrieved individual or group be able to litigate but also that the Human Rights Commission have the power to initiate litigation on behalf of someone so aggrieved, as was a provision in the Human Rights Bill 1973 and as has been recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in respect of the enforcement of freedom of information matters by the Ombudsman. Rather than engage in any kind of drastic surgery which the Government is unlikely to accept, given its track record in these matters, I simply ask the Government to accept the amendment in these terms because these are terms which are exactly paralleled in the Racial Discrimination Act, an Act which the Government supported when in Opposition in 1975, which it has done nothing to amend subsequently and which it ought to be able to accept as a matter of policy and principle.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I support the amendment. I do not believe that rights are effective unless there is some remedy. I do not think that a mere report to parliament is an effective remedy for someone whose rights have been infringed. I feel that this amendment is central to effective implementation of a human rights Bill and it is also necessary, I believe, if we are to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is the apparent intention of the Government. I think that anything less than this would not justify such ratification.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Missen, for having had incorporated in Hansard a statement which sets out quite clearly the view which he, Senator Bonner and I came to. It is a matter upon which the Government has legitimately formed a view. The discussions that we have had with the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) and with members of the Cabinet have been lengthy. They have considered our point of view but have found themselves unable to make any accommodation. That view is supported by the majority of my colleagues on this side of the chamber and in the other place. We accept that. We have taken an attitude that, in order to have a Human Rights Commission which has some power in terms of investigation and the ability to generate some publicity and some study of this matter, it is better to be in the position of having a commission- albeit a commission which we believe to be a weak one and one without the powers of enforceability- than to have nothing at all, which seems to be the alternative.

My colleagues and I are singularly unmoved by the comments made by Senator Evans about what we do according to our better instincts. Our better instincts are to get some form of commission and to work at a later stage, through whatever means we can, to strengthen it in the future. Frankly, we would be more moved to pay the slightest bit of attention to Senator Evans if he or any of his colleagues, with the exception of a former honourable member for Batman, had the courage to stand up in his place at any time and speak contrary to the dictates imposed upon him by his Caucus, his Federal Council or anybody else.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government is opposed to this amendment for the very extensive reasons which I have given on the previous occasions. I do not propose to add anything further.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I simply indicate that in view of the time and the way in which my colleagues on the other side of the chamber have openly indicated their attitude, the Opposition does not propose to push this matter to a vote, which we would otherwise have done.

Amendment negatived.

Clauses 17 to 31- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Proposed new clause 3 1a.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

Page 1 7, after 3 1 , insert the following new clause: “31a. (1) Upon the ratification by Australia of the Covenant or the commencement of this Act, whichever is the later, the Minister shall cause a copy of the instrument of ratification to be published in the Gazette. “(2) Where-

Australia ratified or acceded to an international instrument before the commencement of this Act and the international instrument becomes a relevant international instrument; or

Australia ratifies or accedes to an international instrument after the commencement of this Act and the international instrument is at the time of ratification or accession, or becomes after that time, a relevant international instrument, the Minister shall cause a copy of the instrument of ratification or accession to be published in the Gazette. “(3) In this section, a reference to ratification of the Covenant, or to ratification of or accession to another international instrument, by Australia shall be read as a reference to the deposit by Australia, in accordance with the Covenant or the other international instrument, of an instrument of ratification or accession, as the case requires, and a reference to the time of ratification or accession shall be read as a reference to the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification or accession. “.

This amendment provides that, upon ratification by Australia of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Minister shall cause a copy of the instrument of ratification to be published in the Gazette. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ensure that Australia’s ratification of the Covenant is made officially known in that way.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-The Opposition simply records its view that, in our opinion, this is a quite empty amendment. We do not oppose it, but we see no joy in it whatsoever.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34. (Non-disclosure of private information).

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– The Opposition is of the view that no right is secure without an adequate remedy. The Bill does not provide for any such remedy. We feel that where a person appears before a court or tribunal where that right might be vindicated or somehow made more secure, it is very important that whatever evidence that person can bring forward in support of his case to have the right vindicated ought to be brought forward. The Bill as drafted prevents the divulging of information or the production of a document which a member of the Human Rights Commission has come across in the course of his duties. One can understand that such documentation or evidence ought not be available to the general public, but in cases where a right is sought to be vindicated before some authority or tribunal then we believe that no barriers ought to be put on the evidence which can be brought forward to help to sustain that right. For that reason the Opposition opposes the clause so that the great common-law principle that where there is a right there should be a remedy will be upheld.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government does not agree with the arguments put forward by the Opposition. Without contesting the principle that Senator Tate has mentioned, the fact is that when a commissioner seeks to obtain and maybe require people to give information, they have a human right and a legal right not to give it. This protects people who do give information. The protection given by this clause means that the Human Rights Commission, in the view of the Government, will be a more effective body.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I rise to say that I support the Opposition on this clause. I did give notice of opposition to the whole clause. I believe, for the reason that Senator Tate has given, that this is an unwise clause. I believe also that it includes in it the possibility that people who may, by investigation made by the Commission, obtain evidence which would be useful to them in any prosecution they may make or in civil proceedings, may not be able to give that evidence. This is a highly unwise clause and, therefore, I oppose it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 36.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

– I move:

The proposed new clause is called a sunset clause as everyone knows. The word has been used so frequently lately that it has become a bore. It will give the Commission a life of five years. It is called a sunset clause because the intention is not to limit the life of the Commission to only five years. I hope that the public understands that. Its purpose is that if the life of the Commission is to be extended beyond the term of five years it will be necessary for the legislation to be brought back into the Parliament so that this clause can be amended. This means that the Parliament will have an opportunity of re-examining the legislation. Some people have said that this legislation goes too far. Others have said that it does not go far enough. I have admitted quite frankly that I do not know who is right but I prefer to accept the Government’s view that this is the step which the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament should take at this stage. I think it is a step in the right direction. It goes a long way in giving to the people of Australia an assurance of their human rights.

I believe that the new clause which I have proposed has been accepted by the Government. I understand that it has been accepted by all honourable senators so that it will pass unanimously. That would be an historic event. This is the first time that a sunset clause has been introduced in Australian legislation- for this specific purpose. I am very pleased to have moved the amendment.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– Whilst not wishing to take any of the lustre off Senator Lewis’s triumph which he has just announced to us, I confirm that the Opposition does not oppose this amendment. But it is not quite as enthusiastic about it as Senator Lewis indicates. As I sought to indicate on an earlier Bill this afternoon, the Opposition generally views sunset clauses with somewhat mixed feelings. If they are introduced with the object of providing an opportunity to reevaluate or justify the existence of an agency in particular circumstances we regard them as desirable. But if they are introduced as a stick with which to beat the small government drum so as to provide the maximum opportunity for the destruction of agencies just because they are in the public sector, then obviously we in the Opposition are rather more cautious about the concept. If we believed that the Human Rights Commission was an unequivocally worthwhile institution we would be a little cautious about creating the opportunity for its demise. But since the Human Rights Commission that is now established by this Bill as it has proceeded to this stage, is such a half-hearted inconsequential, feeble, damp squib of an institution we regard that prospect as somewhat less alarming.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I support the amendment which goes some way towards meeting my worries about the Bill. I would have preferred a shorter period than the five years which Senator Lewis has suggested but I understand that the opinion of the Senate is that five years is appropriate. The Bill goes some way towards alleviating my worries. I fear that we are undertaking international obligations without setting up the proper machinery to ensure that we can meet the obligations we are assuming. I was alarmed by a remark made by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) earlier in the debate when he said that the obligations we can undertake internationally are only those which can be agreed to by the States as well as by ourselves. That is a very timid way of looking at international obligations. We should be prepared to be more effective in ensuring that those rights are also effective throughout the country. For that reason I welcome the chance for the Senate and the Parliament in another few years to have a look at whether this legislation is working effectively. I do not believe it will be. I believe that when we look at it again we will have to make very substantial changes to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Postponed clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

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

Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill

The Bill.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I want very briefly to put a question to the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack). At the end of his second reading speech, the Attorney said that, save for one or two amendments, the Commissioner for Community Relations would continue to operate and his powers would not be affected. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr MacKellar, has been reported by the ethnic Press in a weekly selection produced by that Department dated 30 November 1979. An interview he had with // Globois reported as follows:

When asked about the imminent disappearance of the office of the Commissioner for Community Relations, the Minister replied: ‘The Federal Government has decided to create a Commission for Human Rights, and one of the Commissioners of this body will be responsible for watching out for racial discrimination. The present office for Community Relations will therefore be superfluous’.

I ask the Attorney which is right- what he assured us at the end of his second reading speech, or what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs now says?

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I simply indicate at this Committee stage of the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill that the Opposition’s attitude is one of complete opposition to every substantive provision in this Bill. Under the guise of being a sensible rationalisation of human rights institutions, what it really amounts to is a destruction, for political reasons, of the political and social effectiveness of Mr Al Grassby, the Commissioner for Community Relations. It is an exercise which the migrant community for one certainly will not forget. It is also an exercise that the Opposition cannot possibly be a party to.

Bills reported with amendments to the Human Rights Commission Bill; report adopted.

Third Readings

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT:

– We shall do that. The question is that the Human Rights Commission Bill be now read a third time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Mason:

– I ask that under the terms of Standing Order 168 my vote of dissent against the third reading of this Bill be recorded in the Journals of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– That shall be done. The question is that the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 1 979 be now read a third time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Evans:

- Mr President, might I indicate that although the Opposition did not pursue this matter to the point of a division, we certainly wish to articulate our opposition to the whole of the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

– That will be recorded.

Bills read a third time.

page 2956

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

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

– I move:

I am aware of honourable senators’ transport arrangements; so I will be very brief. On behalf of both the National Country Party Leader, Senator Webster, myself and all my colleagues, firstly, I give our deep thanks to you, Mr President, for your courtesy, your dignity, your sense of fairness and your ability to hold this Senate in good humour and good working order. I extend the same thanks to the Chairman of Committees who has a very difficult task which he has done well. To all honourable senators who have acted in Presiding Officer roles, I extend the same thanks. In particular, I say to our new Clerk how delighted we are to have him.

Honourable Senators- Hear, hear!

Senator CARRICK:

– He has done his job competently and quietly. We wish him well for the future. We are happy to have him and his officers amongst us. God bless the Whips and the Deputy Whips on both sides. I wish to send a special message to Georgie Georges. I hope that some honourable senators will take our personal regards to him. He is tough, he is fair-minded and he plays the ball straight. We want him back amongst us fully healthy because we respect him as a man. I hope honourable senators will tell him that. I say to the Scotsman who has been carrying the claymore that we do not know whether he speaks in Gaelic or Erse most of the time. Therefore it is much easier to answer his questions in total ignorance of what he has said. God bless him also for a job well done.

I thank my ministerial colleagues for their sympathy, patience, tolerance and understanding. We would not be able to do our job without the staff of the Ministers. To the Hansard and the Joint House staff I extend the same wishes. My thanks go to the staff of the Parliamentary Library and the Australian Broadcasting Commission for their help, and to the staff of the Government Printer for their patience in the production of Hansard. I thank Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Opposition. In this chamber the battle is tough; it is real. But, I hope, we end up respecting each other and acknowledging the job we have to do. Having expressed those remarks, I wish every honourable senator, however early I am in expressing this wish, a happy Christmas and new year. I look forward to seeing all honourable senators early in the new year.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I will respond briefly to the remarks of the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick). On behalf of the Opposition I also thank all the staff of Parliament House who on so many occasions have worked very long hours to service the work that we do. Let us hope that what we are doing is of some value to the Australian community. I suppose we ought to introduce something new. Just for a change we should ask the Clerk to make a speech. We would see whether it is only members of parliament who are able to say something. I think it is fitting that reference should be made to Mr Bullock ‘s work for us since he took over the position of Clerk. I think reference should also be made to the security people who work around Parliament House. We recognise the work that they do. I think this is possibly the first time that they have been given a mention at the end of the year. In closing, I wish all honourable senators the very best for the Christmas season. The only variation I make is that I particularly wish a successful year in 1980 for the Australian Labor Party and a most unsuccessful one for the Liberal Party.

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank honourable senators very warmly for the gracious words they have expressed towards me, the Deputy President and the parliamentary staff. I extend to each honourable senator my best wishes for the coming festive season. In like manner I greet all of those who serve us in this chamber. I am deeply mindful of the splendid service we receive from the Senate officers. I warmly endorse the remarks expressed by the Leader of the House (Senator Carrick) with regard to Mr Bullock, the Clerk. To the officers of the chamber and the support staff, the committee secretariat staff, the attendants, the Hansard ladies and gentlemen, the Parliamentary Library staff- the staff of the Joint House Department, the refreshment rooms staff, the cleaners, the gardeners, the security officers, the mechanics and the engineers- all of those who do so much for all of us all the year- I tender thanks and admiration for a loyalty to this place which inspires and helps us all. I wish them all well for Christmas and the new year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, 1 9 February 1 980 at 2.30 p.m. unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.

Senate adjourned at 6.24 p.m.

page 2958

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Aviation Fuel Tax (Question No. 1433)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 March 1 979:

What fuel tax is paid in Australia by:

a) Ansett Airlines of Australia;

b ) Trans-Australia Airlines; and

Qantas Airways Limited.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I am unable to disclose information regarding the payment of fuel tax by these airlines because that would constitute a breach of confidentiality.

Indo-Chinese Refugees (Question No. 1577)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 2 May 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many Indo-Chinese refugees are currently residing in migrant centres throughout Australia.
  2. How many of the refugees are in receipt of unemployment or sickness benefits.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. As at 12 November 1979 there were 5,834 IndoChinese refugees in migrant centres throughout Australia.
  2. I am informed that the statistics requested are not part of the regular statistical collections maintained by the Department of Social Security.

Vietnamese Refugees (Question No. 1590)

Senator Robertson:

asked ‘ the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 3 May 1979:

Did the Minister, during the Liberal Party Conference held in Perth in April 1 979, state that he did not consider the boat people’ to be illegal immigrants; if so:

what is the current definition of ‘illegal immigrant’;

b) does the Minister’s statement constitute an open invitation for Vietnamese refugees to attempt to sail for Darwin rather than go through the official channels; and

does the Minister expect that increased numbers of boat people will attempt to make the journey as a result of his statement.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided to a Question No. 1679 asked, upon notice, by Mr Clyde Cameron, M.P., on IS August 1978 and incorporated in page 2242 of Hansardof 24 October 1978:

By the term ‘illegal immigrant’ it is assumed that the honourable senator means prohibited immigrant, the term referred to in the Migration Act 19S8. A person is a prohibited immigrant if he comes within the provisions of sub-section ( I ) of Section 6, sub-section (3) of Section 7, sub-section (3) of Section 8 or subsection ( I ) of Section 16 of the Migration Act 19S8.

Refugees who are permitted entry to Australia are not prohibited immigrants for the purposes of the Migration Act. After thorough medical and quarantine screening they are allowed to enter Australia legally on temporary entry permits in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Act.

Australia’s obligations as a party to the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees require us to consider the claims of persons arriving in Australia who seek refugee status.

Australia in common with other regional countries must be concerned at the arrival of refugees in small boats without prior authority. Everything feasible is done to dissuade refugees from attempting to reach Australia in this hazardous manner.

There have been only six direct boat arrivals in Northern Australia this year, compared with twenty in 1978.

Emergency Relief : Demand (Question No. 1841)

Senator Chipp:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. Was the sum in excess of $1 lm distributed by voluntary agencies as emergency relief in the past year.
  2. Are the resources of these agencies exhausted, while demand continues to increase.
  3. Will the $’/4m allocated in the 1979-80 Budget be sufficient to alleviate this situation.
  4. What further action is proposed to meet this emergency.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, it was estimated in a joint study by the Department of Social Security and the Australian Council of Social Service and tabled in the Parliament on 29 March 1979 that the value of emergency relief provided by both nongovernment and State government welfare agencies in Australia in a year was about $ 1 1 m.
  2. No, the study indicated that welfare agencies were able to meet most demands for assistance, but were unable to meet all demands for emergency relief at the level requested.
  3. The Stem allocation will help to alleviate agencies’ financial situations. In addition, administrative procedures which I announced in March were designed to reduce at source the level of demand for emergency relief. Details of the changed arrangements are set out in response to Question No. 19 * (Hansard* 16 October I979,page 1375-1376).

The indications are that these new administrative arrangements have been effective. At the time of the Joint Study in Victoria, 24 per cent of those seeking emergency relief were people awaiting Social Security entitlements. However, a study undertaken during July 1 979 as part of a pilot project for the VCOSS emergency relief information system has revealed that now only 3 per cent of the relief population are in this category.

  1. The concern of the Government is to support the infrastructure of emergency relief distribution which has existed for many years. The position will be reviewed in the context of the 1980-81 Budget.

International Year of the Child: Commonwealth Funding of Aboriginal Health (Question No. 1859)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total amount of Commonwealth funding of Aboriginal health and welfare projects undertaken to mark the International Year of the Child.
  2. How much has been contributed by each Commonwealth Department.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to estimate the total amount of Commonwealth funding of Aboriginal health and welfare projects undertaken to mark the International Year of the Child (IYC). This is so because the emphasis is on ensuring that programs and services for all children are reviewed and, where appropriate, improved and that steps are taken toward the development of new programs to meet identified needs of children. Additionally, details of funds contributed by other Commonwealth departments for projects to assist Aboriginal children are not known to my Department.

In respect of the Department of Social Security, funds have been provided from the Children ‘s Services Program for projects concerned with the welfare of Aboriginal children. These projects have particular, but not exclusive, relevance to the IYC. Examples of these include: the Aboriginal Women’s Centre in Darwin which received $30,000; the National Aboriginal Child Care Seminar which received $10,872; and thirty recreational and youth activity programs for Aboriginal children to be funded at $132,326.

  1. Details of funds contributed by other Commonwealth departments are not available to my Department.

International Year of the Child: Commonwealth Funding of Migrant Health (Question No. 1860)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total amount of Commonwealth funding of migrant health and welfare projects undertaken to mark the International Year of the Child.
  2. How much has been contributed by each Commonwealth department.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to estimate the total amount of Commonwealth funding of migrant health and welfare projects undertaken to mark the International Year of the Child (IYC). This is so because the emphasis is on ensuring that programs and services for all children are reviewed and, where appropriate, improved and that steps are taken toward the development of new programs to meet identified needs of children. Additionally, details of funds contributed by other Commonwealth departments for projects to assist migrant children are not known to my Department.

In respect of the Department of Social Security, funds have been provided from the Children’s Services Program for projects concerned with the welfare of migrant children. These projects have particular, but not exclusive relevance to the IYC. Examples of these include some 28 projects for children ‘s centres child care services for migrant women attending English classes, and an outside school hours project.

  1. Details of funds contributed by other Commonwealth departments are not available to my Department.

International Year of the Child : Expenditure on Projects (Question No. 1861)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979:

What amounts have been expended during: (a) 1978-79; and (b) 1979-80, (i) directly to organisations; and (ii) to organisations through each State Government to establish projects for the International Year of the Child.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

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

It is not possible to provide an answer to the honourable senator’s question because of difficulties in identifying those projects which have been exclusively established for the International Year of the Child (IYC). This is so because the emphasis during IYC is on ensuring that existing programs and services for children are reviewed and, where appropriate, improved and that steps are taken towards the development of new programs to meet identified needs of children. Additionally, expenditures for 1978-79 and 1979-80 for other Commonwealth departments and the States and Territories are not known to my Department.

In regard to my Depanment, some projects funded under the Children’s Services Program during the IYC have been designated as IYC projects; for example, the grant to the Child Accident Prevention Foundation, and the grant to the YWCA for the ‘Child to Child ‘ project.

International Year of the Child: Expenditure on Projects (Question No. 1862)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979:

What amounts have been expended on projects for the International Year of the Child by: (a) each State; (b) local governments in each State; and (c) private organisations in each State, in collaboration with Department of Social Security during: (i) 1978-79; and (u) 1979-80.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable senator is not available in view of the difficulty in identifying all projects which can be specifically viewed as International Year of the Child (IYC) projects. This is so because the emphasis during IYC is on ensuring that existing programs and services for children are reviewed and, where appropriate, improved and that steps are taken toward the development of new programs to meet identified needs of children. States, local governments and private organisations have all received funds from my depanment under the Children’s Services Program for projects which fall within the guideline of that Program but can also be viewed as having relevance but not exclusive relevance to IYC.

International Year of the Child: Expenditure on Projects (Question No. 1863)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What has been the total expenditure of: (a) the Office of Child Care; and (b) other divisions of the Department of Social Security, to mark the International Year of the Child.
  2. How much of that expenditure was on publicity and promotion by: (a) the department; and (b) outside private agencies.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to identify the total expenditure to mark International Year of the Child (IYC). The emphasis during IYC is on ensuring that existing programs and services for children are reviewed and, where appropriate, improved and that steps are taken towards the development of new programs to meet identified needs of children. My Department’s efforts have been directed to reviewing its own programs and to stimulating community groups, other departments and si.-te and local governments to reconsider their activities am programs for children.

Some of the projects funded through the Office of Child Care have been designated as IYC projects, for example, the YWCA ‘Child to Child ‘ project and the National Aboriginal Child Care Conference. However, while these and certain other projects have specific relevance to IYC, they must be seen in the context of the total Children ‘s Services Program.

Expenditure through other Divisions of my Department is similarly not readily identifiable except for the specific funds appropriated to publicise and promote the International Year of the Child and meet the costs associated with meetings of the National Committee of Non-Government Organisations (NCNGO) and the costs associated with provision of secretarial staff for the NCNGO by the UNICEF Committee of Australia.

Expenditure for these items is as follows: 590-3-09-IYC Publicity Expenses: 1978-79 Expenditure $64,608; 1 979-80 expenditure to 30 September 1979, $3,158. 590-3-10-IYC National Committee of NonGovernment Organisations- expenses associated with meetings: 1978-79 expenditure, $36,419; 1979-80 expenditure to 30 September 1 979, $ 1 2,558. 590-4-06-UNICEF Committee of Australia for Secretarial Support to NCNGO: 1978-79 expenditure, $30,000; 1979-80 expenditure to 30 September 1979, $15,000.

  1. ) (a) It is not possible to identify all expenditure on publicity and promotion by my depanment because so many activities and projects funded have had a secondary aim of promoting awareness in the IYC, its aims and activities. Details in respect of the funds specifically allocated to IYC Publicity Expenses are set out in ( 1 ) above.

    1. Not known.

International Year of the Child: Costs of Projects (Question No. 1864)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much of the total costs of projects funded by the Depanment of Social Security to mark the International Year of the Child (IYC) has come from the Children’s Services Program, in: (a) 1978-79; and (b) 1979-80.
  2. Which of these projects were particularly earmarked as IYC projects and would not normally have been funded under the Children’s Services Program.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is not possible to identify the total costs of projects funded by the Department of Social Security to mark the International Year of the Child (IYC) as the emphasis during IYC is on ensuring that existing programs and services for children are reviewed and, where appropriate, improved and that steps are taken toward the development of new programs to meet identified needs of children. This approach has been particularly reflected in the administration of and in grants made under the Children ‘s Services Program.

Some of the projects funded through the Children’s Services Program have been designated as IYC projects. For example the YWCA ‘Child to Child Project’ and the National Aboriginal Child Care Conference. However, while they have specific relevance to IYC, they must be seen in the context of the total Children ‘s Services Program.

  1. It is not possible to determine which of the specific IYC projects approved would or would not have been approved if it were not the International Year of the Child. Particular attention has been paid to encouragement of innovative projects which fall within the general guidelines of the Children’s Services Program.

However, Children’s Services Program expenditure, not designated as having particular relevance for IYC, should not be ignored. This Government has under the Children ‘s Services Program spent in total $63.836m in 1978-79 and has allocated $69.220m for 1979-80. This expenditure covers a range of services designed to support children and their families, including centre and family based day care, pre-schools, toy libraries, children’s services field staff and playgroup support services. The honourable Senator will be also aware of the two innovative programs that this Government has introduced under the Children ‘s Services Program: the Family Support Services Program, aimed at encouraging and assisting the development of a range of services to SUPport families in their responsibilities in the rearing and development of children; and the Youth Services Program, which provides support for emergency accommodation and ancillary services such as housing referral and counselling, in recognition of the problems of youth, including increasing disruption to family relationships and increasing homelessness problems.

International Year of the Child: Projects Funded by Department of Social Security (Question No. 1866)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 29 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) What projects have been funded by the Depanment of Social Security for the International Year of the Child and at what cost.
  2. What projects were rejected for funding by the Department for the International Year of the Child, and what were their estimated costs.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) It is not possible to identify all projects funded by the Department of Social Security to mark the International Year of the Child (IYC). The emphasis during IYC is on ensuring that existing programs and services for children are reviewed and, where appropriate, improved and that steps are taken towards the development of new programs for the children.

My Department’s efforts have been directed to reviewing its own programs and to stimulating community groups, other departments and state and local governments to consider their activities and programs for children. In the context of this broad approach, my Department has received requests for funds for many new projects or new approaches to existing programs. Many have received funding from the Children’s Services Program. Some examples of these, because of particular features, have been designated as IYC projects, for instance:

Child Accident Prevention Foundation

National Aboriginal Child Care Conference

YWCA ‘The Child in Society’, an Adult Education Course

Schonell Institute Evaluation of Early Intervention Projects

Spina Bifida National Youth Seminar.

Additionally, in order to encourage further innovations in children’s services an amount of $50,000 for each State and Territory was provided from the Children’s Services Program in 1978-79 for projects in particular areas of need which were identified as a result of the increased attention given to children during IYC. While projects such as those listed above and those funded through the grants to the State and Territories have specific relevance to IYC, they must be seen in the context of the total Children ‘s Services Program.

For the same reasons as it is not possible to isolate approved IYC projects from other projects, rejected proposals for IYC projects are likewise not identifiable.

Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs: Office Accommodation (Question No. 2002)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 September:

Has the Minister decided to establish an office accommodation suite at NRMA House, on Northbourne Avenue, Braddon, Australian Capital Territory; if so: (a) is this suite for the Minister and his staff; (b) what is the rent to be paid for this suite; (c) what is the cost of the furniture and fittings for the office; (d) what is the estimated telephone rental for the office; and (e) for what is the office to be used, and how often will it be used.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes.

It is intended that the office, when ready, will be used by the Minister and at least three of his staff.

b ) $6,600 per annum.

$4,000.

In an attempt to keep telephone rental costs to a minimum, equipment has been so organised that lines in the Parliament House office can be switched through to the NRMA office whenever it is occupied. Estimated rental costs for this arrangement are: outdoor lines $ 1 ,320. maintenance of equipment $780.

The office will be used to conduct ministerial business which will be facilitated by proximity to Departmental officers. It will be occupied whenever parliamentary business allows.

Excise on Low Alcohol Beers (Question No. 2063)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government considered reducing the level of excise payable on low alcohol beers to provide an impetus to consumption of low alcohol beer in preference to the standard product; if not, what action is proposed to this effect.
  2. What objections, if no action is proposed, does the Government have to such action, which would both improve community health and reduce the road toll.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. The Government appreciates the concern that has been shown regarding alcohol consumption. While it has taken no decision to reduce the excise payable on lower alcohol beer the matter remains under consideration. The Government also has under study a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare which has made recommendations on this matter.
  2. ) In coming to a decision the Government must weigh the revenue loss against the effectiveness of a cut in excise duty in encouraging sales of the product. It is relevant to note that since going onto the market lower alcohol beer sales have been growing rapidly without the aid of cuts in excise duty.

Handicapped Persons Assistance Program (Question No. 2073)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) Why was $4.4 million underspent in the year 1 978-79 in the Handicapped Persons Assistance Program.
  2. In which States did underspending occur, for what reasons, and in respect of what projects.
  3. What projects in each State had received approval but did not go ahead in 1978-79, and what was the value of each of these projects.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As some organisations were unable to complete new building projects before 30 June 1979 the underspending was unavoidable; however, funds have been provided for all these outstanding building projects in the current financial year.
  2. Underspending on the new projects occurred in all States. The prime reasons were delays in the commencement of projects or inaccuracies in estimates of construction time provided to my Department, or delays in the finalisation of project costs and the late submission of claims for payment.

The following table lists, for each State, the projects which have not yet been finalised, either in terms of physical completion of a building or in respect of which final documentation is awaited.

  1. The following projects received approval in principle but did not proceed:

    1. The Association for the Blind proposed to purchase an activity therapy centre at Shepparton, Victoria. The provisional capital cost was $33,000, plus estimated salary subsidies of $16,000 per annum.
    2. The Warrnambool Sheltered Workshop Taskforce, Victoria, proposed to extend and renovate its existing approved workshop. The estimated capital cost was $74,800 plus an additional $15,000 for equipment and an additional $ 10,000 per annum for salary subsidy.
    3. St Michael’s Association Inc., proposed to construct a residential accommodation unit for four (4) handicapped children and two (2) staff at Evandale, Tasmania, The proposal involved an estimated capital cost of $62,500 plus $12,500 for equipment and $12,000 per annum for salary subsidies. The organisation has recently advised that it does not intend to proceed with the project.

Projects in substitution for (i) and (ii) above were approved and funded in May 1979.

Northern Land Council: Legal Fees (Question No. 2079)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did the Chairman or the Manager of the Northern Land Council employ Mildren and Partners to act for the Northern Land Council in September 1 978; if so, was this under powers granted by any Commonwealth Act, and what is the title of the Act.
  2. Have Mildren and Partners acted at any time for the Northern Territory policeman who allegedly founded the Northern Territory Branch of the Ku Klux Klan; if so what were the charges against the policeman.
  3. Did the Commonwealth Government pay the legal fees of Mildren and Partners from the time they were retained by the Northern Land Council until the signing of the Ranger Agreement; if so, what was the amount paid by the Commonwealth.
  4. Did Mildren and Partners act for any objectors to the Alligator Rivers Land Claim which was heard during the course of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry; if so, who were the objectors, and what was the nature of their objections.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Northern Land Council appointed Mildren and Partners to act on a matter basis in September 1978 under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
  2. I am informed that because Mildren and Partners respect the confidences of their clients they will not divulge any information to any person concerning their clients without the consent of the person under inquiry; Mildren and Partners do state they have never acted for any alleged member of the Ku Klux Klan since being retained generally by the Northern Land Council in January 1979.
  3. No.
  4. Prior to receiving any instructions from the Northern Land Council, Mildren and Partners acted in 1975 and 1976 for Opitz (Cooinda) Enterprises Pty Ltd and K. S. & C. J. Hill. In a hearing of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Mr Mildren argued successfully that the Opitz (Cooinda) Enterprises ‘s leases were of a nature that precluded the leased land being treated as unalienated land; a similar argument in respect of K. S. & C. J. Hills ‘s interests was not accepted.

Northern Land Council: Legal Fees (Question No. 2080)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What costs incurred by the Northern Land Council during the period of finalisation of the Ranger agreement have been met by the Commonwealth, and what were the amounts of any such costs.
  2. Was Mr Marcus Einfeld, Q.C., retained by the Northern Land Council to advise on arbitration during the Ranger negotiations; if so: ( a) what were his fees; ( b ) have they been paid; and (c) by whom has any payment of fees been made.
  3. Were Waters, James and O’Neil retained by some members of the Northern Land Council to take out an injunction against the Northern Land Council signing the Ranger Agreement.
  4. Was an agreement regarding the legal costs of the injunction made between Waters, James and O’Neil and the Northern Land Council; if so: (a) did the agreement have the express support of the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Honourable Ian Viner, M.P.; (b) what was the amount of the legal costs; (c) have they been paid; and (d) by whom has any payment been made.
  5. Will the Commonwealth, if the legal costs of the injunction have not been paid, give any undertaking to meet those costs.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Costs incurred by the Northern Land Council during the negotiation of the Ranger agreement, such as airfares, legal fees, vehicle hire, catering and accommodation expenses, totalling $150,000, were reimbursed by the Commonwealth upon production of receipts.
  2. Yes; (a) $5,756.40; (b) Yes; (c) Northern Land Council.
  3. Yes.
  4. Provision was made in a Notice of Discontinuance filed in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory as follows:

The Northern Land Council acknowledges that the plaintiffs have properly incurred legal, travel and accommodation and other expenses for themselves and others in this matter and the Chairman of the Northern Land Council has agreed to use his best endeavours to arrange for the payment of those expenses by whatever means he can achieve’.

  1. Yes.

  2. , (c) and (d) I understand that the costs, of which I do not have details, have been paid by the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service.

    1. See answer(4) above.

Northern Land Council: Employees (Question No. 2081)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What is Mr Alex Bishaw’s status in the Commonwealth Public Service, as at 16 October 1979.
  2. Is Mr Bishaw currently on leave from the Public Service; if so, (a) on what type of leave; and(b) for how long.
  3. What is his current rate of pay, from all sources, by source.
  4. Is Mr Bishaw entitled to accept work outside the Public Service; if so, under what Public Service regulation or determination.
  5. Is he being retained by the Northern Land Council; if so; (a) in what capacity; (b) for how long has he been retained; and (c) what is the precise nature of his duties for the Council.
  6. What other employees are working for the Northern Land Council, as at 16 October 1979.
  7. How many of these employees are; (a) Aboriginal; and (b) white.
  8. What is: (a) the classification: and (b) the salary of each Northern Land Council employee.
  9. What source of finance was used by the Northern Land Council to acquire its current office premises.
  10. 10) Was that finance: (a) a grant or loan from the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account or the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Fund; (b) a grant or loan from any other source; or (c) for the purpose of leasing or buying the premises.
  11. What was the source of finance, if it was not a grant or loan from the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Account or the Aboriginal Benefit Trust Fund.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Clerk, Class 10, Third Division (unattached).
  2. Yes; (a) long service leave, (b) from 6 July 1979 to 5 March 1 980 inclusive.
  3. Clerk, Class 10 rate by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in respect of long service leave, and the same rate by the Northern Land Council.
  4. Yes; approval to engage in work outside the Public Service was given by the Regional Director (Northern Territory) of the Public Service Board under the provisions of Public Service General Order 5/G/ 1.
  5. Yes; (a) Senior Administration Officer, Ranger Monitoring Cell; (b) until February 1980; (c) he is responsible for assisting the Council in carrying out its responsibilities and duties in relation to agreements in respect of mining developments that have been negotiated under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.
  6. , (7) and (8) (a) Structure funded by Section 64 ( 1 ) of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act
  1. Structure funded by Clause 3.3 of Ranger Agreement under Section 44 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act.

(9), ( 10) and (11) The Northern Land Council is leasing its office premises using part of the moneys available to it as provided under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, and supplemented by appropriations from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies: Research Grants (Question No. 2110)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What research grants have been awarded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in each year from 1976-77 to 1978-79 inclusive (see the answer to Senate Question No. 20 11).
  2. What has been the value of each grant for research in Australia during each year; to whom has each grant been made; and where has the research been carried out.
  3. What has been the value of each grant for research overseas, by either Australians or non-Australians; to whom have such grants been made; and where has the research been carried out
  4. What has been the nationality of the recipients, in the case of grants for research to be carried out overseas by non-Australians.
  5. How many research workers are on the staff of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, and how many are Australian citizens.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Research grants awarded by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies in each year from 1976-77 to 1978-79 are listed in the Institute’s Newsletters 5 to 1 1. Details of the Institute’s expenditure each year on grants are provided in the Institute’s Annual Reports.
  2. and (4) Four grants have been awarded for research overseas: Three for work overseas by Australian residents and one for work by a citizen of the United States of America.
  1. Fourteen of the staff of the Institute, as at September 1979, were classified as research workers. Four of these were appointed from overseas and are probably not Australian citizens.

Migrant Project Subsidy Scheme (Question No. 2130)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 25 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many applications have been received by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, including its State offices, for funding under the Migrant Project Subsidy Scheme.
  2. From which organisations have the applications been received.
  3. Which organisations have so far (as at 24 October 1979): (a) received; and (b) been promised, funding under the scheme.
  4. What are the amounts involved.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1) and (2) As at 24 October 1979, 375 applications had been received for funding under the Migrant Project Subsidy Scheme. The applications have come from a wide variety of organisations including ethnic community groups, church groups, trade unions, cultural and other vol untary groups.
  2. and (4) The $130,000 allocated for this scheme in 1978-79 was spent. A similar amount has been allocated in the current financial year. The organisations to which grants have been made up to 24 October 1979 are listed below. Funding has not been promised to any organisations. A progress payment of $2,000 has been made to the Capuchin Franciscan Friars (SA) on the $5,000 grant approved. Further payments will be made as the project progresses.

The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has approved these ‘once only ‘ subsidy grants of up to a maximum of $5,000 to assist ethnic or other voluntary organisations to meet the cost of projects aimed at introducing new approaches to migrant welfare service delivery or to restructure existing services.

All projects have been announced in detailed news releases.

North- West One-Stop Welfare Centre, Coburg (Question No. 2133)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security upon notice, on 24 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) When was the North- West One-Stop Welfare Centre (the NOW Centre) established in Coburg.
  2. Was it originally intended to function as an experiment in welfare delivery and for how long was it intended to function.
  3. 3 ) Is it expected that it will continue to perform its present functions.
  4. What evaluation has been done on the work of the NOW Centre, and what recommendations have been made about its future.
  5. Are any such evaluations or recommendations publicly available; if not, why not.
  6. What, if any, action is proposed to establish more centres, of this type.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The North- West One-Stop Welfare Centre (the NOW Centre) was established in Coburg in July 1 97 5.
  2. lt was set up as an experiment in welfare delivery and the experimental stage «/as terminated by agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the Victorian Government on 30 June 1979.
  3. It is expected that the Centre will continue to perform its present functions.
  4. The operation of the Centre has been subject to four evaluation exercises undertaken by officials of Commonwealth and Victorian Government departments. The final evaluation concluded that: the co-location factor afforded clients more convenience; the ethnicity of clients at NOW was relatively high and the services provided met these requirements; and community support for the Centre was high.

The evaluators recommended that the Centre be continued.

  1. The evaluation reports are internal documents of the departments concerned and as such are not publicly available.
  2. The establishment of further such centres will be considered on the individual merits of any case which arises.

Sheltered Workshops (Question No. 2137)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 24 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many sheltered workshops are there in Australia at present (24 October, 1979).
  2. Are any more workshops being, or about to be, constructed.
  3. ) How many disabled people have they employed.
  4. What has been: (a) the average income of the handicapped employees, and (b) the total value of the production of the workshops.
  5. Is it the case that in the year 1973-74 the workshops produced nearly$15m in goods, while the employees were paid less than $3.5m; if so, what has been done with the remaining income.
  6. What consideration has the Minister given to allowing the handicapped to earn additional income without forfeiting their pension entitlements, noting that in the United States, pensioners may earn up to $3,000 per annum without effect on their pension.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 169 sheltered workshops are subsidised under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974. There may be other sheltered workshops operating about which my department does not hold information.
  2. Yes.
  3. and (4) The following table has been prepared for comparative purposes. The information has been obtained from periodic surveys of handicapped persons ‘ facilities. The latest information available from this source relates to the year ended 30 June, 1976. In addition to wages received from employment, eligible persons can also receive sheltered employment allowance under Part VILA of the Social Services Act 1947.
  1. The statement concerning value of workshop output compared with wages paid to employees in 1973-74, while factually correct, needs qualification and further explanation.

Organisations are expected to relate the wages paid to handicapped people to their actual productivity. A sheltered workshop is an industrially-oriented, rehabilitative project which is undertaken with the object of providing vocational training and learning opportunities for persons who are unable to enter the wider field of employment because of physical, intellectual or social reasons. Workshops are required to operate as efficient business enterprises producing quality work at normal commercial ratesin minimum time, under disciplined conditions. As a result, sheltered workshops are also subject to costs encountered by, and associated with, any commercial undertaking.

These costs cover such aspects as:

Administrative Expenses; Amenities; Audit and Accountancy; Depreciation; Electricity; Insurance; Materials; Provision for Doubtful Debts; Rent and Rates; Repairs, Replacement, Maintenance; Special Events; Telephones; Transport; Wages and Salaries.

It is impossible to quantify these costs in any general way, because of the diversity of sheltered workshop operations, the different accounting procedures followed by organisations and other variables relating to location, scale of operation and management procedures.

It is important to note also that in addition to industrially oriented activities, sheltered workshops are also expected to provide personal skills and social development training for their employees.

  1. Following the announcement in the 1979-80 Budget that the income limits for pensioner fringe benefits were to be substantially increased, the Government also announced that the income test limits below which recipients of sheltered employment allowance are eligible for fringe benefits would also be increased. For a single person receiving sheltered employment allowance the fringe benefit limit has been raised from $56.00 to $68.00 per week and for a married couple with no dependants, the limit has been increased from $6 1.50 to $73.00, i.e. some $3,800 per annum.

The income test for a single handicapped person allows the first $20 per week income to be exempt. Income in excess of $20 per week reduces the maximum rate of pension or sheltered employment allowance by $ 1 per week, for each $2 per week received as income. However as from 8 November 1979, entitlement to these benefits is retained until a single person’s income exceeds $135.80 per week. Married pensioners with no children retain pension entitlement up to a combined income level of $227.50 per week.

Primary Industry Bank of Australia (Question No. 2150)

Senator Walsh:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

Did the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, on or about 1 July 1 979, advise its agents not to approve new advances; if so, why did the General Manager of the Bank deny that such advice had been issued.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The following information has been provided by the Primary Industry Bank: As indicated in the First Annual Report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Limited, the Bank significantly reduced the volume of loans approved during the period 1 July to 19 September 1979 pending finalisation of the Bank ‘s 1 979-80 funding arrangements.

Upon completion of these arrangements the approval rate was escalated to make up for this reduction. The draw-down of funds against approved refinance loans continued throughout the period.

Prime lenders were advised of the Bank’s intention to delay approvals but it was not suggested that refinance applications should not be forwarded to the Bank. The Bank’s advice may have prompted some prime lenders to defer acceptance of applications from primary producers for loans to be refinanced with the Bank.

Non-employment Substituting Schemes (Question No. 2172)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many proposed (non-employment substituting) schemes have been evaluated by the Office of Youth Affairs or the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs since December 1977, which would involve the creation of a fully or partly Government funded volunteer corps for

    1. one year or more of voluntary service in Australia;
    2. one year or more of voluntary service outside Australia; and
    3. a combination of both internal and external service.

  2. Who were the authors or originators of each individual proposed scheme from:

    1. within; and
    2. outside, the Commonwealth bureaucracy.
  3. How many volunteers did each individual scheme envisage would be engaged in each 12 months for the 3 years’ operation of each such scheme.

  4. What was the estimated cost to:

    1. Government; and
    2. non-Government, sources of each proposed scheme in each 12 months for the first 3 years’ operation of each such scheme.

  5. What were the major activities in which volunteers within each proposed scheme would be engaged:

    1. a ) within Australia; and
    2. b ) outside Australia.
  6. What was the specified age group, if any, of volunteers participating within each proposed scheme.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

In keeping with the community’s concern on the employment question, the Government has received and analysed some hundreds of manpower proposals. These views have been taken into account in a process of continuous monitoring of the employment situation and review of the Government’s manpower programs.

Any attempt to provide an analysis of the kind requested could not be justified.

Gurindji Land at Dargargu (Question No. 2179)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Northern Territory Government cancelled the lease of the Gurindji people on their land at Dargargu; if so, was the lease cancelled on 28 October 1 979.
  2. When will the Gurindji land claim be heard.
  3. What is the value of stock and other property on the Gurindji land.
  4. What was the total of Commonwealth funding to the Gurindji people for each additional year from 1974-75 to 1978- 79, and what is projected funding for the financial year

1979- 80.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. On 26 February 1979, a claim was received by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner from the Central Land Council, on behalf of Aboriginals, to an area of alienated Crown land in which all estates and interests not held by the Crown are held by, or on behalf of, Aboriginals, comprising all of the Dagaragu Pastoral Lease 805, together with Northern Territory Portion 1459. The claim was titled- The Dagaragu/Gurindji Claim. The Aboriginal Land Commissioner has not yet set a date for the hearing.
  3. The approximate value of the stock and other property on Gurindji land is as follows:
  1. The Gurindji people do not reside only on the Dagaragu Pastoral Lease and, in addition, other Aboriginals, who are not from the Gurindji tribe, reside with the Gurindji people in these areas. I have therefore provided information in respect of all grants made to the areas where the Gurindji people are living. Commonwealth funds were provided from the following sources:

Maintenance of Aboriginal Communities- vote 120-3-03 which funded fuels, domestic, field activities, mechanical spares and wages.

Grants-in-Aid funding.

Grants from Aborigines Benefits Trust Fund (now Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account).

In addition, wages were paid in 1974-75 and 1975-76 to some Gurindji people as part of an overall government assistance vote, and a break-up of these figures is not available.

Uluru and Kakadu National Parks (Question No. 2185)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What action is being taken to return control of the Uluru and Kakadu National Parks to the Northern Territory Government, in view of demands by that Government, the resolution expressed by the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers, and the changed circumstances resulting from self government for the Territory.
  2. Does the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service adhere to the role laid down for it by the Commonwealth Government, as detailed in the Minister’s Press release of 12 August 1976; if not, why not.
  3. What is the total amount spent annually by officers of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service in travel and accommodation between their Canberra headquarters and Kakadu and Uluru National Parks.
  4. Why does the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service not exercise all of its powers of delegation, as permitted by section 36 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, by providing appropriate Northern Territory authorities with full powers to operate Kakadu and Uluru National Parks on behalf of the Commonwealth.
  5. When will plans of management be provided for the Kakadu and Uluru National Parks, as required by section 1 1 of the Act, in view of the fact that the control of Kakadu and Uluru National Parks currently rests with the Director of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Uluru (Ayers Rock- Mt Olga) National Park was declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975on24 May 1977.

Kakadu National Park was declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 on 5 April 1979 following consideration by the Government of recommendations made in the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry Second Report

The Minister for Trade and Resources stated in a Press release issued on 13 November 1979 in relation to Kakadu National Park that, ‘. . . the NT Government and the Commonwealth Government are agreed that the national park will be managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in accordance with its agreement with the NLC.

  1. The Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service adheres to the roles laid down for it by the Commonwealth Government.
  2. The total amount spent by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service on travel and accommodation for the Uluru National Park in the 1978-79 financial year was $7,819.42. Travel and accommodation costs for Kakadu from 3 November 1978, the date of signing of the Lease Agreement between the Director and the Northern Land Council, to 30 June 1979 was $9,724.
  3. Under the agreement negotiated between the Commonwealth and the Northern Land Council on the terms under which Aboriginal land will be incorporated in Kakadu National Park, the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service will be involved in management. Delegation of some responsibilities is envisaged.

In the case of Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mt Olga) National Park, day-to-day management is delegated to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission.

  1. The Plans of Management for both national parks have been virtually complete for some time. Release for public comment of the Uluru Plan of Management will be made following satisfactory resolution of negotiations about Aboriginal involvement.

Release of the Kakadu Plan of Management is delayed mainly because the Jabiru Town Development Authority has not finalised its proposals for the Jabiru town zoning plan.

Taxation Charges on People in the Outback (Question No. 2189)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 November 1979:

What action is proposed to review taxation charges on people in the outback and the north of Australia, with a view to improving their lot generally, and bringing them nearer to the economic and social conditions of people living in the more highly populated areas, in the light of the Government’s endeavour to achieve equality for people in the Australian community.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

As I said in my response to Question No. 869 (Hansard 2 1 August 1979), the income tax zone allowances were listed for further examination during the preparation of the 1979-80 Budget. They were examined in this context but the view was taken that such income tax relief as it was practicable to give in a responsible way, in the light of the overall budgetary situation, should be provided by way of abolition from 1 December 1979, of the income tax surcharge. This measure, being of general application, will apply as much to persons living and working in remote areas as to those in the more highly populated areas.

Demonstration at Department of Social Security, Townsville (Question No. 2192)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 November 1979:

Did a demonstration take place on premises of the Department of Social Security at Townsville on Wednesday, 7 November 1979; if so-

did a senior officer of the Department attempt to contact by telephone a representative of those conducting the demonstration;

how did the Queensland Police become involved, in view of the fact that the incident took place on Commonwealth property.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Approximately 20 to 30 people occupied the public area of my Department’s Townsville Office on 7 November 1979-

I understand that no attempt was made by a senior officer of my Department to telephone a representative of those conducting the demonstration. Rather senior officers of my Department who are based in Townsville spoke with the demonstrators and arranged to forward information relating matters of concern to them to me. I have now replied by letter dated 14 November 1979 to a representative of the demonstrators.

b) Following a request by a senior officer of my Department, four Federal Police officers arrived at the Townsville Office soon after the commencement of the demonstration. The Federal Police officers notified the Queensland Police of the situation and requested their assistance, which was forthcoming.

Metric Conversion: Complaints (Question No. 2217)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 14 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many letters of complaint have been received by: (a) the Department of Science and the Environment or its predecessor, and (b) the Government, in relation to the introduction of Metric Conversion, since January 1 976.
  2. ) What have been the principal areas of complaint.
  3. What is the total number of: (a) petitions; and (b) signatures on petitions, lodged in both Houses of the Federal Parliament since the first Parliamentary Session in 1976, protesting at aspects of the implementation of Metric Conversion.
  4. When were those petitions lodged.
  5. Did the Government establish an Inter-departmental Committee to assess the implications, impact and costs of the implementation of Metric Conversion, or for some other related purpose; if so (a) what is the nature of any such other related purpose; (b) when was the Committee first established, and when did it first formally meet; (c) which Government Departments or Statutory Authorities have been represented on the Committee; (d) which officers have represented Government Departments or Statutory Authorities on the Committee; (e) did the Inter-departmental Committee undertake, or instigate the preparation of, a costbenefit analysis on the implementation of Metric Conversion in those areas where conversion is not yet complete, and if not, why not; (f) when did the Minister receive the findings of the Inter-departmental Committee, or when does he expect to receive its findings; and (g) when will those findings be presented to the Parliament.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) It would require an extensive examination of a large number of files to give a precise answer and the work involved would not be warranted. However, as an indication I have received only approximately 40 letters, including those referred by other Members of Parliament for my comments, during the period 1 August 1979 to 3 1 October 1979. To put this in perspective, I received over 780 other letters during the same period on a diverse range of issues.
  2. The letters have covered many aspects of metric conversion but have tended to concentrate on current programs. Generally the problems are transitional ones which will disappear when conversion is complete.

  3. and (4) Petitions are held by the Clerk of the Senate and the Clerk of the House and full details have not been available within my Department. However Hansard has recorded that 189 petitions were submitted during the autumn sittings of this year. They were generally in one of the few standard proformas circulated by opponents of the change.

    1. Following the passage of the Metric Conversion Act 1970, the Government established a standing Interdepartmental Co-ordinating Committee for Metric Conversion. It has been revalidated by succeeding Governments. Its composition and terms of reference have varied with time but currently it comprises the Departments of Science and the Environment, Defence, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Attorney-General, Finance, and Industry and Commerce. Its prime responsibility is to stimulate and monitor conversion in government departments and to provide advice as required. It has not been asked to comment on the implications, impact, or cost of implementation of metric conversion or undertake a cost-benefit analysis. However, the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Productivity, Business and Consumer Affairs, together with my Department recently reviewed the progress of conversion and any action required to complete it. As a result of that I announced on 23 October 1979 that the Metric Conversion Board would continue in operation till at least June 1981.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Allocation of Housing Funds (Question No. 2243)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Department of Aboriginal Affairs allocate funds for housing directly to the Department of Housing and Construction.
  2. What is the legal authority for such a practice.
  3. Do Aboriginal communities have any opportunity to decide to make use of other agencies to assist them in housing projects.
  4. Is the Department of Housing and Construction required to provide: (a) the Department of Aboriginal Affairs; and (b) the Aboriginal communities involved, with audited statements of how it has used the community’s grants.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Aboriginal Affairs does not allocate funds directly to the Department of Housing and Construction, although it can and does on occasion release funds allocated to Aboriginal communities directly to that Department, at the request of an Aboriginal community. Such occurrences would eventuate when the Department of Housing and Construction is supervising contracts on behalf of a community, and makes progress payments to the contractor as certain stages of the work are completed.
  2. The practice occurs only where the community nominated as the grant recipient agrees to the Department of Housing and Construction acting as its agent In these cases letters of grant offer from my Department include specific reference to the agency role of the Department of Housing and Construction in the conditions of grant. Communities participating in this arrangement are required to acknowledge the agency agreement in their letter of acceptance. This practice is in accord with Finance Direction 23/8.
  3. Aboriginal communities do have the opportunity to use other agencies to assist them in housing projects, and many organisations have engaged private consultants. The Department of Housing and Construction, in addition to being engaged as consultant by a number of communities, acts as technical adviser to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in housing and other construction matters.
  4. Upon completion of a contract, the Department of Housing and Construction issues a Certificate of Practical Completion and a Financial Report which advises the client, in this case the Aboriginal community, of the full costs of the contract. Any surplus moneys remaining on completion of work would be returned to the client.

Aborigines: Legal Services (Question No. 2254)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) How much has been paid, or is due to be paid, by the Commonwealth, or authorities and agencies funded by the Commonwealth, for legal services for and on behalf of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory for the 12 months ending 31 October 1979.
  2. Which legal practitioners, or firms of legal practitioners, have received these payments, and how much have they received in each case.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. I ) Funds released by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the two Aboriginal Legal Services in the Northern Territory in the 12 month period ending 31 October 1979, are as follows:
  1. The names of individual legal practitioners engaged by the Aboriginal Legal Services are not available to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs nor are the individual amounts paid by the Services to legal practitioners. In accordance with the Government ‘s selfmanagement principle, such engagements are made directly by the Legal Services and have regard to the particular legal representation needs of individual clients.

Unemployment Benefits: Delays in Payments (Question No. 2271)

Senator Colston:

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

What were the new procedures which were introduced to avoid delays in payment of unemployment benefits, mentioned in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1979, page 85.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

In order to continue to receive unemployment benefit, it is necessary for a beneficiary to establish continuing entitlement.

Pan of this process involves the lodgment of an Application for Continuation of Benefit ( Form SU 1 9B).

Ath the time of the occurrence referred to by the Ombudsman, payments were being made on a set payday, provided that the Form SU19B had been received by that date and continued eligibility had been established. Payment would not therefore be interrupted unless there was a failure to lodge the FormSU19B.

If the Form SU 1 9B was not received by the due date, the procedures required payment to be terminated. If the Form was subsequently received some delay could occur in resuming payment.

In the case referred to by the Ombudsman, the Form SU19B was lodged a day late. As a result, payment was terminated and a delay occurred in restoring benefit.

In the latter pan of 1978, procedural changes were made in the processing of unemployment benefits which included provision for date of payment of continuing benefit to be linked directly to date of receipt of Form SUI9B, instead of automatic payments being made on a set payday.

One of the effects of this change was to avoid the type of delay which occurred in the case referred to by the Ombudsman.

Excise on Wine

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 22 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1904), Senator McLaren asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning excise on wine. In reply to the honourable senator’s question, the Treasurer has provided the following answer:

The honourable senator will be aware that the 1979-80 Budget made no provision for any excise on wine. The honourable senator will also be aware that the Government has examined the recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report of 3 1 July 1 979 on Grapes and Wine. The Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs announced on 25 October that the Government had decided to leave unchanged the customs duties presently applying to wine, grape must and fresh and dried grapes.

Excise on Wine

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 22 May 1979 (Hansard, page 1905) Senator Peter Baume asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning excise on wine. In reply to the honourable senator’s question, the Treasurer has provided the following answer:

Consistent with the assurance given by Senator Carrick, the Government has given full consideration to recommendations by the Industries Assistance Commission in its report of 3 1 July 1 979 on Grapes and Wine. Following that examination, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs announced on 25 October that the Government had decided to leave unchanged the customs duties presently applying to wine, grape must and fresh and dried grapes.

Jabiru

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 7 November 1979 Senator Melzer asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources advise whether the land on which the township of Jabiru is being built adjacent to the Ranger mine project site is land excised from the Kakadu National Park and subject to Federal administration? If this is so, why is the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly assuming a planning role over the area? Will this mean a change in the size and nature of the township? What action is the Government taking in this matter?

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

The Jabiru township is being built on land situated within the Kakadu National Park, which is subject to Commonwealth administration.

By agreement between the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments the Jabiru Town Development Authority, a Northern Teritory body, has been established to plan, develop and administer the town. The Authority is required to act in accordance with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 of the Commonwealth insofar as that Act relates to Jabiru.

In relation to the respective roles of the Commonwealth and Northern Territory Governments in the development of the Jabiru township, I would refer the honourable senator to my press statement of 13 November 1979 on the Kakadu National Park and Jabiru.

Commemoration of First Meat Shipment

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 8 November Senator Thomas asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice:

I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. The 100th anniversary of the first shipment of meat from Australia will occur later this year. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation is mounting a campaign to mark that event. As Australia is the largest exporter of meat in the world, and as this great industry means so much to so many Australians, will the Government be prepared to support the campaign or to take some independent action to remind Australia and the world of this important anniversary?

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

The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation has responsibilities, under Commonwealth legislation, for promoting domestic and overseas trade in meat The centenary of the first refrigerated beef shipment to the United Kingdom provides the Corporation with an excellent opportunity to pursue this objective.

Funds to assist the overseas promotion of Australian meat are provided by the Department of Trade and Resources through the Overseas Trade Publicity Committee on the basis of a 65 cents Government contribution against each dollar contributed by the AMLC. The Corporation has planned a program of appropriate promotional activities endorsed by the Department of Trade and Resources.

It is moreover proposed that these activities will be publicised overseas through various Departmental publications and newspaper supplements and the proposed Australian celebrations will also be depicted at trade fairs and displays in the target areas for meat exports.

Kakadu National Park and Jabiru Township

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 15 November 1979 Senator Robertson asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice:

I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. In his Press release on 13 November the Minister for Trade and Resources said:

Further discussions with the Northern Territory are being arranged to progress a range of matters in relation to the Jabiru township and Kakadu National Park.

Will the Minister indicate what these matters are and also let the Senate know whether the Northern Land Council will be a party to the discussions?

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

The further discussions with the Northern Territory will include:

the issue of a lease by the Director of National Parks and Wildlife to the Jabiru Town Development Authority in respect of the Jabiru town site;

the plan of management for Stage I of the Kakadu National Park;

regulations for the Park; and

management and staff arrangements for the Park.

As indicated in my statement on 13 November 1979, the Commonwealth Government and the Northern Territory Government are agreed that the National Park will be managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in accordance with its agreement with the Northern Land Council. Accordingly, the Northern Land Council will be consulted as necessary. I have advised the Chairman of the Northern Land Council that he will be kept fully informed about the progress of the discussions.

In addition, the Northern Territory Government has invited the Northern Land Council to nominate two if its members to the Jabiru Town Development Authority.

Qantas Airways Ltd (Question No. 1474)

Senator Townley:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 22 March 1979:

  1. How many overseas trips have been made by the present Chairman of Qantas Airways Limited between his appointment and 22 March 1979.
  2. What were: (a) the dates of such trips; (b) the places visited; (c) the reasons for each visit; and (d) the costs of each trip including details of costs of (i) hotels; (ii) cars; (iii) taxis; (iv) hospitality; and (vi) entertainment.
  3. Who gives approval for the Chairman’s overseas travel and expenditure.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The present Chairman of Qantas Airways Limited has made 53 overseas visits since his appointment on 1 July 1 973 to 22 March 1979. Twenty-eight of these visits have been to attend meetings in his capacity as a member of the Executive Committee of International Air Transport Association and member of Executive Committee of Orient Airlines Association. Overseas travel by the Directors, including the Chairman, and by the General Manager and other officers is undertaken pursuant to resolution of the Board as a natural and necessary requirement for the purposes of carrying on the Company’s business of international air transport with world wide services. The expenditure of Directors, including the Chairman, is approved by Sub-Committee of the Board and reported to the Board.

The further information requested is of a detailed commercial nature and it has been made clear on a number of previous occasions, as Qantas operates in a commercial environment, it would not be appropriate to disclose such information.

Exports of Liquefied Natural Gas (Question No. 1498)

Senator Mcintosh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 29 March 1 979:

  1. 1 ) What is the relationship between the financial benefit to Australia through the proposed export of 6.5 tonnes of liquefied natural gas and the financial burden to Australia through importing a quantity of oil that would have a similar energy potential.
  2. What is the price structure of both commodities.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Using an f.o.b. price range of SUS3-SUS4 per thousand cubic feet, the export of 6.5 million tonnes of LNG per annum would yield $A877-$AI,169m in export income. Taking Arabian light as an example, the energy equivalent of 6.5 million tonnes of LNG would be 54.5 million barrels. At the existing OPEC marker price for Arabian light of JUS 18.00 per barrel, the f.o.b. cost of 54.5 million barrels is $A894m. Production of LPG and condensate from the North West Shelf project could have an additional favourable impact on the balance of payments of around $A400m annually at current prices.
  2. The price structure of oil in the world market is set by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Oil exporting countries that are not members of OPEC tend to follow pricing patterns set at the regular OPEC meetings with the use of a marker crude- Arabian light. The price for oil produced by OPEC members is set by taking into account, amongst other things, quality and locational factors in comparison with the marker crude. The price differentials are based on quality and freight costs, but under present OPEC pricing policy most producers apply surcharges, which are quite separate to differentials. Thus, most crudes are priced well above the marker crude. At the OPEC meeting on 28 June 1979 the marker crude was priced at $US 18.00 per barrel and members decided that the maximum price to be charged for any oil should not exceed SUS23.50 per barrel. Some individual OPEC member countries have recently announced prices in excess of this ceiling.

There is no organised market for LNG paralleling that for oil. LNG prices are negotiated between individual buyers and sellers taking into account a variety of commercial factors.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1535)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. 1 ) What countries, companies, agencies or other institutions did the Minister visit during his ‘fact-finding’ trip on domestic satellite use.
  2. What estimates of cost of: (a) television receival only; and (b) telephony in remote areas from a 20-watt satellite transponder; were given to the Minister by Canadian manufacturers or agencies.
  3. What volume of production was indicated in these costs and what indication of Australian content and manufacture was given by Canadian companies or agencies.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The countries, companies, agencies and other institutions visited were:

Japan- Minister and Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications; Sony Research Laboratory; Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) and NHK Research Laboratories.

United States- Corporation for Public Broadcasting; COMSAT General Corporation; Satellite Business System; American Telephones and Telegrams (AT & T); Ford Aerospace.

Canada- Minister and Department of Communications; TELESAT; SPAR.

United Kingdom- British Broadcasting Corporation; Independent Broadcasting Authority; British Aerospace.

France- Thomson-CSF; SAGEM; Ministry of Post and Telecommuncations: European Space Agency.

  1. and(3) The equipment shown or demonstrated was still at the experimental stage. At that time the Canadian officials estimated that the cost of an earth terminal for direct television reception at approximately $ 1 , 000 Canadian, but considered that this cost would be reduced significantly after equipment refinements. The officials were unable to give an estimated ‘production cost’ for the experimental receive/transmit telephony earth station.

As the essential purpose of the visit was to obtain information on technological developments in the use of domestic communication satellites, there were no discussions regarding prospective applications of particular systems for Australian domestic uses.

Domestic Satellite (Question No. 1536)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. 1 ) Which members of the Government Working Group on a National Communications Satellite System have travelled overseas.
  2. What countries, companies, agencies, or other institutions have been visited by each of these members.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I assume that the question refers to overseas visits specifically to obtain information on developments in the application of domestic satellites. Mr E. E. Payne, First Assistant Secretary, Postal and Telecommunications Department, who was Chairman of the Working Group at that time, accompanied me on my overseas visit in January-February 1 979. Mr A. F. Guster, who subsequently became Chairman of the Working Group, visited overseas for similar purposes in April-May 1979.

  1. See answer to Question 1535 in respect of the visit by Mr Payne. Mr Guster visited the following organisations/authorities:

Canada- Department of Communications; SPAR; TELESAT; SED Systems Ltd.

United States- Hughes Aircraft Corporation.

Royal Commissions and Inquiries (Question No. 1673)

Senator Button:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister represent ing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 4 June 1979:

What has been the cost, to 4 June 1979, of each Royal Commission and inquiry set up by the Federal Government since December 1975.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Department of Administrative Services, which has a responsibility to service most major Government inquiries, has provided the following information relating to those inquiries with which it has been associated during the period indicated by the honourable senator.

National Royal Commission on Drugs: 1977- 78-$705,001; 1 978-79- S 1 , 338,993 ; total $2,043,994.

Royal Commission of Inquiry concerning Electoral Redistribution in Queensland in 1977: 1977-78-$35,603; 1 978- 79-$ 1 47,028; total $ 1 82,63 1 .

Other Committees of Inquiry established by the present Government and serviced by the Department of Administrative Services since December 1975:

Independent Inquiry into CSIRO: 1 976-77-$ 1 10,173; 1977-78-538,55 1; total $ 148,724.

Committee of Inquiry into the Role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee: 1975-76- $18,010; 1976- 77-$74.981; total $92,991.

Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest: 1 977- 78-$24,326; 1 978-79-$ 1 96,958; total $22 1 , 284.

Protective Security Review: 1977-78-$99,585; 1978- 79-$250,320; total $349,905.

Inquiry into the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry: 1 978-79-$ 1 32,06 1 ; total $ 1 32,06 1 .

I draw the honourable senator’s attention to the fact that expenditure associated with Royal Commissions and major inquiries serviced by the Department of Administrative Services is shown in Appropriation Bill (No. I ) each year, for example, see Division 130-3 of the Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1979-80. In some other instances also, the cost of an inquiry may be identified in the estimates of servicing Department; for example, expenditure in connection with the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System is shown under Division 670-3 of the Department of the Treasury.

No central records are kept of the costs of all Government inquiries. To collect and assemble such costs would be a major task and it has not been the practice of successive governments to authorise such information on a general basis. If the honourable senator wishes to know the details of any particular inquiry, I shall examine the matter to see if he can be provided with the desired information.

Redfern Mail Exchange (Question No. 1754)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 2 1 August 1979:

  1. 1) When did the then Postmaster-General’s Department (PMG) recommend the establishment of the Redfern Mail Exchange.
  2. What were the names and Departmental designations of the senior PMG officers who advised the Minister to this effect.
  3. Are any of the abovementioned officers in the service of the Government as at 21 August 1979; if so, in what capacity.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. In October 1949, the Government approved a recommendation from the Postmaster-General’s Department that an integrated Sydney Central Mail Exchange should be established at Redfern.
  2. ) Sir Giles Chippindall was Director-General, Posts and Telegraphs, in 1949 and, in accordance with his responsibilities under the Public Service Act, was responsible for advising the Minister on all matters relating to the Department.
  3. No. Sir Giles Chippindall retired from the Public Service in 1958. He died in 1969.

Prime Minister: Interview with Political Correspondent (Question No. 1759)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 21 August 1979:

Was the Prime Minister correctly reported in The Weekend Australian, 18-19 August 1979, in an interview with political correspondent Russell Schneider, to have stated that trade unions have gone a long way with annual incomes of up to $ 10m; if so, which union or unions was the Prime Minister referring to.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The honourable senator’s question misquotes the report in The Weekend Australian. I did not say, and was not reported as saying, that trade unions have gone a long way with annual incomes of up to $ 10m.

I believe I was correcdy reported as making a general observation that trade unions are so powerful and their annual incomes often so great that they should be subject to some discipline in the interests of their own members. Just as a company gives an annual accounting to its shareholders, so should a trade union account to its members for the disposal of their dues and any income which it derives from other sources.

Advertising of Tobacco and Alcohol (Question No. 1796)

Senator Chipp:

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

Will the Government consider making the advertising of tobacco and alcohol no longer tax deductible, in view of the cost to the community resulting from the use of these products.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare in its Report ‘Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?’ (Parliamentary Paper No. 228/ 1 977), recommended that the Commonwealth Government consider denying tax deductibility for expenses incurred in the promotion of tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. This report is now being examined by the Government.

Pensioners: Housing Assistance (Question No. 1800)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. How many pensioners in each State have been: (a) financially assisted personally; or (b) assisted in other ways personally, to rent privately in their own neighbourhoods, under the scheme to provide housing assistance for pensioners which came into operation on 1 July 1 978.
  2. In what specific ways have pensioners in category (b) above been assisted.
  3. Which non-profit organisations in each State have been given money to provide subsidised housing for pensioners; how many pensioners have benefited from this expenditure; and what evaluation of this form of rental assistance is planned.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a)and(b)Nil.
  2. Not relevant.
  3. None from funds provided under the Housing Assistance Act 1978. However, non-profit organisations which provide housing for pensioners receive funds under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act I9S4 and Aged Persons Hostels Act 1974. The latter two Acts are administered by the Minister for Social Security.

All States are applying funds provided under Part III of the Housing Assistance Act 1 978 for the construction or purchase of additional housing stock in various locations. In 1979-80, $30m is available for rental housing assistance to pensioners under the Act.

Refugees and Displaced Persons (Question No. 1817)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 23 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did page 19, paragraph 4, of the Minister’s speech to the Queensland Branch of the Institute of International Affairs on 4 June 1979 state that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are currently 14 million refugees and displaced persons in the world.
  2. Will the Minister add to this statement to give the location and nationality of the people referred to by the Commissioner.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) It has not been possible to obtain a detailed breakdown of the figure in the form sought by the honourable Senator. He will appreciate that the definitions of refugees and displaced persons are complex. It seems that the figure of 1 4 million refugees and displaced persons probably refers to those resettled under UNHCR auspices in the period since the establishment of that organisation and those still requiring resettlement. The latter group is widely distributed in all continents except Australia and includes an estimated 3 million persons in Africa, 2.5 million in the Middle East and the several millions in Asia. It is difficult to be specific about the numbers of refugees and displaced persons in particular locations because of the fluidity of the flows of refugees and displaced persons. There are smaller groups of refugees in South America and in Western Europe- mainly people who have come from Eastern European countries.

It is pleasing that some of the refugee situations have declined. For instance, the Spring 1979 Bulletin of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated that the 8,000 registered refugees in Argentina at the end of 1 977 had been reduced by almost half. It also reported that in 1978 tens of thousands of refugees, primarily Angolans, Burmese, Zairians and Latin Americans were repatriated. I am providing the honourable Senator with a copy of the Bulletin which is too large to reproduce in Hansard.

Customs Act: Writs of Assistance (Question No. 1882)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many Writs of Assistance issued under s. 1 98 of the Customs Act 1 90 1 were in force, at 30 August 1979.
  2. How long has each such writ been in force, and to an officer of what rank has each been issued (please supply table).
  3. Does each such writ, once issued, remain in force for the duration of the person ‘s career as a Customs officer.
  4. How many Customs Warrants have been issued under s. 199 of the Act in each year from 1974 to 1979, and how many were in force at 30 August 1979.
  5. Who has issued each such warrant, for how long a period has each been granted, and to officers of what rank.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Nil.
  2. See Answer to (I).

  3. Yes. However no Writs of Assistance under Section 198 of the Customs Act have been issued for at least the past 10 years.

    1. (i) Warrants under Section 1 99 of the Customs Act are issued to Customs officers occupying specified positions within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. When an officer ceases to occupy such a position the warrant is withdrawn and cancelled.
    2. ii) The number of warrants issued in each year from 1 974 is as follows:
  1. There were a total of 143 warrants in force at 30 August 1979.
  2. (i) The Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the Collectors of Customs in each State and the Northern Territory have the authority to issue warrants under Section 199 of the Customs Act. In practice Collectors only issue these warrants in emergency situations for a maximum period of 7 days.
  3. Warrants issued by the Secretary, Department of Business and Consumer Affairs have a common expiry date and are issued for a period of 12 months or a lesser period if the issue is made subsequent to the renewal date. In the case of the former Narcotics Bureau the renewal month was September and for all other officers of the Department March. As officers of the former Narcotics Bureau become special members of the Australian Federal Police the warrants issued to them under Section 199 of the Customs Act are being withdrawn.
  4. The rank or designation of officers who are issued with warrants under Section 1 99 of the Customs Act varies widely within the framework of public service classifications. However, warrants are only issued to officers who occupy a supervisory position involving enforcement activities or who are called upon to undertake supervisory duties from time to time in an enforcement role.

Legal Aid (Question No. 1836)

Senator Evans:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 30 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Was Mr Thomson of the Australian Legal Aid Office (ALAO) correct in stating, during a hearing of Senate Estimates Committee B, that there are no written instructions which in any way qualify the guidelines of 30 October 1978 regarding the granting of legal aid. (See Hansard, Estimates Committee B, 7 May 1979, page 273.)
  2. Did an Australian Legal Aid officer inform the Fitzroy Legal Service by telephone that dissolution of married proceedings would only be considered imperative, and therefore receive legal aid, in circumstances where: (a) the applicant seeking ALAO aid for dissolution proceedings is living in a defacto relationship, there are children of that relationship and the applicant wants a divorce in order to marry his or her defacto; (b) the applicant, and only the applicant, is suffering from a terminal disease and wishes to order his or her affairs before death; (c) the applicant and his or her spouse dispute some aspect of the settlement of property between them and, because these matters can only be determined by the Family Court after dissolution proceedings have been undertaken, the applicant can be aided in the divorce proceedings, and after the property proceedings- in other words, aid in divorce is granted in order to speed up the hearing of the property dispute; or (d) there is evidence of extremely detrimental behaviour, which divorce may alleviate, on the part of the applicant’s spouse, for example, where the applicants spouse has ignored an existing restraining order because of the continuance of the marriage relationship.
  3. If the answers to parts ( I ) and (2) above are yes, what status do the criteria referred to in (2) in fact have.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am informed that an officer of the Australian Legal Aid Office (ALAO) did inform the Fitzroy Legal Service generally to the effect stated in the question except in so far as it is indicated in the question that the circumstances mentioned were the only circumstances in which dissolution of marriage proceedings would be considered imperative. I am informed that the officer also indicated that cases not involving those circumstances ought to be submitted in which event they would be referred to Central Office of the Australian Legal Aid Office for a decision.
  3. ) The statement of Mr Thomson referred to in part ( I ) of the question was correct in indicating that instructions did not qualify the guidelines of 30 October 1 978. As a matter of internal management of the Australian Legal Aid Office, instructions have been issued indicating circumstances in which Deputy Directors have authority to grant legal aid for dissolution proceedings without prior reference to Central Office. In all cases, however, eligibility is to be determined strictly in accordance with the guidelines.

Social Security: Alleged Greek Frauds, Court Costs (Question No. 1848)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 30 August 1 979:

What costs are borne by: (a) the Depanment of Administrative Services; (b) the Commonwealth Police; (c) the New South Wales Government; (d) the New South Wales Police; (e) the Attorney-General’s Depanment; and (0 the Depanment of Social Security, in the apportionment of court costs in the current case concerning the alleged Greek frauds in New South Wales.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I am advised that costs so borne are-

by the Depanment of Administrative Services- nil.

by the former Commonwealth Police- costs of investigating and presenting evidence of police witnesses

by the New South Wales Government- provision of the court magistrate, court officials and some reporting services

) by the New South Wales Police- not known

by the Attorney-General’s Department- costs associated with advising in relation to the proceedings and with the conduct of the proceedings including certain costs of witnesses and certain costs associated with the production and supply of depositions

by the Depanment of Social Security- cost of a small number of clerical staff.

Social Security: Alleged Greek Frauds, Witnesses (Question No. 1857)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 30 August 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many witnesses already in Australia giving, or preparing to give, evidence in the current court cases concerning the alleged Greek frauds in New South Wales are in the care of the Department of Social Security.
  2. What has been the cost of these witnesses to the Department incurred in: (a) travel; (b) accommodation, food and other support; and (c) Commonwealth Police protection, to 29 August 1979.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I have been advised by the Depanment of Social Security that none of the witnesses that have given evidence up to 30 September 1979 are in the care of that Depanment. The Government does not regard a person who is in receipt of a pension or benefit under the Social Services Act as being, for that reason alone, ‘in the care of the Department of Social Security’.

Social Security: Alleged Greek Frauds, Witnesses (Question No. 1858)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 30 August 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many witnesses have been brought back from Greece to give evidence in the current court cases concerning the alleged Greek frauds in New South Wales.
  2. What is the cost to the Department of Social Security, to 29 August 1979 of providing these witnesses with: (a) travel; (b) accommodation, food and other support; and (c) Commonwealth police protection.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) One- Miss Artopoulou.
  2. I have been advised that the Department of Social Security has not borne the costs of any travel, accommodation, food and other support nor for police protection for that witness. I understand that sums totalling $7,264.82 and chargeable against the votes of the Attorney-General ‘s Department have been paid to, or in respect of the attendance of, Miss Artopoulou as a witness.

Oil and Gas Wells (Question No. 1880)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many exploratory oil and gas wells were drilled in Australian Territory in each year since 1 97 1 .

  2. How many wells were drilled in each year since 1971:

    1. offshore; and (b) onshore.

  3. What has been: (a) the value of oil exploration; and

    1. the number of offshore oil and gas drilling vessels employed in exploration areas under Australian control, in each year since 1971.
  4. Have any shortages of, or difficulties in obtaining, oil exploration vessels ever been reported: if so, in what years.
  5. How many of the total number of oil and gas wells drilled have produced commercial flows of oil or gas, and what is the daily output of each such well.
  6. How many of the total number of oil and gas wells drilled have proved to have commercial supplies of oil or gas but for commercial reasons have been capped.
  7. 7 ) At what price for crude oil is it estimated that any wells which have been capped would be brought back into production.
  8. 8 ) What are the total proved and estimated reserves of oil and gas in Australia.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. ) and (2) Exploration wells (as classified by the Bureau of Mineral Resources):

  1. (a) See Australian Mineral Industry Annual Review, 1977(page216).

    1. See ‘Petroleum Newsletter’ published quarterly by the Bureau of Mineral Resources.
  2. No.
  3. 5 ) and ( 6) See ‘The Petroleum Newsletter’ which lists the status of wells drilled each quarter.
  4. The price required is related to the size of reserves, distance to market, production facilities available, hydrocarbons produced (oil, gas condensate) and the markets for them. This would vary from well to well.
  5. See ‘The Petroleum Newsletter’.

Gaetano Cavallaro: Entry Permit (Question No. 1905)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Under what conditions did Italian national, Gaetano Cavallaro, migrate to Australia several years ago. (See The Glebe and Western Weekly, Vol. 11, No. 274, 29 August 1979.)
  2. Did he defraud members of the Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide Italian communities of$¼m by masquerading as a fortune teller.
  3. Has Cavallaro now returned to the village of Zafferana in Cantania Province, Sicily; if so, has he been provided with a re-entry permit to return to Australia.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Gaetano Cavallaro migrated to Australia with his parents in 1959. He travelled from and to Australia on several occasions after October 1965. He was granted a further migrant visa in Rome on 8 November 1976 as the spouse of an Australian citizen.
  2. I have no information available to me to substantiate this assertion.
  3. Records show that Mr Cavallaro left Australia on 26 July 1979. His present whereabouts are not known. He has an authority to return to Australia issued in conjunction with his migrant visa on 8 November 1976. That authority will enable him to return at any time within three years of his departure from Australia.

Mr J. H. Jamison (Question No. 1928)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 1 1 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has Mr J. H. Jamison been appointed as Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals; if so, will he be acting as Chairman in a full-time capacity.
  2. Does Mr Jamison hold any other appointment from the Commonwealth Government.
  3. Does Mr Jamison hold any appointments as a receiver of collapsed companies; if so: (a) on what dates was he appointed as receiver and what are the names of the companies; (b) for how long has he been making inquiries into, and settling the affairs of the creditors of, each of these companies; and (c) has at least one association of such creditors expressed its dissatisfaction with the lack of progress made by Mr Jamison on their behalf.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Jamison’s appointment as Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals is in a full-time capacity.
  2. No.
  3. I understand that Mr Jamison holds the following appointments as receiver (a)-
  1. I am informed that Mr Jamison is not making inquiries into and settling the affairs of the creditors. This is not the function of a receiver but rather to dispose of the security held by the secured creditor and to account to the secured creditor therefor. I understand that there were originally 37 companies in the Mainline group under receivership and that the task has been completed in respect of 25 of them and the receivership terminated.
  2. I am not aware of any such complaint. In appointing Mr Jamison the Government was confident that his experience and background would be of great assistance to the Commission in discharging the responsibilities given to it by the Letters Patent issued by His Excellency, the GovernorGeneral, on 29 August 1979.

Customs Tariff: Handicraft Imports (Question No. 1930)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 3 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Have handicraft imports from Asia traditionally come into Australia at low duties and outside any quota restrictions.
  2. Has there been a change in the interpretation of By-law 36, which defines handicraft imports.
  3. Have some businessmen, who recently received written advice from Customs Tariff Officers that certain items have fallen within the definition of handicraft imports, placed orders on the basis of this advice, but, when the goods have been landed, received advice from the Bureau of Customs that the definition is no longer applicable, and that high rates of penalty dudes for ‘out-of-quota’ imports must be paid.
  4. Has this happened in respect of large and small businesses, importing such items as: (a) pure wool pullovers from China; (b) long sleeve cardigans from Philippines; (c) ladies’ knitted tops from Philippines; (d) ladies’ pullovers from Hong Kong; and (e) ladies’ cotton blouses from India.
  5. Why cannot such goods, in respect of which an importer has received written advice from a Customs Tariff Officer that they are ‘handicrafts’, be allowed in as handicrafts, regardless of any change of definition which may have occurred in the interim, given that advice could also be given to the importers that such goods no longer meet the criteria.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Handicrafts complying with the prescribed criteria of item 36 of Schedule 2 to the Customs Tarin” Act are admissible free of Customs duty.
  2. Recently the Department noted significant increases in imports of handicraft knitwear and it appeared the concession was being used to circumvent quota restrictions.

An examination of imported knitwear revealed in some instances certain products did not strictly comply with the decorative/artistic provision of the concession. On 1 September 1979 the Department more strictly applied this provision to knitwear which significantly reduced imports under the concession.

  1. In some cases the stricter application of the decorative/artistic provision has affected some businessmen in the manner described in the question.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Government has recently acted to provide a transition period for imports affected by the stricter application of the decorative/artistic provision.

The Government has decided that the decorative/artistic provision will not apply to knitwear which was committed for shipment by irrevocable letters of credit or like documented commitment analogous to sales contracts confirmed by State trade enterprises, on or before 1 September 1979 and entered for home consumption on or before 29 February 1980.

Australians in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia (Question No. 1939)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Were two Australians, Mr S. King and Mr R. Prosser, killed in the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian raid into Mozambique.
  2. 2 ) Were these persons holders of Australian passports.
  3. Are any other Australians currently involved in the war of Zimbabwe- Rhodesia; if so, who.
  4. What steps can the Government take to prevent Australians from becoming involved in foreign wars as mercenaries.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government understands that Stephen Eric King and David Rex Prosser, reported to be Australians, were killed during raids by Rhodesian forces into Mozambique on 6 September.
  2. Enquiries made so far have failed to establish whether either of the two persons named held Australian passports. A number of persons with similar, but not identical, name’s appear in the passports records held by my Department. Without additional information, which has not yet been received, a positive identification cannot be made.
  3. The Government is aware of reports that there are other Australians involved in the conflict in Rhodesia, but docs not know how many.
  4. The Government has made it clear that it can give no approval to Australian citizens serving in the armed forces of other countries except where such service is in accordance with agreed arrangements. Parliament has passed legislation which, among other things, makes it an offence to recruit a person to serve, except with the specific approval of the Australian Government, in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country. The Government is, however, not

able to prevent Australians from being recruited or enlisting while overseas.

Frequency Modulation Broadcasting (Question No. 1941)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

When may I expect an answer to Senate Question No. 1 32 1 , placed on notice on 2 1 February 1979.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to his Question No. 1321 (Senate Hansard,15 November 1979, page 2407).

Australian Public Service: Restoration of Benefit Entitlements (Question No. 1947)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has the suggestion in the Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration paragraph 8-2-45, that the Public Service Board explore the possibilities of restoring benefit entitlements to officers with more than three years’ initial service who return to Commonwealth employment, been acted upon; if so, what decision has been reached with respect to restoration of: (a) seniority; (b) furlough; (c) sick leave benefits; and (d) superannuation rights.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Public Service Board, in the context of its responsibilities in relation to employment conditions applying to an officer upon re-appointment, has considered the suggestion in paragraph 8-2-45 of the RCAGA Report, together with recommendations concerning recognition of prior service made by a sub-committee of the Joint Council, a statutory consultative body comprising management and staff side representatives. The current situation in respect of the specific matters raised by the honourable senator is set out below, and is considered to be reasonable in relation to practices followed in public and private sector employment:

The Government has recently announced its intention to amend the Public Service Act to remove all references to seniority and to revise the definition of efficiency. For practical purposes, seniority was important only in the promotions and appeals process, and its restoration for staff on re-appointment would confer no benefit.

The Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976 provides that staff who break continuous service for up to 12 months may retain for long service leave purposes the period of service at credit.

As sick leave credits are provided to accommodate staff who suffer illness during the course of their employment it is not considered appropriate that credits should be retained after staff voluntarily resign. Provisions for anticipation of sick leave are available to staff, including former public servants who have been re-appointed to the service, in the event of a particular need for sick leave beyond a current entitlement, (d) The Superannuation Act 1976 provides that, on reemployment by the Commonwealth, a former contributor, who on resignation had elected for preservation of superannuation rights, may, in certain circumstances, have his previous contributory service recognised on again becoming a member of the scheme.

These employment conditions arrangements are not regarded as a deterrent to mobility; when desirable in the interests of the officer and the Department concerned, leave without pay and staff exchange arrangements also provide opportunities for mobility.

Aerial Spraying of Locusts (Question No. 1952)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 19 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister given the Plague Locust Commission an assurance that its aircraft used in aerial spraying of locust will be given priority, second only to the armed forces, in obtaining supplies of avgas; if so: (a) how is it proposed to administer the allocation of supplies in order to achieve this; and (b) when was the assurance given.
  2. Has the National Petroleum Advisory Committee discussed the question of fuel supplies for this emergency.
  3. Has the Committee made a recommendation to the Minister, if not, on whose advice were assurances given to the Plague Locust commission.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No: I have not received any representations from the Australian Plague Locust Commission in this regard.
  2. No.
  3. See(l)and(2)above.

Housing: Savings Banks’ Lending (Question No. 1962)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

Did the Treasurer’s 1978-79 budget speech state that the proportion of savings banks’ deposits required to be held in public securities and liquid assets would be cut from 45 per cent to 40 per cent for the purpose of making funds available for housing loans; if so what indications are there that the resultant extra liquidity has been used by the banks to provide loans for housing.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

In the 1978-79 Budget speech, the Treasurer announced that, to expand the savings banks’ capacity to lend for housing in 1978-79, the proportion of savings bank deposits required to be held in certain prescribed assets (mainly liquid assets and public securities) would be reduced from 45 per cent to 40 per cent. The Treasurer re-affirmed the Government’s desire that housing finance institutions should lend to homeseekers to the maximum extent. Lending levels would nevertheless remain subject to lenders ‘ own commercial judgments. The necessary amendment to the Banking (Savings Banks) Regulations took effect on 29 August 1 978.

The reduction in the prescribed assets ratio has facilitated a strong lift in savings banks’ lending for housing. In the twelve months to September 1 979, the value of housing loan approvals for dwellings by all savings banks rose to $2,627 million, an increase of almost 19 per cent on approvals for the twelve month period to September 1978. For savings banks subject to the Banking Act, housing loans outstanding at September 1 979 represented 49.8 per cent of deposits with those banks, compared with 47.3 per cent a year earlier.

Assistance to Developing Countries (Question No. 1964)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 9 September 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has the United Nations requested all industrialised countries to commit themselves to honouring a target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance to the developing countries, and to increase official development assistance to 1 per cent of GNP in the foreseeable future.
  2. What percentage of GNP has been provided by Australia to the United Nations as official development assistance to the developing countries in each year from 1975-76 to 1978-79 inclusive, and what is the estimated percentage for 1979-80.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I ) In the strategy agreed to for the United Nations Second Development Decade- the 1 970s- developed countries were urged to reach the target of providing 0.7 per cent of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance (ODA). A further target was set for provision of 1 per cent of total flows of resources from each developed country to developing countries.

    1. The Australian Government provides ODA to developing countries in a number of forms. Apart from provision of assistance on a bilateral basis to individual countries, Australia assists a large number of multilateral bodies. These include United Nations agencies and bodies associated with the UN. The table below shows the total amount provided as ODA as a percentage of GNP and the corresponding percentage of GNP provided as ODA to the UN group for the years 1975-76 to 1978-79 and the estimated percentage for 1979-80.

Public Servants Contesting Elections (Question No. 1969)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many officers in the Public Service Departments and statutory authorities within each Minister’s jurisdiction have resigned to contest elections pursuant to Public Service Board General Order 3/D/4, for each Federal general election held since 25 October 1 969.
  2. How many officers in each Department and statutory authority were unsuccessful and were re-employed in exactly the same position of employment, in respect of each election.
  3. What was the average period of the resignations in each Department and authority in respect of each election.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I am advised that officers resigning from the Australian Public Service are not required to give reasons for their resignations and that it is usually only possible to identify persons who resign to contest elections if and when they apply for reappointment under Section 47c of the Public Service Act. It is therefore not possible to provide an answer to this part of the question.
  2. and (3) Section 47c of the Public Service Act provides that officers who resign from the Australian Public Service to contest certain specified types of elections and who are unsuccessful may be reappointed by the Public Service Board at their previous level provided they apply for such reappointment within two months of the declaration of the result of the election. Information provided by the Public Service Board in respect of persons reappointed under Section 47c following Federal general elections held since 25 October 1969, is contained in the following schedule. Also included in the schedule is the period of absence from the Service in each case or, where more than one person was involved, the average period of absence.

I am advised that while it is a requirement of Section 47c that reappointees resume duty at their pre-existing level, it is not a requirement that they be re-engaged in exactly the same position. Statistics are not available in respect of reappointees who resumed duty in their former positions. The schedule includes information in respect of officers employed under the Public Service Act other than officers of the Parliamentary Departments.

Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd (Question No. 1972)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 September 1979:

  1. Did the Prime Minister, on 6 September 1979, describe the Primary Industry Bank of Australia as ‘operating so successfully’.
  2. Has the Primary Industry Bank experienced shortages of loan funds on a number of occasions; if so, for what period has the bank been unable to lend funds.
  3. What is the total amount of income equalisation deposits which has been made available to the bank each month since its establishment.
  4. What has been: (a) the total number of new loans made by the Bank; and (b) the amount of loans constituting refinancing of loans made by the trading banks and other financial institutions.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, in his speech at the opening of the Cane Growers’ Executive Building in Innisfail, Queensland.
  2. The Primary Industry Bank has advised that, consistent with banking practice, it has on occasion restricted loan approvals to conform with funds availability, but loan drawdowns have continued since they commenced in December 1978. As indicated in its First Annual Report, the Primary Industry Bank significantly reduced the volume of loans approved during the period 1 July 1979 to 19 September 1979 pending finalisation of its 1979-80 funding arrangements.

The Bank has advised that, upon completion of these arrangements, the approval rate was escalated to make up for this reduction. For the period December 1978 to June 1979 drawdowns totalled $ll3m. For the period July to midOctober 1 979 drawdowns have totalled a further $44.3m.

  1. The Commonwealth has provided the Bank with $75m in low interest loan funds from the Income Equalisation Deposits Trust Account. These funds have been deposited with the Bank in two separate payments- one of $30m on 7 February 1 979 and the other of $45m on 2 1 September 1979. The blending of these funds with the Bank’s commercial borrowings has enabled loans to be made to primary producers at rates of interest that are lower than would otherwise be practicable.
  2. The Primary Industry Bank has advised that it approved 2,401 refinance loans totalling $l68m from the inception of lending in November 1978 to early November 1979. Of these, 570 loans totalling $43. lm were for the restructuring of existing debt.

Dillingham Corporation (Question No. 1982)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Why did Australia not agree to the United States’ proposal to refer to arbitration the Dillingham Corporation’s claim to compensation from the Australian Government (see answer to Senate Question No. 1625, Hansard, 8 June 1979, page 30 16).
  2. Why has Australia waived the objection it would be entitled to make to the exercise of jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice in this matter.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Government has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this matter and to the options available for settlement, including the option of arbitration. The main question at issue is whether any liability exists in the Government, under international law, to compensate DM Minerals. There is also the question of whether the United States Government has standing to espouse the claim. The Australian Government’s view has always been and remains that it is not liable to pay compensation. The view of the United States Government diners. The Australian Government took the view that, if the differing views could not be otherwise resolved and the matter is to proceed to third party settlement, the questions of liability and standing- which involve broad ranging and complex legal issues- are more appropriately dealt with by the International Court, rather than through arbirtation. Reference of such matters to the International Court of Justice is a proper and reasonable method Of resolving differences between friendly countries.

Most recently, as you are aware, the United States Government accepted an Australian offer to discuss the matter and United States and Australian Government officials met in Canberra on 8 and 9 November. At these talks each side presented a detailed explanation of its Government’s position and the points made will now receive careful consideration by the respective Governments.

  1. The Australian and United States Governments enjoy close and friendly ties and it is important that differences of view about the prevailing law be resolved expeditiously by peaceful and amicable procedures. The Australian Government is confident of its position and does not think it desirable to rely, as it could, on objections based on the United States reservation to the Court’s jurisdiction, thereby precluding resolution of the issues of liability and standing. This would not be consistent with the Government’s wish to have the case resolved expeditiously and amicably.

Squid: Access to Japanese Market (Question No. 1984)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

Has the Minister undertaken any negotiations with Japan to secure free access to the Japanese market for squid caught by Australian fishermen, in return for permission granted to Japanese vessels to fish for squid in Australian waters; if not, what action is proposed by the Minister to enter into negotiations.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Japan now is a major market for Australian fish and fish products, the value of exports in 1 978-79 being some $ 1 1 1 m. The major export items are prawns, abalone and lobster.

These items and certain other fish and fish products may enter Japan without quantitative limitation but are subject to tariff duties. However, a number of other fish and fish products, including squid, are subject to Japanese Government quantitative regulation of imports. Access to Japan for these items has been tightly controlled, and in the past, it has been difficult to obtain full information about quota levels and the method of allocation of these quotas.

The market access issue was one element of the negotiations on the recently signed fisheries agreements between Australia and Japan.

As a result of these negotiations certain understandings have been reached between the Australian and Japanese Governments.

Japan will advise Australia of the details of its import quota restrictions and give the Australian Government forewarning of any alterations in access conditions on fisheries products of interest to Australia so that, if necessary, consultations or negotiations can be held with Japan.

In the negotiations the Japanese Government advised that where Australia’s fish and fish products are commercially competitive with the fish and fish products of other nations, market access is and will be available for such Australian fish and fish products under the Japanese import system.

If the situation should arise where Japanese import restrictions were to inhibit reasonable access for Australian fish and fish products, the Australian Government’s expectation is that prompt consultations would be held when requested by Australia, that such consultations would be approached in a constructive and positive spirit and with the aim of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. At all times such consultations would take into account the wider co-operative relations between Australia and Japan in the fisheries field.

Television: Australian Content (Question No. 1990)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 September 1979:

What was: (a) the total percentage of Australian content of programs televised by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) and (b) the percentage of Australian content in each of the program categories maintained by the ABC for statistical purposes, in each year from 1969-70 to 1978-79 inclusive.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1969-70-52.40 per cent; 1970-71-50.42 per cent; 1971-72-51.41 per cent; 1972-73-53.18 per cent; 1973-74-54.59 per cent 1974-75-61.15 per cent; 1975-76-60.08 per cent; 1976-77-60.52 per cent; 1977-78-58.02 percent and 1978-79-56.45 percent
  2. Details are shown on the following Table:

Small Business: Commonwealth Development Bank Finance (Question No. 1991)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) What has been the amount of finance made available by the Commonwealth Development Bank for small businesses, following extension of the charter of the Bank in June 1978.
  2. How many applications from small businesses in the category eligible for assistance under the bank’s extended charter have been: (a) received; (b) approved; and (c) rejected.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Managing Director of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has provided the following information:

1 ) Following the extension of the Commonwealth Development Bank ‘s chaner in the middle of 1 978, the Bank, in the period from 5 July 1978 to 14 November 1979, approved loans totalling $41.Im for non-rural purposes. Of this amount, $ 12.3 m was approved for small businesses not previously covered by the Bank ‘s chaner.

Since July 1978, 698 applications have been received by the Development Bank from small businesses not previously covered Development Bank’s chaner, of which 156 were subsequently withdrawn. Of the remaining 542 applications received, 280 have been approved and 22 1 declined.

Fishing Industry: Separate Ministerial Portfolio (Question No. 1996)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 September 1979:

Has the Government examined the merits of establishing a separate Ministerial portfolio to cover the fishing industry, in view of the increasing participation of Australians in the commercial fishing industry and the considerable economic potential of the industry: if so, what action, if any, is proposed to establish such a Ministry.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It is the Government’s view that the fishing industry is best considered in the wider context of primary industry policy. The responsibilities of the Minister for Primary Industry therefore include not only fisheries matters, but also forestry products, meat and meat products, dairy products, field crops, wool, sugar and horticultural crops. Separate units within the Depanment of Primary Industry are responsible for each of these areas, including the fishing industry.

The Government is aware of the additional workload which has already resulted from extension of our fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles, and this has resulted in some strengthening of the Fisheries Division of the Depanment of Primary Industry. The Government will keep under close scrutiny the resources required to ensure the proper administration and management of the Australian fishing zone.

Taxation: Postgraduate Awards (Question No. 2014)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Are awards given for postgraduate study by: (a) individual universities (b) companies (c) endowments; and (d) other non-Commonwealth sources, taxable.
  2. Why, if any category is not taxable, is it treated differently to commonwealth Postgraduate awards, which are taxable.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Section 23(z) of the Income Tax Assessment Act exempts income derived by way of a scholarship, bursary or other educational allowance by a student receiving full-time education at a school, college or university. Specifically excluded from the exemption are amounts received by a recipient student under bond to the person or authority from whom the allowance is received or under the National Employment and Training System (the NEAT Scheme) and the Former Regular Servicemen ‘s Vocational Training Scheme. Also excluded from the exemption is income derived after 3 1 October 1978 under a Commonwealth Postgraduate Award, ie., under a postgraduate award granted under the Student Assistance Act 1 973.

Exclusion from the section 23(z) exemption means that the living allowance, incidentals allowance and thesis allowance payable under a Commonwealth Postgraduate Award are now assessable income in the hands of an award holder but the travelling allowances and establishment allowance are not. Expenses of self-education incurred in carrying out the terms of the Award qualify for deduction against an Award holder’s assessable income except for the first $250 of such expenditure which qualifies as concessional expenditure for concessional rebate purposes. Expenditure for which the travelling allowance and establishment allowance are paid is not an allowable income tax deduction and establishment allowance are paid is not an allowable income tax deduction.

This means that non-bonded awards for full-time postgraduate study granted by individual universities, companies, endowments, and other non-Commonwealth sources would generally be eligible for the section 23(z) exemption. The section 23(z) exemption does not apply, of course, to the remuneration that some employers continue to pay to employees while pursuing a full-time post-graduate course of study.

  1. The exclusion of postgraduate awards granted under the Student Assistance Act 1 973 resulted from the Government’s decision, in 1978, to reduce net outlays on the Postgraduate Awards Scheme by removing the specific exemption from tax of award income. The main effect of that has been to tax non-award income of award holders as the level of the basic award $4,200 is not far above the $3,893 tax threshold. The question of which scholarships, awards et cetera should be included in the section 23(z) exemption and which should be excluded from the exemption was reviewed during the 1979-80 Budget deliberations. The Government decided, however, that there should be no change to the present position.

Member Countries of United Nations Commission on Human Rights (Question No. 2022)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Which countries are members of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
  2. In which of these countries do human rights, in terms of the practical constitutional freedom of citizens, approach the standards: (a) laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and ( b) enjoyed by the average Australian in Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The current membership of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights is:

Australia, Austria, Benin, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru,” Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Sweden, Syria, Uganda, USSR, United States, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

  1. The Government does not have at its disposal information which would enable it to give a detailed answer to the question of a comparison of standards of human rights in other countries with those pertaining in Australia.

States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are required by the terms of the Covenant to report to the Human Rights Committee on the measures they have adopted to give effect to the rights recognised in the Covenant. The Committee’s own report on its activities is tabled each year in the United Nations General Assembly. It is perhaps noteworthy that experience has shown that the

Committee prefers to see its role as one of the helping States to understand and give effect to their obligations under the Covenant rather than simply to engage in criticism. Australia supports this attitude. Australian representatives in the Commission on Human Rights and elsewhere have also repeatedly stated the view that there is no country in the world which can claim to have a perfect record in the human rights field. While there will, obviously, be situations in some countries which demand particularly urgent attention, it remains our view that there is no room for complacency about the situation in any country.

The following States members of the Commission on Human Rights are also parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Cyprus, Federal Republic of Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Sweden, Syria, USSR, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.

Electoral Broadcasting and Television (Question No. 2023)

Senator Elstob:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How much time was made available to broadcast election speeches or political advertisements in respect of all political parties, other organisations and persons on each radio broadcasting station and television station in connection with the 1 979 South Australian election.
  2. What was the percentage distribution of time purchased by parties, interested persons or organisations, and candidates on: (a) metropolitan; and (b) country, commercial (i) radio broadcasting, and (ii) television stations.
  3. What were the costs charged for this time, and what was the percentage distribution of these costs.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) The information required is contained in the following tables.

Commonwealth Savings Bank Agency Facilities at Post Offices (Question No. 2028)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 9 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) How many official Post Offices in each State and Territory do not have Commonwealth Savings Bank Agency facilities.
  2. Is it mandatory for unofficial Post Offices to provide Commonwealth Savings Bank facilities; if not, what are the full details relating to the provision of these facilities.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) New South Wales 2; Victoria nil; Queensland 1; South Australia nil; Western Australia nil; Tasmania mi; Australian Capital Territory nil; and Northern Territory nil.
  2. No. The agreement between Australia Post and the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia provides for the conduct of Savings Bank agency business at such post offices as may, from time to time, be mutually agreed upon by both parties.

Australia Post undertakes to provide Savings Bank agency facilities, on behalf of the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia at those non-official post offices where the internal financial arrangements permit this to be done.

Currently Australia Post provides banking facilities at some 70 per cent of its non-official post offices. The remaining 30 per cent of non-official post offices are generally the smaller, less patronised offices, where the financial accounting function is performed elsewhere at a larger, parent office. As it is the policy of Australia Post not to maintain a cash reserve at these smaller post offices, banking facilities are not provided.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Florence Agreement (Question No. 2030)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) When was the Florence Agreement adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
  2. What are the principal products covered by the Agreement.
  3. How many and which countries have ratified the Florence Agreement.
  4. For what reasons has the Australian Government decided that Australia should not ratify the Agreement.
  5. Would ratification of the Agreement involve a cost to the Government in revenue terms; if so, what is the estimated cost.
  6. Is the Government any closer to ratifying the Agreement, following the Minister’s recent call at the United Nations General Assembly in New York for the dismantling of existing protectionist barriers.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Agreement on the Importation of Educational, Scientific and Cultural Material (Florence Agreement) was adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in 1950. A Protocol to the Agreement was adopted by the General Conference in 1976.
  2. The principal products covered by the Agreement are listed in Annexes A, B, C, D and E, and include books, publications and documents; works of art and collectors’ pieces; visual and auditory materials; scientific instruments or apparatus; articles for the blind and other handicapped persons.
  3. A list of the 73 countries which have ratified or acceded to the Agreement is contained in Annex II of UNESCO paper CL/2646 and may be consulted in the Parliamentary Library.
  4. Because of continuing industry assistance and tariff policy problems of a fundamental nature, Australia has not ratified the Agreement.
  5. Goods covered by the Florence Agreement range from books and white canes to magnetic storage media and printing machinery. While many of these are currently free of duty, a wide range of products is subject to customs duty on importation.

Accession to the Florence Agreement would mean the removal of customs duties from currently dutiable goods and this would lead to a loss of revenue. The level of assistance to sectors of Australian industry could also be affected.

As all the goods concerned are not separately classified in the Tariff, it is not possible to provide an estimate of the revenue duty which would be foregone should they all become free of duty.

  1. The Government continually reviews the general question of Australian accession to international conventions and agreements. The Government already closely adheres to the spirit and letter of the Florence Agreement and will continue to address its attention to the problems preventing Australian ratification of the Agreement.

Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd (Question No. 2031)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Will information on lending by the Primary Industry Bank, according to industry, be published, as suggested in the answer to Senate Question No. 1443; if so, when (see Hansard, 1 May 1979, page 1523).
  2. If this information is not to be published, who made the decision and what were the reasons given.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Primary Industry Bank of Australia is providing to the authorities certain prescribed balance sheets and statements as required under Part VI of the Banking Act 1 959. Information from these returns is being published on a regular basis, in pursuance of sections 58 and 59 of the Banking Act, in the Commonwealth Gazette. In addition, under arrangements agreed between it and the Government, the Primary Industry Bank is providing statistical information to the authorities on a voluntary basis. Much of this information, including a classification of loans outstanding by industry, is expected to be published regularly in appropriate form. Publication details are now being finalised. In the meantime, the following classification of loan approvals by industry and amount as at 30 June 1979 has been provided by the Primary Industry bank (it expands on information contained in the Bank’s First Annual Report, which was tabled in the Senate on 6 November 1979):

(2)See answer to( 1).

Alleged Social Security Conspiracy: Payments to Counsel (Question No. 2042)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. On what dates were payments commenced to each Counsel acting on behalf of the Commonwealth in the alleged social security conspiracy case.
  2. In respect of how many days were payments made in the case of each Counsel?
Senator Durack:
LP

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

The information requested is set out in the following table:

The Honourable Senator will note that the figures in column 3 relate to the total number of days up to 30 August 1979 in respect of which Counsel have submitted memoranda of fees. A good deal of work would be required to update the information in column 3 and I do not propose to put that work in hand unless the up-dated information is of particular importance to the Honourable Senator.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 2044)

Senator Chipp:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the low level of the Ternary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) allowance a significant cause of tertiary students abandoning their studies because of economic hardship.
  2. To what extent has the present unemployment situation affected the ability of students to supplement the TEAS allowance with part-time jobs.
  3. Is there evidence to show that part-time employment, with consequent reduced study time, is the cause of failure among tertiary students.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. There is no definite evidence linking the level of TEAS allowances with student failure and discontinuation. A study of TEAS is being put in hand which will include consideration of the extent to which the level of financial support affects discontinuation of study at the tertiary level.
  2. Although according to Australian Bureau of Statistics data there has been in recent years a significant increase in the number of persons looking for part-time work, the number of persons actually employed in pan-time jobs also increased significantly. On this evidence it is not possible to determine to what extent, if any, the present unemployment situation has affected the ability of students to supplement the TEAS allowance with pan-time jobs.
  3. There does not appear to have been any substantive research undertaken on the effect of part-time employment on student progress. Obviously the effect will vary with individuals and according to the nature and amount of part-time work to which they commit themselves. A current ‘Survey of Tertiary Students Finances’ being undertaken by my Department may give some information on the extent to which engagement in part-time employment is perceived by students to be related to failure.

Papua New Guinea (Question No. 2047)

Senator Gietzelt:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 1 October:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government aware that the former GovernorGeneral of Papua New Guinea, Sir John Guise, Member of Parliament, has recently spoken out against Indonesia’s expansionist designs ‘ towards Papua New Guinea?
  2. Has a member of the Papua New Guinea Opposition, Miss Josephine Abaijah, suggested the integration of Papua New Guinea with the Federation of Greater Indonesia?
  3. Has the Government any knowledge of an Indonesian plan called Operation Bird of Paradise, which aims to prepare the grounds for the eventual absorption of Papua New Guinea into Indonesia and sets a timetable for this development from 1979 to 1984?
  4. Has the Government taken any special steps, financially or militarily, to provide extra support for the independence of Papua New Guinea, particularly in view of the degree of political instability in Indonesia?
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I am aware of recent statements made by Sir John Guise and Miss Abaijah. My information is that in a statement in Papua New Guinea National Parliament, Miss Abaijah mentioned the possibility of ‘Federation with a Greater Indonesia’ as one of three alternatives for Papua New Guinea. She was not necessarily advocating integration.
  2. The Government is aware of press reports of an alleged Indonesian plan for the destabilisation of Papua New Guinea. I have been assured by the Indonesian Government that the document is a forgery and I would note that the aims set out in the document run counter to the clearly and publicly expressed policies of the Indonesian Government.
  3. The long-term defence relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea was formalised in a Joint Statement issued by both Prime Ministers on 1 1 February 1977. Under this Australia provides defence assistance on an on-going basis to Papua New Guinea. This financial year we have budgetted $13. lm for the cost of our contribution to this program.

The Minister for Defence visited Papua New Guinea from 7- 1 0 August this year at the invitation of his counterpart, Mr Duwabane. At the conclusion of the visit a Joint Statement was released reaffirming, amongst other things, the importance of the defence relationship between Australia and

Papua New Guinea and expressing the Minister’s satisfaction with the content and direction of the defence cooperation program.

The Government is not aware of the ‘political instability’ in Indonesia to which Senator Gietzelt refers. No ‘extra support ‘ has been sought or seems necessary.

Instruments of Delegation Pursuant to Law Officers Act 1964 (Question No. 2048)

Senator Evans:

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

  1. 1 ) What instruments of delegation pursuant to s. 1 7 ( I ) and s. 17 (2) of the Law Officers ct 1964 are currently in force.
  2. What instruments of delegation have been terminated pursuant to s. 17 (5) of the Law Officers Act 1964, in each year since 1964.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The only instrument of delegation currently in force is an instrument dated 16 July 1979 and published in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette No. G30 of 3 1 July 1979.
  2. It is the practice to revoke existing delegations pursuant to sub-section 17 (5) whenever a new Attorney-General is sworn in or a new Solicitor-General or Secretary to the Attorney-General’s Department is appointed. Details of revocation of delegations in each year since 1964 are not readily available and would entail a considerable amount of research to retrieve.

Fires Caused by Cigarettes (Question No. 2058)

Senator Hamer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1 979:

  1. What is the estimated average annual total loss of life and property in Australia caused by fires.
  2. What is the estimated proportion of fires caused by cigarettes.
  3. Is there a Bill in the United States which would require cigarettes to self-extinguish within five minutes of the first puff.
  4. ls such a cigarette technically feasible.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) From records of the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the last three available years, the estimated average annual loss of life in Australia due to fire is 162 persons.

The average annual value of property damage for the same period, estimated from records of the Australian Fire Protection Association, is $2 80m.

  1. There is no accurate information on the proportion of fires in Australia caused by cigarettes as statistics are gathered by States on different bases and it is not possible to give a realistic estimate.

Some indication might be drawn from the Fire Statistics for New South Wales which for 1 977 show that 47 percent of all fires were caused by either smoking, matches or cigarettes (noting that those caused by matches do not necessarily relate to smoking).

Victorian Statistics for the year to 30 June 1977, from the records of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board Melbourne and the Country Fire Authority, indicate that smoking of tobacco was the cause of 2.0 percent of fires. However, some 42 percent of fires were listed as having unknown cause.

The Commonwealth Fire Board Statistics for fires in Commonwealth owned and leased premises show that around 10 percent of such fires are reported to have been due to smoking.

  1. The Commonwealth Fire Board has advised that several fire associations are campaigning in the United States to encourage manufacturers to produce and market selfextinguishing cigarettes. It is not known whether legislation is under consideration.
  2. It is technically feasible to manufacture selfextinguishing cigarettes.

Meetings of Ministers on 31 May 1979 (Question No. 2061)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1979:

Did the Prime Minister attend a meeting of Ministers between 1 1 . 1 5 a.m. and 3. 1 5 p.m. on 3 1 May 1 979.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I do not intend adopting a practice of making public details of Cabinet anil other meetings of Ministers, such as who did or did not attend particular meetings.

Details of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee meetings are confidential, and have been so regarded by successive Governments.

Employment: Job Vacancies (Question No. 2074)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. How many officers in the Commonwealth Employment Service are engaged: (a) full-time; and (b) part-time, in the search for new job vacancies.
  2. What methods are used in the search for new job vacancies.
  3. What particular experiments have been undertaken to register new job vacancies.
  4. During what period was each experiment conducted, and what was the success rate in each case.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Precise statistics are not available. However, of the 3,662 persons employed by the Commonwealth Employment Service as at 30 September 1979, a large proportion would have been engaged at that time partly or wholly in the search for new job vacancies. Job canvassing is an integral part of the duties of Employment Officers and is basic to the interview process.
  2. Methods used in the search for new job vacancies include the use of a planned telephone canvass of employers, promotional visits to employers’ premises, canvassing employers on behalf of individual job seekers, co-operation in employment programs sponsored by Government authorities and advertising the Commonwealth Employment Service as the delivery system for a wide range of Government manpower programs.
  3. A range of marketing campaigns have been undertaken in association with the opening of new or relocated CES offices, or as part of the streamlining or development of services to both employers and job seekers. Examples include Job Search 1 979 in Tasmania, Job Search 3000 in Sydney’s western suburbs and the Job Adviser service in Salisbury and Croydon Park in South Australia.
  4. Job Search 1979 occurred in February, Job Search 3000 in April 1 979 and the Job Adviser service operated during July and August 1979. In all cases, the increase in the number of job vacancies notified to the CES was in the order of 20 per cent over the same period in 1978. Marketing initiatives in other States have enjoyed similar success.

Guidelines for Public Servants (Question No. 2084)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 16 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the official standing of the new guidelines for public servants which include, amongst other things, a provision whereby the permanent head of a department can appeal to the Prime Minister in the case of a dispute between himself and his Minister (see The Age, 9 October 1979).
  2. Who introduced the guidelines.
  3. ) Will the guidelines destroy confidence between a Minister and his or her departmental head and further centralise power in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Guidelines on Official Conduct of Commonweatlh Public Servants is a document prepared and issued by the Public Service Board after widespread consultations, but on its own authority, for the guidance of public servants. The Guidelines have not been tabled in the Parliament, but it is understood that the Public Service Board has provided a copy to the Parliamentary Library. As indicated in the preface to the Guidelines, in 1977 the Government requested the Board to draw up a set of guidelines on official conduct for Commonwealth public servants- but apart from specific matters on which the Government has itself issued guidance for officials and which are reproduced in the document (e.g. pre-election consultations with the Opposition, access by Members of Parliament to public servants and officers of statutory authorities, appearances by public servants and officers of statutory authorities before party committees), the content of the document overall is the responsibility of the Public Service Board.
  2. ) No. Any particular aspects of the Guidelines should be considered in their context. It is clear from a reading of the sections concerning relationships between Ministers and permanent heads that the Board anticipates that it would be a very rare event for any disagreement between a Minister and a permanent head to be referred to the Prime Minister.

Reinstatement of Minister (Question No. 2093)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 October 1979:

  1. What criteria does the Prime Minister specify for the return to the Ministry of a former Minister dismissed by him for impropriety.
  2. Does the Prime Minister stipulate that previously undisclosed facts exonerating the former Minister must be produced prior to the former Minister’s reinstatement.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I do not propose to engage in speculation of the kind sought. The honourable senator may be interested, however, in references to procedures relating to the conduct of Ministers in the statement made by the Deputy Prime Minister on 22 November 1979 (Hansard, pages 3374-8) on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry concerning Public Duty and Private Interest.

Australian Citizens Imprisoned Overseas (Question No. 2099)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign affairs, upon notice, 18 October 1979:

  1. How many of those Australian citizens imprisoned overseas on: (a) drug related charges: and (b) other charges, are imprisoned: (i) pending, or in the course of, court proceedings; and (ii) as the result of a conviction that has been recorded.
  2. How long has each person in category (i) above, facing drug related charges, been imprisoned.
  3. How long has each person in category (i) above, facing other charges, been imprisoned.
  4. What prison term has been imposed on each person in category (ii) above, convicted on drug related charges, and how much of that prison term has been served in each case.
  5. What prison term has been imposed on each person in category (ii) above, convicted on other charges, and how much of that prison term has been served in each case.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The following figures are provided from information available as at 22 October 1979.

a.(i)34,(u)44; b.(i)21,(ii)31.

1 month or less, 7; 2-6 months, 16; 7-12 months, 9; 13-24 months, 2.

1 month or less, 4; 2-6 months, 12; 7-12 months, 2; 1 3-24 months, 2; 39 months, 1 .

Not all of those listed above are awaiting trial. In most cases court hearings are proceeding. The person detained for 39 months was the subject of a reply to a Senate question without notice which appears in the Senate Hansard of 18 September 1979 (page 749) and I provided additional information which appeared in the Senate Hansard of 16 October 1979(page 1383).

«)-

In addition three Australian citizens have recently been convicted, but are yet to be sentenced.

Australian Citizens Imprisoned Overseas (Question No. 2100)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Why is it that more than one-third of the Australian citizens imprisoned overseas on ‘drug related charges’ are in ASEAN countries, and what measures are being taken, with each of the countries involved, to overcome this situation.
  2. Has the situation caused difficulties in Australia’s relations with: (a) the ASEAN countries in general; and (b) each of the countries in which Australians are imprisoned.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The honourable senator will appreciate that I am not in a position to offer a precise explanation for the numbers of Australians imprisoned on drug charges in ASEAN countries. Account would need to be taken, however, of the travel patterns of Australians, the relative accessibility of, and the cost of fares to, the ASEAN countries, the availability of drugs, and the activities of law enforcement agencies.

Australia ‘s efforts in drug enforcement extend to the international sphere, with a particular concentration on the South-East Asian region. In addition to our commitments under the formal programs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, Australia works in close co-operation with its ASEAN neighbours to interdict illegal traffic. To this end, bilateral assistance has been provided to several countries in the region.

The honourable senator may be interested to know that Australia is hosting the next regular meeting of the Heads of National Narcotic Law Enforcement Agencies, Far East Region, in Sydney in November 1979 under the auspices of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs.

I would draw the honourable senator’s attention to an article in the September 1978 edition of the Depanment of Foreign Affairs publication Australian Foreign Affairs Record entitled ‘Drug trafficking: international efforts to combat an international problem ‘.

Australian Citizens Imprisoned Overseas (Question No. 2101)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) In which overseas countries where Australian citizens are imprisoned does Australia not have formal diplomatic or other representation.
  2. How are representations from, or the interests of, the Australian citizens involved dealt with in each of those countries.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The situation on 22 October in relation to the honourable Senator’s question was as follows:

None. Australia does not have resident representation in Hungary or Nepal although it does have formal diplomatic representation with those two countries.

Interests of Australian citizens imprisoned in Hungary and Nepal are respectively the responsibility of the Australian Embassy Vienna and the Australian High Commission New Delhi. Consular officers visit those imprisoned on an as required basis. In addition, officers of Her Majesty’s British Consular Service offer invaluable assistance in these two countries.

Japanese Long Line Fishermen (Question No. 2105)

Senator McAuliffe:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment the following question, upon notice, on 18 October 1979:

Will Japanese longline fishermen, under the proposed restrictions on their operations, be able to fish up to 30 kilometres inside the Great Barrier Reef region as defined by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, in the waters between Innisfail and Lizard Island.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I have been advised by the Minister for Primary Industry that, in accordance with the Fisheries Agreement signed with Japan on 1 7 October 1 979, the Japanese longline vessels will be licensed to operate in certain areas on the outer edge of the Great Barrier Reef Region as specified in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1 975. One such area lies between 14°20’S and I8°S outside a line drawn generally at least 12 nautical miles to seaward of the outer edge of the Reef.

There are some areas between Innisfail and Lizard Island where it will be possible for Japanese longline fishermen to fish up to 30 kilometres within the Great Barrier Reef Region. However, the Agreement provides that at all times the Japanese fishermen must remain at least 12 nautical miles seaward of the outer edge of the Reef.

Farm Implement Accident Statistics (Question No. 21 11)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

Has the Australian Bureau of Statistics any statistical information relating to the degree and number of tractor and other farm implement accidents which have occurred in Australia in recent years.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The ABS docs not conduct a specific collection of statistics of tractor and farm implement accidents. However, some details of such accidents are available for each of the six States as a by-product of workers’ compensation claims. The following table summarises such information as is available from this source. It should be noted that the figures do not necessarily relate to accidents on farms and do not generally include accidents to self-employed persons or others not covered by workers’ compensation legislation, e.g. children and unpaid family helpers.

Corresponding statistics are not available for the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory or in respect of

Australian Government employees. Because there are many differences in the State collections, the statistics are not wholly comparable. In addition, comparison of statistics for different periods may be effected by administrative factors relating to the collection of information.

Parliament House Staff Accommodation (Question No. 2112)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. What advice, if any, has the Department of Administrative Services offered about the housing of Parliament House staff.
  2. Did the Department recommend the use of either West Block or the Hotel Kurrajong; if so: (a) what was the priority; and (b) what were the specific recommendations.
  3. Was any such advice modified in any way by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; if so, in what way.
  4. Which Department has final control over the utilisation of office space: (a) within Canberra; and (b) within the Parliamentary triangle specifically.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) It is not the practice to divulge the nature of such advice.

  1. (a) and (b) 1 have prime responsibility for these matters. The Government has final control.

Australian Public Service: Study Assistance (Question No. 2120)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

What study assistance is currently available to members of the Australian Public Service (as at 23 October 1 979).

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Assistance with study at external institutions is provided to officers of the Australian Public Service under the following arrangements:

Fees Reimbursement Scheme: Provides for reimbursement of statutory fees to officers who have successfully completed subjects of approved courses offered by universities, colleges of advanced education, technical colleges and other institutions. Time off up to 5 hours a week to attend lectures and to do practical work essential to the completion of the course, including travelling time, may be granted. Additional travelling time and leave to sit for examinations may also be allowed. The scheme is designed for part-time study but officers granted leave without pay to study may qualify for reimbursement of fees upon successful completion of the subjects or semester units attempted.

Short Course Scheme: Enables officers to attend short courses of instruction which are of benefit to their departments but which do not result in the awarding of a degree, diploma or certificate from the educational institution. While attending they are regarded as being on duty.

Postgraduate Scholarships and Financial Assistance Awards: Competitive scholarships for periods of up to 2 years are awards to officers to undertake postgraduate study, observation or research sponsored by departments at Australian or overseas universities or institutions. Scholars continue to receive their substantive salaries for the award’s duration and the Board pays the institutions’ statutory fees, the fares of scholars studying overseas and also fares for dependent spouses and up to two dependent children. Scholars studying overseas are eligible to receive a living allowance in addition to substantive salary.

The Board may also grant financial assistance for periods of up to 2 years to officers who take leave without pay to undertake postgraduate study of substantial benefit to the Service at Australian or overseas universities or institutions. These grants may be the only assistance received by the student or may supplement an award made by a university or government institution. The Board also pays the fares of scholars overseas but not the fares of dependants.

Postgraduate Management Studies Awards: Competitive Postgraduate Scholarships and Financial Assistance Awards to enable officers to undertake Masters of Business Administration or similar studies on a full-time basis at Australian or overseas universities or institutions. The same benefits and conditions outlined above for Postgraduate Scholarships and Financial Assistance apply.

Government and Special Scholarships: Continuation of salary and payment of fares and allowances may be approved by the Board where officers are awarded prestigious scholarships offered by, or jointly with, other governments and organisations, e.g. Churchill Fellowships, Full bright Fellowships, Japanese Government Science Fellowships and scholarships to the French National School of Administration.

Temporary employees are generally not eligible for assistance with study.

Country Telephone Exchanges (Question No. 2123)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many country telephone exchanges have waiting lists for new subscribers.
  2. What effect does this situation have on the efforts of country towns to attract new businesses, and what steps are being taken to enlarge those country telephone exchanges which are unable to meet the demand for telephone services.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. and (2) There are, in all, over I.S4 million telephone services connected to some 5,050 country telephone exchanges with about 7,700 applications awaiting connection pending the completion of major cable and equipment relief. It would be impracticable to break these statistics down to individual telephone exchanges in a reasonable time. Telecom believes, however, that the incidence of applicants who cannot be provided with service without delay is such that it would not have any significant effect on the efforts of country towns to attract business. The latest studies show that for country areas, the average time taken to effect a new telephone service was of the order of 1 3 to 26 working days. This delay period is naturally longer in some country areas.

Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 2113)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Has a decision been made about the location of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).
  2. Has the old Hotel Canberra building been selected as the site for the Supreme Court of the ACT; if so, where is it intended to relocate the Parliament House Staff currently located in the old Hotel Canberra building.
  3. What other sites have been examined for the ACT Supreme Court building, and, if any others have been considered, what were the reasons for any rejection of them.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Yes. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is to be located on portion of Section 1 8 bounded by London Circuit, Vernon Circle, the extension of Edinburgh Avenue access and the present Police Headquarters.
  2. No.
  3. An extension to the existing Law Courts building was considered. It was rejected because of construction problems and the disruption that would be caused to court proceedings in the existing courts building during construction.

Mining Companies: Australian Equity (Question No. 2114)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) When did the Western Mining Corporation Limited apply to the Federal Government for approval for the sale of 49 percent of its interest in the Roxby Downs project to BP.
  2. Did the Government require, at the time of the application, 75 percent of the ownership of any uranium mine to be held directly or beneficially by Australians; if so, what were the reasons for agreeing to alter that requirement
  3. Did the Government require Western Mining Corporation to produce any evidence to indicate that it was unable to find an Australian partner or lender for all or part of the 40 percent interest which has been sold to BP; if not, why not; if so, what evidence did Western Mining Corporation produce to the Government to indicate that it had sought Australian financial participation.
  4. What is the Government’s present requirement relating to the amount of Australian equity in any existing or new uranium mine.
  5. Are overseas-owned companies, involved in the mining industry or any other industry, required to attempt, in an agreed period of time, to offer shares to Australian investors.
  6. How many overseas companies operating in Australia have been asked to ‘Australianise’ their operations as a Federal Government condition of approval being granted for foreign investment.
  7. What are the names of those companies and are they complying with the terms laid down by the Federal Government.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 24 August 1979.
  2. On 10 June 1979 I announced that the Government had reviewed the foreign investment policy guidelines for new uranium projects and had made certain modifications to them.

Previously, the guidelines had required that a proposed new project for the rnining and production of uranium should ha ve a minimum of 75 per cent Australian equity and should be Australian controlled.

As I indicated in my statement, the Government considered that to apply the policy without flexibility could require the rejection of worthwhile projects where 75 per cent Australian equity was unavailable, with a resultant loss of economic benefits to Australia. Accordingly, the Government considered modifications to the guidelines to provide some flexibility while retaining the basic objective of 75 per cent Australian equity and Australian control.

Under the modified guidelines, a new uranium project may be permitted to proceed where it has not been possible to achieve 75 per cent Australian equity. Only in cases where 75 per cent Australian equity is clearly unobtainable will alternative proposals be considered. In such cases it would need to be demonstrated satisfactorily that: 75 per cent Australian equity is unavailable; the project would be of significant economics benefit to Australia; there would be at least 50 per cent Australian equity; and

Australian participants would have the major role in determining the policy of the project.

  1. The proposal by Western Mining Corporation to develop the Olympic Dam copper-gold-uranium prospect at Roxby Downs in conjunction with the BP Group, with interests of 51 per cent and 49 per cent respectively, indicated the efforts it had made to find an Australian partner. It is not the practice of the Government to disclose details of information of this kind which is submitted and treated in confidence. However, I would point out that the proposal was examined by the Foreign Investment Review Board in terms of the guidelines for foreign participation in new natural resource projects, including uranium. In announcing the Government’s decision to approve the proposal the Acting Treasurer on 9 October 1979 indicated that the Government considered that the arrangements satisfied the criteria outlined above (see answer to (2) above) relating to the development of a new uranium project. He also pointed out that the project was not exclusively a uranium project.
  2. See answer to (2 ) above.
  3. Where a project does not meet the Government’s guidelines in respect of the generally required level of Australian equity (50 per cent in respect of natural resource projects other than uranium and 75 per cent in respect of new uranium projects ) the Government may, where it considers it appropriate to do so, require that the level of Australian participation be increased to meet the guidelines over an agreed period. In other industries not subject to specific Australian equity objectives, the Government may nevertheless in certain cases require that efforts be made to increase the level of Australian equity participation over a period of time. By way of example, such a condition might be imposed in the approval of a proposal involving a loss of Australian equity in the immediate future but where it was seen to be reasonable for this to be restored at a later date.
  4. In announcing arrangements for the naturalisation of predominantly foreign owned companies, I indicated on 8 June 1978 that it was a matter for individual companies to decide on the basis of their own commercial judgments where to participate in the new arrangements.
  5. Several companies have expressed interest in seeking naturalised or naturalising status or have discussed the possibility with the Foreign Investment Review Board. Two companies have been accepted as having complied with the terms set out in the guidelines, namely Conzinc Riotinto of Australia Ltd which has been accorded naturalising status, and Tubemakers of Australia Ltd which is now a naturalised company. A third company, MIM Holdings Ltd, is in the process of fulfilling the necessary conditions to be accorded naturalised status.

Commonwealth Law Reform Commission (Question No. 2125)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 24 October 1 979:

  1. 1 ) Does Report No. 1 1 of the Commonwealth Law Reform Commission, Chapter 13, suggest that uniformity in the field of unfair publications should be achieved by the application of Commonwealth powers, including powers relating to external affairs; if so, what action, if any, is proposed by the Government on this matter.
  2. Are matters within the legislative competence of the States a legitimate concern of the Law Reform Commission; if so, do all State Governments agree that the Commission should concern itself with these matters.
  3. Is it necessary that the Commonwealth Government approve the Law Reform Commission’s devotion of time and resources to researching laws and making recommendations requiring the use of Commonwealth powers which have no direct application; if so, why has such approval been given.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Law Reform Commission, in its report on ‘ Unfair Publication- Defamation and Privacy’ recommended a uniform law throughout Australia, and Chapter 13 describes three possible methods for achieving this viz. a reference of power by the States to the Commonwealth pursuant to section 5 1 (xxxvii) of the Constitution, uniform legislation being enacted by the States and the Commonwealth, or a Commonwealth Act using all available powers with supporting State legislation to fill any gaps in the Commonwealth Act. The Government has made no decision on the Commission’s recommendations and their implementation. I have referred the Report to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General and the Commonwealth and the States are currently considering it.
  2. One of the functions of the Law Reform Commission under the Law Reform Commision Act is to consider proposals for uniformity between the laws of the Territories and laws of the States. The Defamation reference to the Commission requested it to consider proposals for uniformity. I would mention that before the reference was given to the Commission on this subject, the then Attorney-General sought the views of the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral. The State Attorneys-General had no objection to the matter going to the Law Reform Commision.
  3. The functions and powers of the Law Reform Commission are set out in the Law Reform Commission Act 1973. The Commission can investigate a topic only when the matter is referred to it by the Attorney-General. After a reference is made, the Commission operates within the parameters set by the Act. In the case of the Defamation reference, the Commision was asked to look at the question of uniformity and this necessarily involved some examination of both Commonwealth and State laws.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Income Statements (Question No. 2132)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:

  1. Have Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) offices been given instructions that income statements to claim unemployment benefits shall not be lodged after a certain hour, for example, midday.
  2. Is such notification at the discretion of the officer in charge of each CES office.
  3. What reasons are given for the refusal to accept income statements at any time the office is open to the public.
  4. Is there any reason that income statements cannot be lodged at any time, with warnings given that a late statement may mean a delayed unemployment benefit cheque.
  5. Can CES offices be requested to post notices in the spirit of the procedure described in (4) above, rather than refusing to accept income statements from people who have travelled long distances to lodge them.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. However, it is common practice in many CES offices to encourage clients to lodge income statements before a certain time to ensure early processing by the Department of Social Security. This practice arose solely out of concern for beneficiaries and a recognition that considerable hardship can be involved by any delay in the payment of Unemployment Benefit.
  2. Yes.
  3. Refusal to accept income statements does not occur. They are accepted at any time that a CES office is open to the public, with the exception that they are not accepted prior to the due date of lodgement specified on the income statement.
  4. No. In fact, consistent with the administrative arrangements described in ( 1 ) and (3) this is standard procedure in CES offices.
  5. 5 ) Most CES offices already feature notices with regard to preferred hours of lodgement of income statements.

Prices Justification Tribunal: Acquisition of Company Information (Question No. 2134)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

To what extent does the Prices Justification Tribunal, in its price surveillance’ role, acquire company information from the Industries Assistance Commission and the Taxation Office, to ensure that bureaucratic and corporate time and effort is not duplicated, and that any data supplied to the Prices Justification Tribunal by the companies is identical to that supplied to other parts of the bureaucracy.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

In the conduct of its price surveillance role and other work the Prices Justification Tribunal takes advantage of all published information, including that produced by other Government agencies.

For additional information the Tribunal tailors its requests to conform with the information which is kept by companies in particular industries. If a company has previously prepared data for another Government agency such as the IAC it would usually be acceptable in that form to the PJT.

It is important to note that companies often provide information to Government agencies on a confidential basis and this information is not available to other agencies.

The secrecy provisions of the Income Tax and Sales Tax Assessments Acts prevent disclosure of information provided to the Taxation Office.

Cost of Telecom Australia Advertisements (Question No. 2147)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 October 1 979:

  1. What were the individual newspapers in which Telecom Australia Advertisements relating to the industrial dispute of June- July 1979 appeared, and what was the cost of the advertisements in each case (see the answer to Senate Question No. 1 738 Hansard, 23 October 1 979, page 1 66 1 ).
  2. Why was it not considered justified to offer funds to the Australian Telecommunications Employee’s Association to advertise its side of the dispute.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

CD-

  1. 1 ) and (2) As is the case with Government instrumentalities generally, public borrowings by the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia are subject to Loan Council approval under the terms of the Gentlemen’s Agreement. In the determination of the Bank’s public borrowings program for 1 979-80 account was taken of the need to achieve restraint in the growth of financial aggregates and, against the background of overall public sector restraint, the need to reconcile the competing claims of the various instrumentalities. The Bank’s likely liquid funds position at the commencement of 1 979-80 was another factor taken into consideration. The Development Bank recently sought, and obtained. Loan Council approval for the terms and conditions to apply to a private placement of transferable deposits to be charged against its 1979-80 borrowing program. Again, this is the usual pactice where Government instrumentalities are concerned.
  2. No. It is relevant that the Commonwealth Development Bank is itself a prime lender under the Primary Industry Bank arrangements and so has access to Primary Industry Bank funds.
  1. The responsibility for putting its case is a matter for the Union.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Work Test Reports (Question No. 2148)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) In what form is the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) monthly summary of work test reports kept.
  2. Is there a monthly breakdown of the number of people failing the work test at each CES office.
  3. On what grounds are failures of the work test recorded.
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) The CES collects monthly details of work test failures which are used for internal management purposes only.

Commonwealth Development Bank: Restriction on Borrowings (Question No. 2149)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) Have restrictions been imposed on borrowings by the Commonwealth Development Bank (CDB).
  2. Will CDB borrowings require approval from the Loan Council.
  3. ) Have restrictions been imposed on CDB borrowings to protect the Primary Industry Bank of Australia from the competition of the CDB ‘s lower interest and other charges.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Rain Forests (Question No. 2156)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Science and the Enviroment, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

What current research programs are being undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (as at 6 November 1979) on the retention of rain forests in the face of selective logging, in view of disputes in the various States between Forestry Commissions and conservationists on this aspect of forestry management.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

CSIRO’s current rainforest research projects do not include a specific study of the retention of rainforests in the face of selective logging. Such silvicultural research is more akin to the research interests of the State forest services. CSIRO’s rainforest studies provide basic information about the structure, composition and growth of rainforests and the environmental factors that determine such features. The information gathered is useful to the State forest services in developing sound guidelines for management practices such as selective logging.

Research and Development (Question No. 2157)

Senator Puplick:

asked the Minister for Science and the Environment, upon notice, on 7 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) How many companies indicated to Project SCORE that they were performing research and development activities in the surveys conducted in 1973-74 and in 1976-77.
  2. How many of those companies which reported some research and development activity in 1973-74 but did not so report in 1976-77: (a) ceased, in fact, to operate entirely; (b) were Australian-controlled; and (c) were foreign-controlled.
  3. What is the classification each company in each of categories (2) (b) and (2) (c) above, by industrial or other sector, based upon the classifications given in the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment, Industrial Research and Development in Australia, pages 67-68.
  4. How many companies in each of categories (2)(b) and (2) (c) have (a) fewer than 10 employees; (b) between 10 and 19employees; (c) between 20 and 49 employees; (d) between 50 and 99 employees; (e ) between 100 and 1 99 employees; (f) between 200 and 499 employees; (g) between 500 and 999 employees; and ( h ) 1 ,000 employees or more.
  5. How many companies reported research and development activity to Project SCORE in 1976-77 and had not reported such activity in 1 973-74.
  6. What are the details of these companies in terms of the details requested in parts (2), (3 ) and (4) above.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The following information has been supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and relates to private enterprises, i.e. units comprising all operations in Australia of a single private legal entity (e.g. company, partnership, sole proprietor). Enterprises primarily engaged iri agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting are excluded.

1 ) The number of private enterprises reporting to Project SCORE that they were engaged in research and experimental development (research and development) was 916 in the 1973-74 survey and 977 in the 1976-77 survey. (This would not be a reliable measure of the absolute or relative total number of research and development performers in those years. The surveys aimed to measure aggregate research and development expenditure with reasonable accuracy, not the total number of research and development performers, however small their research and development expenditure. )

466 private enterprises reported research and development activity to Project SCORE for 1973-74 but did not report for 1976-77. Of these: (a) 133 private enterprises ceased operations or were taken over by another enterprise. ( b ) and (c) A comprehensive foreign-control dissection of those enterprises that report research and development activity for 1973-74, were in operation in June 1977, but did not report activity for 1976-77 is not available. However, the tables provided in answer to parts (3) and (4) below contain a dissection of relevant manufacturing enterprises (with 150 or more employees) based on their foreign control characteristics as at June 1973.

The following table gives details by the industry classification requested of the 333 private enterprises that reported research and development activity for 1973-74, were in operation in June 1977, but did not report activity for 1976-77.

  1. The following table gives details by the employment size requested of the 333 private enterprises that reported research and development activity for 1 973-74, were in operation in June 1 977, but did not report activity for 1 976-77.
  1. 112 private enterprises reported research and development activity to Project SCORE for 1976-77 but had not reported any research and development activity for 1 973-74.
  2. Of these 1 12 private enterprises, 70 were Australian controlled and 42 were foreign controlled.
The following table gives details by the industry classification requested of the 112 private enterprises that reported research and development activity for 1976-77 but had not reported activity for 1973-74. {:#subdebate-63-77} #### Iran (Question No. 2161) {: #subdebate-63-77-s0 .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979: >Has the Australian Government made any formal protests to the present Government of Iran regarding the arrest and detention without trial of Iranian citizens opposed to the present regime; if so: (a) what forms have these protests taken; and (b) when were they made. {: #subdebate-63-77-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. The Australian Government has protested to the Iranian authorities about human rights issues. Public statements were made by the Minister ibr Foreign Affairs on 9 and 1 1 April 1979, and these were followed by official representations to the Iranian Charge d 'Affaires in Canberra on 1 1 May. USSR Diplomatic Protest to Sweden (Question No. 2166) {: #subdebate-63-77-s2 .speaker-ZI4} ##### Senator Rocher: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Government of the USSR make a diplomatic protest to the Government of Sweden concerning the holding of a Latvian song festival on the Swedish island of Gotland which was attended by some 3S0 Australian citizens injune 1979. 1. Were some 170 of these Australians not permitted by the Soviet authorities to make a planned visit to Riga, the capital of Latvia, which visit has been arranged with, and approved by, the Soviets a considerable time in advance. 2. Was the reason for the cancellation of this visit connected with apprehension on the part of the Soviet authorities that the visit of these Australians of Latvian origin to Riga might be used to provide a focus for nationalist feeling in Latvia. {: #subdebate-63-77-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 understand that the world federation of free Latvians organised a Latvian Festival on the island of Gotland from 19-22 June 1979. I also understand that Soviet reaction to this Festival was one of considerable hostility and that the Festival was condemned by Soviet authorities. I have no knowledge of diplomatic communications between Sweden and USSR on this matter but I understand media reports have referred to 'protests' from the USSR over the holding of the Festival. 1. and (3)1 have received no direct information concerning this matter. I am bound to say that each country including Australia has the right to decide who may or may not enter it. Nevertheless if the refusal of visas to Australians were an act of discrimination, the Government would deplore it. News Media Coverage of Olympic Games in Moscow (Question No. 2167) {: #subdebate-63-77-s4 .speaker-ZI4} ##### Senator Rocher: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Will: (a) access by Soviet citizens to the city of Moscow be more restricted than usual during the summer of 1980; (b) Moscow school children be sent to special 'pioneer' camps during the same period; and (c) political prisoners be transferred from Moscow gaols and psychiatric hospitals to other parts of the USSR, and the release of others delayed, as stated in recent press reports. 1. Have representatives of certain news media organisations: (a) been refused permission to enter the USSR to cover the Olympic Games; or (b) been informed that they would not be permitted to enter. 2. Has the International Olympic Committee violated its own rules by agreeing to hold the Games in a country where there exists racial, national, political and religious discrimination. {: #subdebate-63-77-s5 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am aware of media reports to this effect. At this time 1 am bound to say that we have no official information which would permit me either to deny or to confirm them. For the most part these are not matters upon which the Soviet Government would be likely to make an announcement. I understand it is usual for Moscow school children to go to camps in the country each summer. 1. I am advised that the understanding reached by the Soviet Government and the International Olympic Committee provides that all journalists and broadcasters of national media nominated by the National Olympic Committees will be admitted to the USSR up to an agreed quota. So far as I am aware no representatives so nominated have been refused permission to enter the USSR. 2. Strictly speaking, arrangements for the Olympic Games are not a matter for Governments but for the National Committees and the International Olympic Committee. The Australian Government would of course be most concerned if prospective visitors to any Olympic Games were faced with restrictions based on political or related considerations. {:#subdebate-63-78} #### Australian Fishing Zone (Question No. 2168) {: #subdebate-63-78-s0 .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry upon notice, on 7 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the present total allowable catch of fish within the Australian fishing zone, by species, for (a) Australia; (b) Japan; and (c) other countries, under the agreement on fisheries between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan; Article III I (A) and 1 (B). 1. What is the present total allowable catch within the Australian fishing zone 'taking into account the best available scientific evidence', of 'all species of tuna and bill-fish together with all other species of finfish including oceanic sharks', under the subsidiary agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing, Article II. 2. What proportion of the total allowable catch referred to in part (2) above is expected to be taken by licensed Japanese vessels, and what is its expected value. 3. What proportion of the total allowable catch is allocated to the Australian fishing industry. 4. What proportion of the value of the catch allocated to Japan does the licence fee of $1,400,000 under Article I of the subsidiary agreement represent. 5. Is the licence fee expected to be revised at the end of the agreement's first year. 6. Which marine science institutes were consulted in drawing up the agreement on fisheries between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan; and which elements of the Australian fishing industry were consulted before the agreement was signed. {: #subdebate-63-78-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) No total allowable catch has been set for either Australia or Japan or any other country under the Agreement on fisheries between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan. 1. The Japanese longline catch is controlled by limitations on the number of vessels and on the periods and areas in which fishing may take place. The Japanese catch varies markedly from year to year. Latest figures show that the average catch from the Australian fishing zone for the period 1973 to 1976 was about 12,000 tonnes per annum of which 3,460 was southern bluefin tuna. The value of the catch will be dependent on the composition and quality of the catch and market conditions. It is estimated to be in the range $2S-3Sm per annum. 2. The average yearly Australian catch for southern bluefin tuna over the period 197S to 1978 was about 10,300 tonnes. In addition relatively small quantities of other tunas were taken. 3. The fee is a negotiated figure based on an assessment of likely catches and market prices and compares favourably with fees collected by other countries with which Japan has negotiated similar agreements. 4. The licence fee will be reviewed before the end of the agreement's first year. 5. Commonwealth and State Government fisheries research organisations were consulted. The Australian Fishing Industry Council and representatives of the tuna fishing industry were consulted before the agreement was signed. Discussions were also held with representatives of game fishing organisations. {:#subdebate-63-79} #### World Parity Pricing of Wheat (Question No. 2169) {: #subdebate-63-79-s0 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator Gietzelt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation suggested a policy of world parity for the pricing of industrial and stockfeed wheat; if so, how does the suggestion of the Federation accord with the Government's stated policy of fighting inflation. 1. Is it estimated that an increase of at least 20 per cent per annum in food inflation in Australia would result from the adoption of such a policy. {: #subdebate-63-79-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth, the States and the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation have agreed on the basis for fixing domestic prices for wheat for stockfeed and industrial uses. Instead of the arrangement under the 1974 legislation by which one price is set for all wheat for sale on the domestic market, there is provision in the wheat marketing legislation currently before Parliament for the Australian Wheat Board to fix the prices of wheats for stockfeed and industrial uses. When fixing these prices the Board will aim to balance the commercial interests of producers and users and maintain the orderly marketing of wheat produced and used for stockfeed and industrial purposes. In carrying out this responsibility, the Board will be aided by the advice of a Consultative Group which it will establish and which will comprise representatives of wheat producers, stockfeed manufacturers and industrial wheat users. This Group will provide relevant and up-to-date information and assessments which will be taken into account by the Board in meeting the *two aims* set out above. The Group will not make recommendations on price levels. The Board will report to the regular meetings of Commonwealth and State Ministers in the Australian Agricultural Council on: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the information it has received from the Consultative Group 1. its assessment of that information 2. its price decisions in the light of (a) and (b). The Ministers will review the material provided by the Board with the object of providing producers and users with safeguards against any inappropriate pricing decisions by the Board. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The agreement on the basis for fixing domestic prices for stockfeed and industrial wheats does not include an element requiring the Australian Wheat Board to price these wheats at world parity. Post-graduate Research Scholars (Question No. 2173) {: #subdebate-63-79-s2 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 7 November 1979. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are Australia's full-time post-graduate research scholars receiving a salary equivalent to only 38 per cent of that received by research assistants. 1. What consideration has the Government given to (a) increasing the annual award to post-graduate research scholars; and (b) the establishment of an independent tribunal to determine future levels of remuneration to these research scholars. {: #subdebate-63-79-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Postgraduate Awards are scholarships to assist students to obtain higher degree qualifications in subject areas of their choice. The basic stipend under the Award is $4,200 a year. This is not a salary or wage, and as such cannot be compared with salaries' paid to research assistants to undertake specific research tasks required by the employing authority. 1. (a) In the 1979 Budget the Government gave careful consideration to allowances paid to all categories of beneficiaries under student assistance schemes. It was decided that allowances should remain at the existing level for 1980 but that additional expenditure should be directed towards easing means-test levels under schemes where means-tests apply. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The Government does not intend to establish a tribunal to determine allowances under the Postgraduate Awards Scheme or other schemes of student assistance. {:#subdebate-63-80} #### Aid to Kampuchea (Question No. 2175) {: #subdebate-63-80-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 November 1979: >What action is proposed by the Government, in view of the serious allegations which have been made about the unsatisfactory distribution of aid in East Timor: (a) to ensure better distribution of future consignments of Australian aid once they reach Dili; and (b) to take precautions at least equivalent to those taken in respect of Kampuchea, to ensure quick, fair and impartial distribution of aid to those for whom it is intended, and to minimise improper diversions. {: #subdebate-63-80-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The distribution of Australian contributions to the relief operation in Timor is being supervised jointly by the Indonesian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, the latter being a Geneva based organisation. > >The ICRC has assured us that their operation is very carefully protected and audited and that they are quite confident that their relief supplies are being properly distributed to those in need. > >The ICRC has recently issued its first situation report stating that their personnel are involved at village level in the registration of the population so that allocations of assistance can be determined. > >In respect of the latest Australian Government donation of $2m announced on 6 November, arrangements for disbursement have been made with the ICRC and IRC. A large proportion of the $2m will be used to assist with costs of operating three helicopters and one fixed wing aircraft being used by the ICRC/IRC to ensure that badly needed assistance gets to people in remote areas. > >The balance of the funds will be used to purchase, in Indonesia, 3 four-wheel drive trucks and SOO tonnes of green beans and, in Australia, more protein enriched biscuits. A small amount is being kept for contingencies, such as a further airlift if this is considered necessary. > >Honourable Senators may be assured that the joint ICRC/IRC program has applied itself to the task of distributing aid supplies and is aware of the widespread interest in Australia to see that Australian contributions reach the people in most need. DC9 Aircraft (Question No. 2177) {: #subdebate-63-80-s2 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Department of Transport decision authorised DC9 and Boeing aircraft to take off in conditions of fog when the visibility is as low as 3 SO metres. 1. Do the certification requirements of a two-engined DC9 aircraft, following an engine failure on take-off at maximum permissible all up weight, require only that obstacles in the aircraft's flight path be cleared by a minimum of 35 feet. 2. Is the DC9's single engine performance so marginal that, should an engine fail on take-off of maximum permissible all up weight, it could take at least 9 miles to attain an altitude of a mere SOO feet. 3. What, if the figures given in pans (2) and (3) above are not accurate, are the actual minimum performance statistics of the DC9 in the configuration referred to. 4. Was the performance data supplied by the DC9's manufacturers, or has the aircraft been flight-tested in Australia. 5. How would the pilot of a DC9 suffering an engine failure when taking off on Runway 35, Canberra, in fog with a visibility of 350 metres, know that the aircraft would clear the high terrain to the north of the Airport. {: #subdebate-63-80-s3 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Department has authorised DC9 and Boeing aeroplanes to take-off in visibility conditions, including fog, as low as 300m runway visual range depending on the runway lighting and marking available on the various runways. 1. Operational requirements are such that the aeroplane weight should be limited to that which, in the event that a take-off is continued after an engine failure at the critical point during the take-off, the aeroplane net flight path will clear all obstructions under a straight flight path by at least 35 feet and under a curved flight path by at least 50 feet. 2. The DC9 single engine performance meets the certification and operational requirements. In the worst case, where the take-off weight is limited by the minimum permissible climb performance after take-off, 500 feet net could be achieved in a distance of less than 5 nm. 3. The figures given in the answers to (2) and (3) are based on net performance requirements. The net performance is derived by reducing the measured performance obtained in certification by 33.3 per cent at maximum take-off weight. This reduction is a typical example of the conservatism which is provided to ensure that the vast majority of operations are conducted with safety margins well above the minimum necessary. 4. The performance data was obtained by the manufacturer under controlled tests verified by the authorities in the United States. Australian certification was granted after a detailed examination of the certification data furnished from the controlled tests. 5. The requirement to clear the terrain to the north of Canberra aerodrome limits the maximum take-off weight of a DC9 taking off on runway 35. The pilot has precise take-off procedures specified in the Operations Manual which in the event of an engine failure even at the worst point in the take-off will ensure that the aeroplane will clear all the obstacles in the flight path including the high ground to the north. {:#subdebate-63-81} #### Domestic Airlines: Dangerous Cargo (Question No. 2178) {: #subdebate-63-81-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 7 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was a Swissair DC8 which crashed at Athens Airport on Sunday, 7 October 1979, carrying radioactive isotopes. 1. Are Australia's Domestic Airlines authorised to carry and do they, in fact, from time to time carry radioactive materials, corrosives and/or explosive substances during regular public transport operations; if so: ( a ) what materials, liquids, etc, are carried, (b) in which aircraft lockers are the materials stowed in (i) DC9 and (ii) Boeing, aircraft; (c) what precautions are taken to protect passengers against hazards which may arise from the carriage of such cargo; (d ) what guarantee is there, if an aircraft carrying such cargo crashes, that the interaction of heat, liquid spillage and impact will not release toxic and/or radioactive gases and chemicals, or cause fire and explosion; and (e) in what way will the crew of an aircraft carrying 'dangerous cargo' be alerted to a developing hazard in a flight situation, arising from the carriage of such cargo, and what procedures can the crew adopt to control the situation. {: #subdebate-63-81-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Official reports of the investigation of the accident to the Swissair DC8 which crashed at Athens Airport on Sunday, 7 October 1979, have not yet been released. Newspapers reported that the aircraft was carrying radio active isotopes. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Air Navigation Orders specify the conditions under which dangerous goods may be carried aboard Australian aircraft, including airline aircraft engaged on regular public transport operations: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the list is quite extensive, prohibiting many items but includes materials and substances that require special packaging and quantity limitations for safe carriage by air. 1. those articles which are acceptable for carriage on passenger aircraft may be stowed in any underfloor locker on both DC9 and Boeing 727 aircraft. 2. the conditions of carriage of articles classified as dangerous goods ensure that passengers are not exposed to additional risk when such articles are carried in passenger aircraft. 3. the specifications for the carriage of dangerous goods are devised to contain the material within its packaging which is required to be absorbent in the case of liquids. In the case of radioactive materials, the requirements are based on *the* International Atomic Energy Agency regulations Tor the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials. 4. the cargo compartments of the Boeing 727 and DC9 are designed and classified as 'smother' type lockers and any fire, whether dangerous goods are carried or not, will be contained by lack of oxygen. Indonesian Fishermen on Australian Territory (Question No. 2181) {: #subdebate-63-81-s2 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 8 November 1 979: >Were reports received from the Aboriginal settlement at One Arm Point, Western Australia on 1 7, 1 8 and 1 9 October 1979 that Indonesian fishermen had landed on Australian territory; if so: (a) what action was taken as a result of these reports, and (b) why did it take S days from the initial report for officials to arrive at One Arm Point and take action. {: #subdebate-63-81-s3 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >On 21 October 1979 the Broome coast radio station advised the Australian Coastal Surveillance Centre that One Arm Point Mission had reported two Indonesian fishing vessels at Sunday Island and indicated the vessels had been there for three days. Subsequent action involved: > >an initial surveillance flight over the area on 21 October 1979 which revealed no foreign fishing vessels in the area in question. > >A more intensive but unsuccessful search was mounted using Defence resources together with chartered aircraft and vessels to search the area from Koolan Island to Cape Leveque, including Adele Island and numerous islands within the King Sound area. > >the search was accomplished as quickly as possible bearing in mind the natural hazards of the area, including numerous shoals/reefs and swift tidal currents. {:#subdebate-63-82} #### Medibank Item 6299 (Question No. 2184) {: #subdebate-63-82-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) When was Medibank Item 6299 (Amputation of the clitoris) included as an item on the medical benefits schedule. 1. How many times has Item 6299 been used since its inclusion in the medical benefits schedule. 2. What is the breakdown of the number of charges under Item 6299 in terms of the reasons for conducting the operation. Sentor Guilfoyle- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Medical Benefits Schedule item no. 6299 (amputation of the clitoris) was included in the Schedule from 1 January 1957. 1. The number of cases recorded in surveys of medical benefits claims processed by Medibank and the major private health funds is so small that reliable estimates of the total number of times item 6299 has been used cannot be prepared. A reasonable interpretation is to say that there are probably less than 50 services under item 6299 performed each year in Australia that are the subject of medical benefits claims. 2. Data do not reveal the reasons for the operations, but it is believed that most cases would be associated with intersex states in children due to congenital or glandular disorders. {:#subdebate-63-83} #### Exploration of Minerals (Question No. 2187) {: #subdebate-63-83-s0 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 8 November 1979: >What action is proposed to initiate taxation concessions to the mining industry to encourage on-shore exploration of minerals in northern and outback areas where costs are extremely high and living conditions difficult, in view of the considerable boost the Government has given by similar means to on-shore oil exploration. {: #subdebate-63-83-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government has already introduced extensive taxation concessions for the general mining industry directed at encouraging exploration and development of on-shore mineral resources. The concessions include: immediate deduction of general mining exploration expenditures against mining income; deduction on a diminishing value basis over a maximum life of mine of 5 years of allowable capital expenditures, including certain development expenditures and certain ' housing welfare ' at or adjacent to a mine site; deduction on a straight line basis over 10 or 20 years at the taxpayer's discretion of allowable capital expenditure on railway, road or port development; exemption from taxation of income derived by a bona fide prospector from the sale, transfer or assignment of rights to mine certain specified minerals; an additional deduction by way of investment allowance of 20 per cent of the installed cost of eligible new plant contracted for or on which construction commenced in the period of January 1976 to 30 June 1985, if the plant is first used or installed ready for use by 30 June 1986. > >While some aspects of the tax treatment of on-shore oil exploration and development are more generous again, that reflects the high priority the Government places on encouraging the greatest possible self-sufficiency in the supply of liquid fuels. Accordingly, it is not proposed to diminish that priority by extending those additional concessions to the general mining industry. {:#subdebate-63-84} #### Community Youth Support Schemes (Question No. 2190) {: #subdebate-63-84-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 November 1 979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Community Youth Support Schemes are operating in Australia. 1. How many unemployed people attend these centres on a monthly basis. 2. What percentage of the unemployed do they represent. 3. What is the age limit for participants in the Community Youth Support Scheme. 4. How much money is allocated per annum to such schemes. {: #subdebate-63-84-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. At 30 June 1979 there were 331 Community Youth Support Scheme Projects operating in Australia. 1. In 1978-79 the average number of people who attended all CYSS projects, the number of which varied throughout the year, was approximately 15,000 during the course of any month. 2. Because individuals are eligible to attend more than one CYSS project in a month it is not possible to provide a precise answer. 3. 24 years. 4. Annual expenditure by CYSS since its inception has been: 1976- 77-$0.57m 1977- 78-$5.74m 1978- 79-$10.71m $ 10m was allocated to CYSS in the 1 979-80 Budget. {:#subdebate-63-85} #### Fishing Agreements (Question No. 2191) {: #subdebate-63-85-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 13 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Australian Government concluded fishing agreements, within the 200 mile Australian limit, with: (a) Japan; (b) Taiwan; (c) South Korea; and (d) the Soviet Union, and are agreements with any other countries being negotiated. 1. What fees have been paid to Australia for fishing rights by: (a) Japan; (b) South Korea; (c) Taiwan; and (d) the Soviet Union. 2. How many ships will be used within the 200 mile limit by each country. 3. How much fish, by weight, will each country be allowed to harvest in Australian waters during the first 12 months of operation of each agreement with the countries concerned. {: #subdebate-63-85-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) A Head Agreement on fisheries co-operation between Australia and Japan and a Subsidiary Agreement concerning access by Japanese tuna longline fishing vessels to the 200 mile Australian fishing zone was signed on 17 October 1979 and took effect from I November 1979, the date of commencement of the zone. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Agreements providing for access by Taiwanese trawlers and gillnetters to the Australian fishing zone as from 1 November 1979 have been signed by the Minister for Primary Industry and representatives of the Kailis Kaohsiung Fishing Company Pty Ltd, as agent for the Kaohsiung Fishing Boat Commercial Guild, and by the Chairman of the Guild. 1. A Head Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Korea was initialled by officials ad referendum to Governments on 1 December 1979 and the arrangements governing access to specific fisheries are under consideration at Commonwealth, State and industry levels. Negotiations are expected to recommence early next year. 2. No fisheries agreement has been concluded with the USSR. No fisheries agreements are being negotiated with other countries at this time. A number of feasibility fishing projects which involve the use of foreign vessels have been approved. These projects do not involve Government to Government agreements. I have given details of these projects in my answer to Parliamentary Question 4851. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. (a) Under the Sudsidiary Agreement on tuna longlining Japan has agreed to pay a fee of $A 1.4m for access by Japanese vessels during the first year of the Agreement. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. As no bilateral agreements for access have been concluded with the Republic of Korea, no access fees have been paid for fishing rights. 1. The agreements governing access by Taiwanese vessels provide for a payment of SA984.600. 2. As no bilateral agreements for access have been concluded with the USSR no access fees have been paid for fishing rights. 1. (a) Under the Subsidiary Agreement negotiated with Japan up to 350 tuna longline vessels are permitted access to the 200 mile Australian fishing zone. A number of Japanese vessels are also engaged in feasibility fishing projects, referred to under part I (d) above. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. No vessels of the Republic of Korea are licensed to operate in the Austalian fishing zone under a bilateral fisheries agreement. A number of Korean vessels are engaged in feasibility fishing projects, referred to under part 1 (d) above. 1. The agreements governing access by Taiwanese vessels to the Australian fishing zone provide for access for 150 vessels. 2. No vessels of the USSR are licensed to operate in the Australian fishing zone under a bilateral fisheries agreement; however a feasibility fishing project involving 3 Soviet vessels has been approved, see 1 (d ) above. 2. (a) No allocation by weight has been made under the agreement with Japan which concerns longlining operations directed mainly at tuna. Tuna are highly migratory species. The various stocks range over wide areas of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In the case of southern bluefin tuna, a species of particular interest to Australia, there is a world stock which ranges from the mid Atlantic to the mid Pacific The Australian fishing zone covers only part of the range of the tuna stocks which are fished within it. It would be difficult to predict the availability of fish in the Australian fishing zone as variations in the catch are primarly caused by changes in the ocean climate and variations in year class size which in turn are caused by variable survival of eggs and larvae and not the size of the spawning stock. As might be expected, catch of tuna from the Australian fishing zone has varied considerably over the years. In the circumstances it was not considered practical to set quotas by weight at this time. Instead controls have been imposed on the number of vessels and the areas and periods m which they may fish. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. No vessels of the Republic of Korea are licensed under a bilateral fisheries agreement to harvest fisheries resources from the Australian fishing zone. 1. The agreements coverning access by Taiwanese vessels to the Australian fishing zone provide for an allocation of 34,500 tonnes. The allocation represents a significant reduction on previous Taiwanese catches. 2. No vessels of the USSR are licensed under a bilateral fisheries agreement to harvest fisheries resources from the Australian fishing zone. {:#subdebate-63-86} #### Appointments to Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2193) {: #subdebate-63-86-s0 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley: asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister give a commitment in early 1979 to ensure that appointments to statutory authorities, trusts, statutory committees and similar bodies would in future include representatives on their boards, councils, etc., from among young Australians under 30 years of age, who now make up 51 per cent of the nation's population; if so, when, and to whom, was that commitment given. 1. To what statutory authorities, trusts, statutory committees and similar bodies has the Commonwealth made appointments since December 1977, and what is the purpose of each such organisation. 2. What are the names of the persons who have been appointed to the board, council or management committee to supervise the management of each organisation in part (2 ) above. 3. When did each appointment take effect, and when did it, or will it, cease, as the case may be. 4. Which of the persons mentioned in part (3) above were under 30 years of age at the time of their appointment, and what age was each appointee at the time of appointment. 5. What are the specific reasons, in the case of each appointment, for excluding young Australians from representation on organisations and agencies to which appointments have been made since December 1977 and on which young Australians have not been represented. 6. Will young Australians who are willing *to* serve on such boards and committees, etc., be publicly invited and actively encouraged to submit their names and biographies to the Office of Youth Affairs, with a view to involving them positively in the processes of government 7. Will proof of age have to be submitted to the Government in future in respect of all appointees to statutory authorities prior to actual appointment; if not, why not. 8. To which such bodies will the Government be making appointments from 8 November 1979 until December 1980. {: #subdebate-63-86-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) I am not aware of the Prime Minister making a specific commitment in early 1979 to ensure that appointments to statutory authorities, trusts, statutory committees and similar bodies would in future include representatives on their boards, councils, etc *from* among young Australians under 30 years of age. The Government has determined, however, that Ministers should seek to ensure that appropriately qualified young people receive consideration for such appointments. 1. to (6) I do not see that I would be justified in asking departments to spend the considerable time and resources which would be involved in extracting and drawing together the information which the honourable senator has requested. 2. The Office of Youth Affairs is to develop a list of young men and women who might be interested in and be suitable for appointment to such positions. The most effective way to develop such a list is under examination. 3. No. The question of exact age is not so critical as to require formal proof as a general rule. 4. Again, I do not see the justification for the effort which would be required to answer this question. In any event, it is not possible to predict all vacancies. {:#subdebate-63-87} #### Northern Territory: Helicopter Service (Question No. 2197) {: #subdebate-63-87-s0 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 November 1979: >What action is proposed to make available a helicopter service in the Northern Territory to assist in road accidents, search and rescue operations, detection of drug smuggling and coastal surveillance, etc in view of representations from the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party. {: #subdebate-63-87-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The diversion of Defence Force assets to establish a helicopter service dedicated to civilian needs, whether in Darwin or elsewhere, would not be consistent with Government policy. There is currently no military requirement to locate a helicopter unit in Darwin, and 1 am advised that national priorities for civil coastal surveillance, which are met by a combination of civil and military resources, have not indicated a need for military helicopters in Darwin at this time. {:#subdebate-63-88} #### Young Australians: Commonwealth Programs (Question No. 2198) {: #subdebate-63-88-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 13 November 1979: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) What Commonwealth legislation provides the framework *for* the provision of funds, services and programs to, or for, young Australians in all areas of Commonwealth Government activity. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Which Commonwealth or State Department or agencies administer those services or the provision of these funds. 1. What Commonwealth services or Commonwealth funded programs and services are being funded in the financial year 1979-80. 2. How much is being allocated in 1 979-80 to the services and programs mentioned above. 3. How many young Australians are expected to benefit from these services and programs in 1979-80. {: #subdebate-63-88-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) Programs and policies over the whole spectrum of Commonwealth responsibilities impact on young people. It would not be practicable to provide the information sought by the honourable **Senator.** {:#subdebate-63-89} #### Qantas Airways Ltd: Legal Fees (Question No. 2201) {: #subdebate-63-89-s0 .speaker-ZI4} ##### Senator Rocher: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 13 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the total cost (as at 13 November 1979) of arbitrators' and legal fees incurred by Qantas Airways Limited in connection with the commercial arbitration concerning construction of the airline 's Stage One Project in Sydney. 1. What is the estimated total of these costs on completion of proceedings. 2. How many Queen's Counsel, barristers and solicitors are currently acting in this matter for Qantas. 3. What is the total amount: (a) claimed by the builder; (c) counter claimed by Qantas; and (c) conceded so far by either party. {: #subdebate-63-89-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: ( I ), (2), (3) and (4) As this arbitration is still proceeding it would not be appropriate to supply the information sought in the question. Inquiry into Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme (Question No. 2211) {: #subdebate-63-89-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 November 1979: >Did the Government direct a **Mr Bonnett** to inquire into pension arrangements for beneficiaries under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948; if so: (a) when; (b) what was the nature of the inquiry; (c) when did the Government receive **Mr Bonnett** 's report; (d) what were the main findings of his report; (e) did his report recommend that pre- 1972 members were disadvantaged and that the commutation and pension of those members should be made comparable to those of members who retired after 1 October 1972; and (0 what action is proposed to adopt **Mr Bonnett** 's recommendations, and when is any such action to be taken. {: #subdebate-63-89-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. and (b) The position is that in August, 1976 the Government agreed to **Mr Bonnett** 's suggestion that he personally conduct an inquiry into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme with the following terms of reference: to establish, first, whether there are any anomalies, inequities or injustices suffered by beneficiaries under the Defence Forces Retirements Benefits Act of 1948-1973 who retired prior to October 1 1972. and secondly, what measures should be taken to correct the anomalies, inequities or injustices, if any, revealed by such enquiry. 1. February, 1978. 2. and (e) **Mr Bonnett** 's report contained essentially recommendations rather than findings. These dealt with two main aspects. Firstly to correct what he saw as an imbalance between the pension benefit structures of the DFRB and DFRDB schemes and secondly to exempt DFRB and DFRDB invalidity pensions from income tax where these benefits were recieved through a service caused disability. **Mr Bonnett's** detailed recommendations may be obtained from his report copies of which are available in the Parliamentary Library and the Tables Offices. 3. See Statement by Minister for Defence in the House of Representatives on 20 November 1979. {:#subdebate-63-90} #### Dillingham Mining Co. of Australia (Question No. 2214) {: #subdebate-63-90-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 13 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What information is available concerning a meeting between United State and Australian authorities in relation to the claim for damages by Dillingham-Murphyore; in particular, at what level are the negotiations taking place. 1. What action is proposed, as a result of the negotiations, in relation to export restrictions on minerals mined on Fraser Island. {: #subdebate-63-90-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Australian Government, in response to the US Government's indication in March that it was prepared to espouse Dillingham's claim in an international forum, invited the US Government to engage in discussions with a view to explaining the reasons for the Australian Government's position on DM Minerals' claim. The US Government accepted the Australian offer and discussions between officials were held in Canberra on 8 and 9 November 1979. The Australian delegation was led by the Solicitor-General, **Mr M.** H. Byers, Q.C The American delegation was led by the Deputy Legal Adviser of the State Department, **Dr S.** M. Schwebel. At these discussions, each side presented a detailed explanation of its Government's position on DM Minerals' claim. In particular, the consequences of the operation of Australian domestic law in relation to the claim and the implications of the applicable domestic and international legal principles were discussed. The points made are now receiving careful consideration by the respective governments. 1. No action is envisaged, as a result of the negotiations, in relation to the lifting of export restrictions on minerals mined on Fraser Island. **Mr 1.** McC. Sinclair (Question No. 2218) {: #subdebate-63-90-s2 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 November 1979: >Does the Minister's statement in answer to Senate Question No. 2104 that he 'informed' the Member for New England on 27 September 1979 mean that he wrote a letter to the Member for New England; if so will he table the letter; if he did not write a letter, by what means was the Member for New England informed (see *Hansard,* 13 November 1 979, page 2229). {: #subdebate-63-90-s3 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I wrote to the Member for New England on 27 September 1979. The full text of my letter was as follows: > >In accordance with established practice I have approved a two weeks wind-down period during which your Ministerial staff will continue to receive their Ministerial staff salaries. > >They will be available to assist you to clear your office until close of business on 1 1 October. Should you, or your staff at your direction, need to use official cars during this period they will be available. > >Staff who will not be continuing in your electorate could by arrangement with you use some of this time to seek other employment. ' {:#subdebate-63-91} #### Passports (Question No. 2222) {: #subdebate-63-91-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many letters of authority were issued in the period June 1978 to June 1979, to people entering Australia who were in possession of passports not recognised in Australia. 1. ) From which countries did such people come. {: #subdebate-63-91-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Statistics are not available since letters of authority form part of the total visa issue and are not separately recorded. 1. In relation to people holding passports not recognised by Australia the principal areas are China (Taiwan Province) and Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Letters of authority are issued also to the holders of the following travel documents: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. passports issued by the former Royal Lao Government, prior to 2 February 1 976; 1. documents issued by the former Khmer Republic, prior to 17 April 1975; 2. documents issued by the former Republic of Vietnam, prior to 30 April 1975. {:#subdebate-63-92} #### Hormone: Diethylstilbestrol (Question No. 2225) {: #subdebate-63-92-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the use of diethylstilbestrol, or similar hormones, in animals for human consumption legal. 1. What amount of diethylstilbestrol is used annually in Australia in the production of meat. 2. How does such use, if any, affect our access to overseas markets. {: #subdebate-63-92-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (I), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 5039 in the House of Representatives (see *Hansard,* 22 November 1979, page 3424). International Convention: Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Question No. 2227) {: #subdebate-63-92-s2 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: >Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified the Protocol of 1978 relating to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. {: #subdebate-63-92-s3 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Protocol related to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is technically complex. > >So far only one non-maritime State has ratified the Protocol. > >The next step is for the Marine and Ports Council of Australia to consider the implementation of the Protocol in conjunction with the Convention. International Convention: Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Question No. 2228) {: #subdebate-63-92-s4 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: >Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. {: #subdebate-63-92-s5 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is a technically complex convention. > >So far only 5 non-maritime states have ratified the convention. > >My department as a first step towards implementation has conducted a detailed survey of the need for shore reception facilities as the provision of adequate shore reception facilities is a prerequisite to becoming a party to the convention. > >The next step is for the Marine and Ports Council of Australia to consider the implementation of the Convention in Australia. International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (Question No. 2229) {: #subdebate-63-92-s6 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: >Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. {: #subdebate-63-92-s7 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Following agreement reached at the last Premier's Conference Government has agreed to the drafting of legislation to implement the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. Upon passage of this legislation through the Parliament Australia will be able to ratify this Convention. International Convention: Intervention in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (Question No. 2230) {: #subdebate-63-92-s8 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: >Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties. {: #subdebate-63-92-s9 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Following agreement reached at the last Premier's Conference Government has agreed to the drafting of legislation to implement the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties and the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Marine Pollution by Substances other than Oil. Upon passage of this legislation through the Parliament Australia will be able to ratify both the Convention and the Protocol. International Convention: Rights in Aircraft (Question No. 2234) {: #subdebate-63-92-s10 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: >Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft. {: #subdebate-63-92-s11 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Australia signed the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft (Geneva Convention or 'Mortgage Convention') on 9 June 1950 but has not ratified it- Approval in principle was given to ratification in 1961 but the proposal was not proceeded with. Considerable constitutional and legal difficulties were involved in giving effect to the Convention in Australia, particularly in creating a paramount Commonwealth register of interests in aircraft and in relation to existing requirements for registration of mortgages or chattels generally in each State and Territory. The practical advantages to Australia in becoming a party to the Convention, mainly by way of assisting financing the purchase of large aircraft, were not considered sufficient to outweigh the difficulties involved in preparing the necessary legislation. The fact that a relatively small number of States (41) have ratified the Convention was also a factor in this decision. > >State and Territory law require the registration of mortgages and other interests in aircraft to ensure their validity as against third parties such as judgment creditors and liquidators in the case of companies. ENMOD Convention: Ratification (Question No. 2235) {: #subdebate-63-92-s12 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979: >Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. {: #subdebate-63-92-s13 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The question of ratification of the ENMOD Convention is a complicated one involving scientific, legal and military considerations. Interested Government Departments, in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs, are still studying closely the implications of any decision by Australia to ratify the Convention. {:#subdebate-63-93} #### Bovine Brucellosis (Question No. 2238) {: #subdebate-63-93-s0 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Government satisfied with the progress in its program for the eradication of bovine brucellosis in Australia, and is it anticipated that this program will be completed by 1 984 as planned. 1. What areas of Australia are still infected, and, if brucellosis has not been eradicated by 1 984, what effect, if any, will it make on the export of beef to the United States market, in respect of: (a) individual States of Australia, and (b) Australia as a whole. 2. What restrictions are there on stock movements from areas presently affected to market or to other areas for agistment. 3. What nations are still affected by bovine brucellosis, and when is it expected that these countries will be declared brucellosis free. {: #subdebate-63-93-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) Yes, the Government is satisfied with the progress in the National Brucellosis Eradication Campaign. All States are well on target and in fact, it is anticipated that the interim objective of nationwide Provisional Freedom (ie 2 infected cows per 1,000 cows) by 1984, will be achieved earlier. However, the prime objective, viz complete eradication, will take some years longer. At this stage, no firm completion date can be nominated. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Tasmania is the only brucellosis 'Free' State in Australia. All other States have residual brucellosis infection. In the United States, at 31 January 1979, only four herds in every thousand remained brucellosis infected. (7,120 infected herds out of 1 .8 million herds.) In view of the steady progress in brucellosis eradication in Australia and the fact that we are keeping pace with similar programs in our market countries we do not anticipate any real difficulties in retaining access to important markets. 1. Movement restrictions are the responsibility of the individual States and although national guidelines are followed, the actual restrictions applying vary from State to State. Generally speaking, cattle going direct to slaughter may move without test; testing requirements for agisted cattle vary depending on the disease state of the property of origin. Standard Definitions and Rules for the National Brucellosis and Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign set out these guidelines and copies are available from the Bureau of Animal Health. 2. Of our major market outlets, Japan, Korea and many countries in Europe are free of brucellosis. The USA and Canada have residual levels of brucellosis and Middle East countries have a variable level of infection. Timetables for the eventual eradication of the disease in these countries are not available. {:#subdebate-63-94} #### Transfer of Aboriginal Affairs Office (Question No. 2240) {: #subdebate-63-94-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: >Is the Department of Aboriginal Affairs moving offices from Wyndham to Kununurra; if so: (a) why; (b) what is the expected cost; (c) how is this cost justified; and (d ) what will happen to the Department's former office space and housing accommodation in Wyndham. {: #subdebate-63-94-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >Yes. (a ) The Location of Australian Government Employment Committee made no objection to the move after considering a submission from my Department which included the following justifications: > >1 ) Kununurra is more central to Aboriginal groups and communities in the East Kimberleys than Wyndham; > >a number of State and Commonwealth departments and agencies with which the Department's Area Office deals have their main East Kimberley offices in Kununurra; > >) the office space rental in Wyndham is inadequate and unsuitable; > >Kununurra has been designated as a regional growth centre and is the main airport for the East Kimberley area. > >Not all cost estimates are yet available, but the expected cost of the transfer is some $400,000, most of which is for the provision of five staff residences in Kununurra. > >See (a) above. > >The Department's office space in Wyndham is rented from the State Government and will become available for the use of the State Depanment of Community Welfare. > >Three residences in Wyndham occupied by staff will become available for use by other departments or for sale. Housing for Aboriginal People: East Kimberley District (QuestonNo.2241) {: #subdebate-63-94-s2 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many houses are proposed to be built for Aboriginal people in the East Kimberley district during the financial year 1979-80. 1. How many houses are proposed to be built or rented for employees of the Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs in this district during the same period. 2. ) What will be the cost in each case. 3. How many Aborigines are employed by the Department at Kununurra. 4. How many houses owned or rented by the Department at Kununurra are to be allocated to Aboriginal employees. {: #subdebate-63-94-s3 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) A total of 25 dwellings are programmed for construction for Aboriginals in the North East Kimberley Region with funds provided by my Department in 1 979-80. 1. Five residences are to be built or purchased for staff in Kununurra in 1979-80. 2. The total cost of the 25 units for Aboriginals is estimated at $5 5 5, 000: Kununurra- 2 units at $33,000 each Balgo- 4 units at $52,000 each Guda Guda- 3 'transitional ' units at $5,000 each Oombulgurri- 1 2 'transitional ' units at $5,500 each Turkey Creek -4 units at $50,000 each. The 5 residences for staff in Kununurra are expected to cost $386,000. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Two Aboriginal officers will be employed at Kununurra and a further vacancy is also expected to be filled by an Aboriginal. 1. Two residences are expected to be occupied by Aboriginals. One Aboriginal officer has already secured a State Housing Commission residence in Kununurra. {:#subdebate-63-95} #### Department of Aboriginal Affairs: Avis Hire Car (Question No. 2242) {: #subdebate-63-95-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: >Did the office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs at Wyndham or Kununurra hire an airconditioned Avis hire car for at least two months in 1979; if so (a) why was this necessary; (b) for what total period was the car hired; and (c) what was the total of hiring the car. {: #subdebate-63-95-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >Yes. (a) The vehicle was required to replace a Departmental vehicle which required an extensive overhaul and panel work. Because of the isolation of the area it was not possible to provide a Departmental replacement vehicle. > >b ) The vehicle was hired for a total period of 56 days. > >The total cost of the hire is not yet known but it is expected to approximate $ 1,300. 1979 Wheat Harvest (Question No. 2245) {: #subdebate-63-95-s2 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What special measures are being taken by the Australian Wheat Board to cope with this year's massive wheat harvest. 1. Have approximately 2.5 million tonnes of wheat in New South Wales been placed into temporary ground storage. 2. What action is proposed to ensure that the grain remains safe from mice. {: #subdebate-63-95-s3 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Australian Wheat Board has programmed a maximum export shipping schedule for the months which coincide with the harvest and a large proportion of available wheat supplies have been sold or committed for shipment early in 1980. State bulk handling authorities, who are responsible for the storage and handling of grain have instituted various programmes which reflect the requirements of growers in each State. The BHAs of the most seriously affected States, NSW and Victoria have anticipated a necessity to use temporary storage. In Victoria approximately thirty bunkers capable of storing 350,000 tonnes have been or are about to be constructed. Approximately two million tonnes of new seasons 's wheat will be stored in temporary storage throughout NSW. The Grain Elevators Board of NSW will again offer, in certain circumstances, a handling and storage rebate designed to encourage farmers to withhold deliveries until wheat can be more conveniently received. The use of this scheme will be facilitated by the introduction of the supplementary special depreciation allowance for on-farm storage as announced in the 1 979 Budget. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. 2.5 million tonnes has not been placed in temporary ground storage in New South Wales but this will be the likely quantity of current and previous season's wheat in such storage once receivals are completed. 1. Bulk handling authorities intend to continue those rodent control programmes which have been proved to be effective in previous years. {:#subdebate-63-96} #### Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report (Question No. 2246) {: #subdebate-63-96-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 19 December 1979: >Have instructions been issued concerning cases such as the one in relation to the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report 1979, page 83; if so what are the details of the instructions. {: #subdebate-63-96-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >Yes. Supplementary instructions have been issued, concerning the assessment of an applicant's time away from previous secondary study. It was a condition that an applicant must not have undertaken more than three years of full-time secondary study in the previous five years. It has been decided after reviewing the case referred by the Ombudsman that proportions of a school year rather than calendar year should be the basis for aggregating period of less than a year away from full-time secondary study. Hungarian Minority in Romania (Question No. 2251) {: #subdebate-63-96-s2 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: >Has the Hungarian ethnic minority in Romania been subjected to various forms of discrimination and harassment, including attempts to wipe out its distinctive language and culture; if so, what action is proposed by the Minister to protest to the Romanian Government over this matter. {: #subdebate-63-96-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government deplores the fact that Eastern European governments, including Romania's, continue to deny fundamental civil and political rights to their citizens and that minorities often suffer most in this respect. In the case of Romania, the Government is aware that for some years now the alleged grievances of the large Hungarian minority of that country have been the subject of considerable concern in the West, particularly among people of Hungarian origin. I am aware of the concern of the Hungarian community in Australia concerning this matter. I am also aware of the statements of the Romanian Government which insists that the Hungarians of Romania are treated no differently from other Romanians and that they enjoy equal opportunities in such fields as employment, education, use of language and the pursuit of their cultural traditions and heritage. > >Australia is not in the best position to make precise judgements about the condition of the Hungarian people of Romania, although the Government would very much hope that they do not suffer discrimination because they are a minority group. The matter is basically one for discussion between the Governments of Romania and Hungary. {:#subdebate-63-97} #### Government Housing: Waiting Lists (Question No. 2252) {: #subdebate-63-97-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many applications are currently (as at 19 November 1979) on waiting lists for public housing, and what is the estimated average waiting time, in each State and Territory. 1. What are the comparable figures for the past two years. 2. What is the estimated effect on these figures of the reduction in Federal funding for public housing in the 1978-79 and 1979-80 Federal Budgets. {: #subdebate-63-97-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) and (2) The latest figures readily available in my Depanment for the number of applications outstanding and waiting times Tor State housing authority accommodation, are as at 30 June 1979. The position at that date and at 30 June in the previous two years is shown below. Statistics for the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are not readily available in my Department. Up to 30 June 1979 1 had no responsibility for public housing programs in either of those Territories. Waiting times for a three bedroom dwelling in the metropolitan area were: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Previously occupied houses are reserved for families with at least 5 children and the waiting time at 30.6.79 was 6 months. For a new house (mainly for purchase) it was 42 months. Family flat accommodation is available almost immediately. 1. Varies according to applicant's choice of area. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. It is not possible to estimate with any precision the effect of reduced Commonwealth funding on waiting lists and waiting times as this is only one of a number of factors which influence trends in this area. However, the Government is concerned to ensure that persons in housing need are not disadvantaged and funding arrangements have been introduced to encourage States to contribute to public housing programs and to utilise the innovative practices that are now permitted under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. {:#subdebate-63-98} #### Dual Metric and Non-Metric Measuring Device: Prohibition (Question No. 2253) {: #subdebate-63-98-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: >Will the Minister consider: > >abolishing the prohibition on importing dual (metric and non-metric) measuring devices; and > >permitting local manufacturers to resume their production in view of the continuing demand for them and the problems caused to manufacturers by their non-availability. {: #subdebate-63-98-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The prohibition was introduced through the machinery of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations following receipt of a request from the Minister for Science and the Environment who is responsible for metrication matters generally. Consideration is not being given to further amendments to the Regulations. 1. b) This matter does not fall within my jurisdiction. {:#subdebate-63-99} #### National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (Question No. 2256) {: #subdebate-63-99-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 19 November 1979: >What are the names of the personnel who comprise the Translator-Interpreter Panels for New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. {: #subdebate-63-99-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs announced on 16 November that the first of the State Assessment Panels of the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAAT1) had been established in Western Australia and Tasmania. > >The Minister has arranged for a copy of the press release which contained names to be forwarded to the honourable **Senator.** > >Similar Panels are to be established in the other States and the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. Details of members to be appointed to these Panels are yet to be announced. {:#subdebate-63-100} #### National Employment and Training System Benefits (Question No. 2262) {: #subdebate-63-100-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: >Has the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs advised its regional offices concerning prompt replies to correspondence as undertaken by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in relation to National Employment and Training System (NEAT) benefits (see the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report 1979, page 83 ); if so, is the Department satisfied that there is no delay in replying to correspondence in relation to NEAT benefits. {: #subdebate-63-100-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. There can be no guarantee that there will be no delay in replying to correspondence relating to NEAT benefits. In some cases there is a need for substantial investigations before a substantive reply can be given to correspondence. {:#subdebate-63-101} #### National Employment and Training System Beneficiaries: Duplicate Cheques (Question No. 2263) {: #subdebate-63-101-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs found it necessary to modify procedures in relation to the handling of applications for duplicate cheques, as it was indicated that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations would do, in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report 1979, page 84. 1. Is the Minister satisfied that applications for duplicate cheques for National Employment and Training System beneficiaries are now promptly dealt with. {: #subdebate-63-101-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs had provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) My Department advised the Ombudsman that the Regional Office involved in the particular case intended to modify the procedures for handling applications for duplicate cheques under NEAT within the Department. This has been done. I should make it clear, however, that duplicate cheques for allowance payments in respect of full-time allowances under NEAT are issued by the Department of Social Security in accordance with a procedure agreed between that Department and the Department of Finance. I understand that these procedures have recently been modified to allow such cheques to be issued more quickly. 1. I am not aware of problems which have arisen in relation to the issue of duplicate cheques other than in the case referred to in the Ombudsman 's report. {:#subdebate-63-102} #### Student Assistance Schemes: Availability of Information (Question No. 2265) {: #subdebate-63-102-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 19 November 1979. Has the Ombudsman 's suggestion, referred to in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report 1979, page 83, in relation to the availability of public information on student assistance schemes, been accepted and implemented; if so, what additional information was needed. {: #subdebate-63-102-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >Full details of current student assistance schemes are available at inquiry areas of ail State Offices of the Department. The case referred to by the Ombudsman concerned a reimbursement of compulsory fees under the former Commonwealth University Scholarship Scheme. No new Awards have been provided under this Scheme since 1973, but former Award holders are entitled, under section 12 (3) of the Student Assistance Act 1973, to continue to have their compulsory fees paid if they do not qualify for a living allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. Full information on the former Commonwealth Scholarship Schemes is available from inquiry officers in State Offices. {:#subdebate-63-103} #### Lost or Stolen Passports (Question No. 2269) {: #subdebate-63-103-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Whether fresh instructions have been issued to overseas posts in relation to lost or stolen passports as outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report 1979, page 84. 1. If so, what was the nature of the instructions. {: #subdebate-63-103-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. On 29 May 1978, immediately following discussions with the Ombudsman, a circular was sent to all overseas posts drawing their attention to circumstances in which, in the event of loss or theft of an Australian passport, consular officers may approve the issue of a replacement passport of limited validity, pending confirmation of identity and Australian Citizenship of the applicant. {:#subdebate-63-104} #### Citizenship Index Monitoring (Question No. 2270) {: #subdebate-63-104-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1 979: >Is the new monitoring procedure, outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report 1979, page 84; still under trial; if so, when will the trial end, if not, has the monitoring procedure been permanently adopted. {: #subdebate-63-104-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The new citizenship index monitoring system previously on trial has been adopted in the Sydney Office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Spent Nuclear Fuel: Storage in the Pacific (Question No. 2279) {: #subdebate-63-104-s2 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 21 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the United States considering the possibility of establishing facilities for storage of spent nuclear fuel on a number of islands in the Pacific. 1. What action is proposed by the Australian Government in relation to this proposal, in view of opposition to it by the countries of the South Pacific. {: #subdebate-63-104-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question. See also my answer to a question without notice given on 24 October 1979 *(Hansard* page 1686): {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The United States is undertaking a preliminary study of the possibility of locating a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel for a period of about 30 years on one of the United States territories of Palmyra, Midway or Wake Islands. 1. Australia shares the concerns of South Pacific countries about the location of a spent fuel storage facility on a Pacific island. We also appreciate the potential proliferation risks posed by the existence of large amounts of spent nuclear fuel in a number of countries and the importance of international solutions for handling problems of proliferation. We accordingly consider that the whole question of possible international facilities for spent fuel storage needs close examination and study before any decision is taken about specific sites. International spent fuel management is currently receiving attention in a study being carried out under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in which Australia is participating. We are in continuing consultations with the United States on all aspects of this matter, including the study of the possibility of locating a spent fuel storage facility on a Pacific island. Aircraft Operated by Armed Forces (Question No. 2290) {: #subdebate-63-104-s4 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 November 1979: >How many, and what type of, aircraft are operated by: (a) the Royal Australian Navy; (b) the Australian Army; and (c) the Royal Australian Air Force. {: #subdebate-63-104-s5 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The total numbers of aircraft, by type, held by each of the Services are listed hereunder: {:#subdebate-63-105} #### Taxation Investigation Officers: Official Card (Question No. 2293) {: #subdebate-63-105-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 November 1979: >Is an official card now provided to Taxation investigation officers, as outlined in the Commonwealth Ombudsman's > >Second Annual Report 1979, page 88; if so, what are the details on the card. {: #subdebate-63-105-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Official cards have been provided to Taxation Officers for use when the circumstances warrant it. The card indicates that an officer had called and requests the taxpayer to telephone the officer identified on the card at a designated telephone number in order to arrange a suitable time for interview. The card is enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed to the taxpayer. {:#subdebate-63-106} #### Public Service Dispute: Advertisement (Question No. 2294) {: #subdebate-63-106-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: >What criteria were used to select the newspapers in which the advertisement 'So that the public interest is served ' was placed (see the answer to Senate Question No. 1739, Hansard, 19 November 1979, page 25 16). {: #subdebate-63-106-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The selection of newspapers was based on the twofold aim of the advertisement. This was to concentrate the impact of the advertisements in areas where there were substantial numbers of Commonwealth public servants employed and to inform the public about the facts of the dispute as seen by the Public Service Board. {:#subdebate-63-107} #### Unemployment Benefits: Cancellation (Question No. 2297) {: #subdebate-63-107-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 November 1979: >Are unemployment benefits immediately cancelled when recipients take on a short term skills training program at their own expense; if so: (a) why; (b) how does this accord with the expressed policy of the Minister of Employment and Youth Affairs to reduce the gap between the needs of employers and the lack of training of the unemployed; and (c) will the Minister take immediate steps to have the situation rectified so that an unemployed person receiving benefits will continue to receive those benefits whilst undergoing short training courses and not be persecuted because of his initiative. {: #subdebate-63-107-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >Section 107 of the Social Services Act provides that in order to be eligible for payment of unemployment benefit a person must, among other things, satisfy the DirectorGeneral that throughout the relevant period he was unemployed and was capable of undertaking suitable paid work and had taken reasonable steps to obtain such work. > >The Commonwealth Employment Service assists in the administration of the above provisions by acting as agent for the Department of Social Security in the application of the work test which among other things, is the process of determining whether applicants for employment who claim or who are in receipt of unemployment benefit are capable and prepared to accept suitable employment. > >Where a person receiving unemployment benefit commences a short-term training course payment may be continued if the Commonwealth Employment Service determines that the work test requirements are met and the Director-General is satisfied that the training activity does not interfere with the beneficiary's ability to meet the above statutory requirements. > >It is generally accepted that attendance at classes for a period not exceeding eight hours per week during normal working hours or participation in a training course for a period of about two weeks would not necessarily interfere with a person's eligibility to receive unemployment benefit. Each case is, however, dealt with on its individual merits. {:#subdebate-63-108} #### Repayment Books: Explanation of Statutory Provisions (Question No. 2301) {: #subdebate-63-108-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1978: >Has a new issue of repayment books containing a more detailed explanation of statutory provisions now been issued (see Commonwealth Ombudsman's Second Annual Report 1979, page 88); if not, when is it expected to be issued. {: #subdebate-63-108-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. New repayment books are currently on order and are expected to be issued from January/February 1980. They will contain a statement of the statutory limitation on the use of accumulated credits, as suggested by the Ombudsman, in addition to the present summary of purposes for which they may be used. Industrial Chemicals: Bans on Imports (Question No. 2315) {: #subdebate-63-108-s2 .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 22 November 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What industrial chemicals are banned by the Depanment of Business and Consumer Affairs from importation because of their toxicity. 1. ) How are such bans enforced. {: #subdebate-63-108-s3 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations provide for controls over the importation of: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Polychlorinated biphenyls, terphenyls and other polypenyls, 1. Organic compounds of lead for use in internal combustion engines, 2. Certain gases for agricultural fumigation uses, 3. Industrial chemicals that are radioactive. 1. For (a), (b) and (c) above importers may be required to lodge a security or undertaking that the chemicals will be used only for designated purposes before approval to import is given. Checks are made where considered necessary to verify the end use. In respect of (d) an importer of radioactive chemicals for industrial use must obtain a permission to import from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. {:#subdebate-63-109} #### Private Schools: Account for State Aid (Question No. 2317) {: #subdebate-63-109-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 22 November 1979: >How do private schools receiving State Aid specify, and account for, how the funds concerned are used (see part 4 of the answer to Senate Question No. 1832, *Hansard,* 19 November 1979,page2518). {: #subdebate-63-109-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The States Grants (Schools Assistance) Acts, under which grants for general recurrent purposes in respect of nongovernment schools are made available, contain the condition that the recipient of grants furnish to the Commonwealth Minister for Education, within a specified time, a certificate by a qualified accountant verifying that the grant money has been applied for recurrent purposes. In addition, the Schools Commission obtains extensive financial and nonfinancial statistics from non-government schools on a regular basis. Summary data from these statistical surveys are published in Schools Commission reports and statistical bulletins. A summary of financial assistance granted to each State in respect of non-government schools is tabled in the Senate and the House of Representatives as soon as practicable after the 30 June following the cessation of the year to which the Act applies. {:#subdebate-63-110} #### Social Welfare Supplementary Allowance (Question No. 2318) {: #subdebate-63-110-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 November 1979: >Will the Minister table or otherwise make available the text of the legal opinion which suggests that it is not possible for the Director-General of Social Security to authorise the payment of supplementary allowance to a person receiving special benefit. {: #subdebate-63-110-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >I have made available to the honourable senator the text of the legal opinion referred to. Alcoholic Beverages: Excise {: #subdebate-63-110-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 22 May 1979 *(Hansard,* page 1897) **Senator MacGibbon** asked me as Minister representing the Treasurer a question without notice concerning the excise on alcoholic beverages. In reply to the honourable senator's question, the Treasurer has provided the following answer In its report entitled 'Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?' the Senate Committee on Social Welfare made several recommendations concerning the equivalence of excise on alcoholic beverages according to alcohol content. When consideration of the Committee's report is complete a statement indicating the Government's response will be issued. Fuel Shortages {: #subdebate-63-110-s3 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 24 May 1979 **Senator Watson** asked me as Minister representing the Minister for National Development the following question without notice: >In view of the projected fuel shortages that could affect motorists in certain parts or Australia in the second half of this year, I ask the Minister a series of related questions about this problem. Firstly, is it true that the oil exploration companies have deliberately held back in bringing certain proven Australian fields into production pending further price rises? Secondly, what steps has the Government taken to pressure these oil companies into opening up the Bass Strait and to accelerate their plans to bring these known oil fields into production? Thirdly, since 90 per cent of Australian produced liquefied petroleum gas is exported principally to Japan because there is an insufficient demand at present in Australia, has the Government not pressured the Australian car manufacturers into producing cars which use LPG rather than forcing concerned motorists into expensive conversion processes? The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >There is no evidence that oil producing companies have delayed bringing new fields into production in order to obtain higher prices. Available evidence is that the Bass Strait partners have announced the development of all fields as soon as such development is economic. Additionally, because of difficulties in obtaining oil supplies on world markets, the Bass Strait producers earlier this year undertook a technical study of the capacity of their operation and subsequently upgraded their pipeline equipment to increase production. > >Currently planned expenditure in Bass Strait on oil and gas development exceeds $ 1 billion and covers the development of all significant known fields. These include over 700 million barrels of oil that have become economic since the announcement of the Government's oil pricing policy and that previously would not have been produced. In the Chairman 's address to BHP's last Annual Meeting, **Sir James** McNeill stated that oil from the Flounder fields which is to be developed at a cost of over $200 million, 'can only be profitably produced by virtue of the higher pricing included in the current Government policy'. This is not to say that Government policy promotes the production of all known oil, irrespective of its cost. The national interest will be best served in the long run by maximising out overall oil recovery and husbanding out oil resources. The Government's oil pricing and taxation policies are designed to achieve these long run objectives. > >The Government has taken a number of important steps to encourage the automotive use of LPG. These measures were detailed in the Prime Minister's energy policy statement of 27 June 1979. Motor vehicle manufacturers have been approached with a view to having LPG fuelled vehicles built on assembly lines and presently have this matter under study. Australian Council of Trade Unions {: #subdebate-63-110-s4 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 11 September 1979 *(Hansard,* page 518) **Senator Bishop** asked me a question without notice, concerning offers by the President of the ACTU, **Mr Hawke,** to confer with the Government about the economy, wages and jobs. 1 referred the matter to the Prime Minister as it concerned Government policy. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government believes that a conference of the type proposed by **Mr Hawke** would serve little purpose in the circumstances. The real issue confronting Australia is irresponsible industrial action which has seriously damaged the economy. Until the trade union movement recognises this fact and reasonable elements within it move collectively to ensure that unions act responsibly and pursue their claims within the conciliation and arbitration system, full economic recovery will be delayed even further. > >In July last, the Minister for Industrial Relations in fact met with representatives of the Peak Union Councils with a request that they use their good offices to encourage their affiliates to use the proper processes of conciliation and arbitration. The union representatives were unable or not prepared to give this undertaking. > >As to the second part of **Senator Bishop's** question, the fact is that the recent amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act were discussed in the NLCC meeting of 6 August this year, well prior to their introduction into Parliament. However, as the Minister for Industrial Relations stated in his second reading speech on the Bill, the ACTU and CAGEO chose to boycott that meeting. It is a matter of some regret that the union representatives did not take part in those discussions. As on previous occasions, the Government, in finalising its proposed legislation, has given careful consideration to the points raised in the NLCC's discussions. Australian Legal Aid Office {: #subdebate-63-110-s5 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 13 September 1979 *(Hansard,* page 665) **Senator Missen** asked me the following question without notice: >I draw the Attorney-General's attention to his statement in the Senate on 25 October 1978 regarding the Australian Legal Aid Office. In dealing with the question of legal aid for dissolution of marriage proceedings, the Attorney-General stated: aid will not be granted for dissolution of marriage proceedings unless circumstances exist which, in the opinion of the Austraiian Legal Aid Office, render it imperative that the marriage be dissolved and the applicant is in a position of special hardship. > >Will the Attorney-General inform the Senate of the special circumstances which are applied in determining whether there is sufficient hardship to justify the granting of aid? Does the Attorney-General agree that these restrictive special circumstances are denying assistance in cases of genuine hardship? Will he investigate the most recent guidelines for the Office with the aim of ensuring that assistance is made more accessible to those divorce applicants most in need? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >There are no special circumstances which are applied in determining whether there is sufficient hardship to justify the granting of aid. Inevitably, each application must be determined in the light of its own facts and circumstances. With regard to the related question of the circumstances in which dissolution of marriage proceedings would be considered imperative I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Senate Question Upon Notice. No. 1836 (Senate Notice Paper No. 1 17,30 August 1979). With respect to the honourable senator's request that I investigate the most recent guidelines for the Office to ensure that assistance is made more accessible to those divorce applicants most in need, I announced on 28 September 1979 that I had approved implementation of a scheme under which needy persons living in certain country areas will be able to obtain limited preliminary advice from private solicitors, at the expense of the Australian Legal Aid Office, on the conduct of dissolution proceedings. The scheme will make advice on the conduct of dissolution proceedings more accessible to persons who do not reside close to the major propulation centres where a lawyer of the Australian Legal Aid Office or a Registry of the Family Court is located. The scheme applies in certain localities in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. In general terms, needy persons who live outside metropolitan areas, more than SO kilometres from a centre where advice may be obtained from an Australian Legal Aid Office lawyer or from a Registry of the Family Court, will be able to obtain advice on the matters mentioned from a private solicitor practising in their locality. The Office will pay a lump sum fee to private solicitors who provide the advice to a needy person. Solicitors who practise in the localities in which the new scheme applies have been advised of the basis on which legal aid will be provided. Any Office of the Australian Legal Aid Office will provide further information on request. Oil Industry {: #subdebate-63-110-s6 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 27 September 1979 **Senator MacGibbon** asked me as Minister representing the Minister for National Development, the following question without notice: >Does the Government possess a completely independent source of information on the oil industry? Is the Government in a position to make its own evaluation of the oil market, both within Australia and overseas, concerning such important matters as availability and volume of product, prices, tanker availability and charter rates, or is the Government dependent on the oil industry for this critical information? The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Department of National Development receives significant independent information on the international oil position in reports received from the International Energy Agency, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Australian overseas missions. The Department also subscribes to various international publications which report on the oil industry. > >Specifically, Platts Oilgram provides an authoritative world-wide survey of petroleum product cargo market prices and the last paid spot tanker freight rates for various voyages according to the size of ship. The London Tanker Brokers' Panel provides the Department with their 'Average Freight Rate Assessment' (AFRA) which is used in conjunction with the World Scale publication to calculate freight for specific voyages. The Petroleum Intelligence Weekly maintains an ongoing authoritative view of world-wide developments in the industry including the movement and price of petroleum product cargoes. This is again supplemented by the several technical industry journals to which the Department subscribes. > >Within Australia, the Department conducts a periodical survey of the actual and projected demands and cost of energy to individual industrial consumers. The Department also receives information from individual consumers and consumer groups. This intelligence supplements and is compared with the information received from the industry through statistics collections and the Oil Supplies Advisory Committee. South Korea: Uranium {: #subdebate-63-110-s7 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 23 October 1979 **Senator Melzer** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >The Minister will be aware of a report now published in the United States, written in mid- 1975 by William Colby, the then Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, on the overall United States intelligence requirements up to 1981. This CIA document judged that South Korea could develop a nuclear weapons capability over the next decade. Does this mean that this Government will now review its intention to allow sales of uranium to South Korea? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I am aware of reports which have discussed the Republic of Korea's technical capability to develop nuclear weapons. I would remind the honourable **Senator that** the Republic of Korea ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on 23 April 197S. By this action the Republic of Korea accepted a binding legal commitment not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. It has accepted IAEA safeguards on its entire nuclear industry. > >In his Ministerial Statement on Government Policy on Nuclear Safeguards of 24 May 1977, the Prime Minister stated that '. . . Australia will require the prior conclusion of bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and countries wishing to import Australian uranium under any future contracts . . .'Australia and the Republic of Korea signed a bilateral Agreement concerning Cooperation in Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the Transfer of Nuclear Material on 2 May 1979. That Agreement incorporates all the Government's nuclear safeguards requirements for uranium exports and its provisions include proscription of military and explosive use; strict safeguards requirements including access by Australia to the conclusions of IAEA inspections in the Republic of Korea and sanctions in the event of a breach by the Republic of Korea of these safeguards or of NPT obligations. > >The Republic of Korea has also entered into nuclear cooperation agreements with the United States and Canada. > >There are significant practical, economic and political deterrents against the Republic of Korea building nuclear weapons. A decision by the Republic of Korea to develop nuclear weapons would be contrary to its multilateral and bilateral undertakings, and would seriously disrupt outside supplies for its planned large-scale peaceful nuclear energy program. > >The Government intends to allow sales of uranium to the Republic of Korea. The honourable **Senator will** be aware of the announcement on 9 November by my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Resources, that Peko- Wallsend and Electrolytic-Zinc have, with the knowledge and authority of the Government, signed contracts for the sale of uranium to the Korea Electric Company. Military Expenditure {: #subdebate-63-110-s8 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 24 October 1979 *(Hansard,* page 1683) **Senator Mcintosh** asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the increase in world-wide military spending. The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >See my answer to **Senator Wriedt** 's question without notice *(Hansard,* 10 October 1978, page 1185) and my answer to Question No. 4072 (House of Representatives *Hansard,* 12 September 1979, page 1057). East Timor {: #subdebate-63-110-s9 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 25 October 1979, **Senator Missen** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >I refer to a special service article appearing in the Melbourne *Herald* last evening in which it is alleged that the Indonesian Government, in opening the province of East Timor to international relief agencies, stressed that such agencies would not be able to count on any support from its armed forces and further quoted an Indonesian general as saying: > >Everyone expects us to play Santa Clause. They expect us to feed 600,000 people. We just can't do it. We don't have the resources. > >Will the Minister ask the Foreign Minister to remind the Indonesian Government that it chose, in 1975, to invade East Timor, since when it has been engaged in suppressing the legitimate aspirations of its native peoples through bloodshed and starvation, and that, in the eyes of decent people throughout the world, the Indonesian Government has the present urgent responsibility of feeding and bringing medical and other relief to the unfortunate inhabitantswhether they be 600,000 or 350,000 in number- and in providing transport to the remote areas to distribute such relief and humanitarian aid as is now being contributed by Australia and other countries? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's *question.* The Government is aware, of the serious humanitarian problem which exists in East Timor. The Indonesian Government is also aware of the problem and is carrying out substantial programs of rehabilitation and development in the province. Published Indonesian provincial budget figures show a total expenditure for East Timor for 1979-80 of $A 19.5m compared with $A15m in 1978-79. The increasing emphasis in the budget has been on public works, social services and trade and cooperatives. The figure for 1979-80 includes some $A3.7m to assist the resettlement of people following the upheavals in the province. The Indonesian Government is also providing considerable logistic support from its own resources for the programs of international relief agencies in East Timor. The Indonesian Government has also called upon the experience of the International Committee of the Red Cross to assist the Indonesian Red Cross in a substantial relief effort in East Timor. The United States Catholic Relief Service has embarked on a relief program in Timor. In addition, the Indonesian Government has given approval for relief supplies being provided by the Australian Government to be shipped direct to Dili. The total value of Australian humanitarian assistance to East Timor since 1975 is now $3,908,000. Energy Supplies {: #subdebate-63-110-s10 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 25 October 1979, **Senator MacGibbon** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice: >Is the Federal Government prepared to re-examine existing and proposed contracts for the sale of liquefied petroleum gas and liquid natural gas overseas in the light of the changed circumstances of the last 12 months with a view to preserving energy supplies which might be essential to Australia. The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >There are currently no contracts to export liquefied natural gas from Australia. The honourable senator will, however, no doubt be aware that the Minister announced on 20 November that he had that day completed the legal formalities regarding the undertaking on long-term LNG export approval from the North West Shelf given two years ago by the Government. > >This project, by virtue of the export sales for which, hopefully, contracts will shortly be signed, will supply Western Australia with all the gas it requires for the foreseeable future. A particular condition of the export permit will ensure that Western Australia is so supplied with its natural gas requirements from this project. > >With regard to liquefied petroleum gas, whether from Bass Strait, the North West Shelf or elsewhere, the Government's, policy relating to minerals and energy exports safeguards the domestic market. The honourable senator can rest assured that LPG supplies will be available on a commercial basis from indigenous sources when they are required for domestic markets. Prior to that time, which I might add, may not be until the late 1980s or early 1990s, it makes good sense to export the surplus at the going world price. Foreign Affairs Meeting {: #subdebate-63-110-s11 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 7 November 1979 **Senator O** 'Byrne asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate and as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >I refer to so-called town meetings recently held by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Townsville, Albury and Bunbury. The *Sydney Morning Herald* stated that these meetings were organised by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The *Australian* of the same day described the build-up in the following way: > >For weeks before the town was flooded with propaganda about the highlight of October 31 -a speech and question time by Andrew Peacock. . . Posters of a smiling **Mr Peacock** were plastered around the town and there were spot ads on radio and promotion on television. > >I therefore ask the Minister. Who paid for this personal promotion campaign for the Minister? Was the advertising paid for by the Department of Foreign Affairs or by some other Government body, or was it the responsibility of the local branches of the Liberal Party to fund the Foreign Minister's attempt to foil the leadership ambitions of the Treasurer? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The purpose of Town Meetings is to try and broaden the base of community participation in the discussion of foreign policy questions. These meetings are organised by my Department. They are part of a deliberate program which includes other public speaking engagements by Departmental officers to carry foreign policy discussions beyond the capital cities where most such discussions have usually been held. As Minister for Foreign Affairs I believe I have a duty to try to explain Australia's foreign policy to as many Australians as possible but even more important to obtain the reactions of Australians on whose behalf that policy is carried out. My participation in the Town Meeting is undertaken on that basis. > >The question has been asked: who pays? The total cost to my Department in organising the Townsville meeting was $1,343 made up as follows: travel costs of$ 1,0 13, posters at $220- there were no media or other advertising costs- and meeting expenses of $ 1 10. The Meeting was held in association with the North Queensland branch of the Australian Institute for International Affairs. Steaming Coal Exports {: #subdebate-63-110-s12 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On 7 November 1979, **Senator Mcintosh** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice: >In a media release dated 25 October 1979 the Minister for Trade and Resources stated: > >The Government has decided to introduce a further basis of exemption from duty for coals which in current market constraints can only be used as steaming coal. > >Is the Minister for Trade and Resources of the opinion that his statement prompted an immediate response from UBE Industries Ltd of Japan, because on 30 October 1979 it doubled its order for steaming coal from Coal and Allied Industries Ltd? The contract calls for the delivery of 47 million tonnes over 20 years. Is the Minister aware that steaming coal is about to become the most highly prized energy source now that the generation of nuclear power has proved to be too dangerous and too costly? Is it the intention of the Government to deplete this country's energy resources as rapidly as possible by offering bargin basement prices when the only beneficiaries are the purchaser and oil companies which now seem to own most of our coal, gas and oil? The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. The 25 October 1979 statement the honourable senator referred to would have had no bearing whatsovever on any recent sales of steaming coal. Steaming coal of the type sold by Coal and Allied was not previously subject to Coal Export Duty, and the recent changes have not altered this. The only effect in this area is to exempt from duty certain coals which, for technical reasons, would have incurred duty but which are unsaleable as coking coal. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Steaming coal has, in my view, already established itself as a highly prized energy source, particularly in the minds of overseas power utilities confronted with increasing uncertainties as to oil availability and price. It is in this context, rather than in relation to the nuclear debate, that the value of steaming coal is most relevant. Many authorities have already committed to or are planning the introduction of coal-fired plants as an alternative to oil to meet future needs. 1. At present and expected rates of consumption, Australia 's known coal reserves would last hundreds of years and future exploration programs are likely to lead to greatly increased reserves. For example, the NSW Government recently announced significant increases in coal reserves and resources in that State- Australian coal is sold commercially at world market prices and as the honourable senator will be aware, the Government maintains controls on exports of coal, with the fundamental objective of ensuring that fair and reasonable prices and conditions for our sales of coal are attained in world markets. **Mr Iwasaki:** Land Purchases {: #subdebate-63-110-s13 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 8 November 1979 *(Hansard,* page 2049) **Senator MacGibbon** asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning land purchases by **Mr Iwasaki.** The treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: >Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust) Pty Ltd has sought Commonwealth Government approval to acquire four properties outside the boundaries of the proposed resort as specified in the franchise agreement between the company and the Queensland Government and has indicated that, subject to Government approval, it wishes to acquire further unspecified land outside the existing boundaries. The Government has advised the company that it may not proceed with the purchase of these four properties or of any other properties and that these proposals will not be further considered by the Government until a detailed submission concerning its overall plans for any land acquisitions outside the franchise area and the reasons for those plans has been received by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Overseas Trade Centres {: #subdebate-63-110-s14 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP **- Senator Archer** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question, without notice, on 8 November 1979: >Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources aware of the proposition put forward i., the September 1979 edition of the *CAI News* for the Government's establishment of overseas trade centres to assist small exporters? Will he request that the Minister give consideration to the establishment of one such centre as a trial in accordance with the *CAI News* suggestion? Will he advise the results of that consideration as soon as possible? The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Confederation of Australian Industry proposal that the Government establish trade centres in export markets has been carefully considered. > >The Government is concerned at the problems faced by small and new exporters in penetrating overseas markets. > >The proposal contained in the *CAI News* envisages Australian exporters utilising overseas trade centres on a feeforservice basis. A number of the services suggested, including for example market research and advice, assistance with promotion and communication and commercial reporting, are already available through Trade Commissioner posts either free or at a nominal cost. Many Trade Commissioner offices in markets important to Australia have special display facilities attached. These facilities are available to exporters for specific product promotion, for agent briefing and education, for staff training or for similar promotional purposes. > >Recently steps have been taken to improve services available to exporters, to strengthen the Trade Commissioner Service in certain areas and generally to create an awareness of the benefits to be derived from exporting and of the facilities and incentives provided by the Government > >At a time when the Government is firmly committed to a policy of expenditure and staffing restraints, the adoption of the CAI proposal, even on a trial basis, would require substantial capital and establishment funds. While recognising the merit of the proposal, and welcoming the approach from CAI, the Government considers that it would not be appropriate to pursue the Trade Centre concept at this time with resources currently available and bearing in mind the action already taken. Iran {: #subdebate-63-110-s15 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On 13 November 1979 **Senator Jessop** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question, without notice, which I undertook to refer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: >Whether the Australian Government agrees with the insanity prevailing in Iran, whose government is at present holding 100 United States citizens prisoner and also holding the world to ransom with respect to oil supplies. If not, will the Australian Government move, through the United Nations, to apply trade sanctions to Iran? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I have already said on several occasions, in speaking about the current situation in Iran, that the use of political and commercial blackmail as a tool of international relations is to be deplored. I am sure this view is shared by all nations which have a responsible approach to international relations. At the same time, Australia values its reputation as a reliable international trading partner and is certainly not at this stage, considering any move such as that to which the honourable senator has referred. Alleged Social Security Frauds {: #subdebate-63-110-s16 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On 14 November 1979 **Senator Bishop** asked me in connection with the social security frauds whether I proposed to take action in relation to the evidence given in the committal proceedings that certain telephone conversations had been tape recorded. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >As I have stated in the Parliament, the evidence given by Detective Chief Inspector Thomas in the committal proceedings will be studied. Having regard to the subjudice rule and the fact that **Mr Thomas** is still giving evidence in those proceedings, I am of the view that it would not be proper for me to comment further in relation to this matter at this time. Alleged Social Security Frauds {: #subdebate-63-110-s17 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On 14 November 1979 **Senator Cavanagh** asked me a question in several parts concerning the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act 1960 and the evidence given by a witness in the committal proceedings. The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >As I have stated in the Parliament, the evidence given by Detective Chief Inspector Thomas in the committal proceedings will be studied. Having regard to the subjudice rule and the fact that **Mr Thomas** is still giving evidence in those proceedings, I am of the view that it would not be proper for me to comment further in relation to this matter at this time. Trading Stock Valuation Adjustment {: #subdebate-63-110-s18 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 14 November 1979 *(Hansard,* page 2244), **Senator Watson** addressed to me as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate a Question without notice concerning the re-instatement of the income tax trading stock valuation adjustment. I undertook to bring the question to the attention of the Treasurer. The Treasurer has advised that this concession was withdrawn for the reasons given in his statement of 24 May 1979 and that the Government is not considering its reinstatement, either in its original form or in a modified form. The Treasurer added that the modification suggested by the honourable senator would overcome none of the problems encountered with the concession in its original form, but would be highly discriminatory in its incidence. Alleged Social Security Frauds {: #subdebate-63-110-s19 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On 14 November 1979 I undertook to provide to **Senator Walsh** information with respect to certain costs incurred and to be incurred in the prosecution of charges for alleged social security frauds. On 19 November 1979 I provided written answers to Questions on Notice numbered 1853 and 1855. In those answers I set out: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The total amount of the fees paid by the AttorneyGeneral's Depanment up to and including 29 August 1979 to Counsel for professional services on behalf of the prosecution; and 1. the total amount paid by the Commonwealth up to and including 29 August 1979 for lawyers being paid by Legal Aid on behalf of defendants. I have this week obtained further information on amounts paid. That information is as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. As at 19 November 1979, the total amount paid to Counsel by the Attorney-General's Depanment for professional services on behalf of the prosecution was $471,509.49. 1. As at 16 November 1979, the total amount paid by the Commonwealth for lawyers being paid by Legal Aid on behalf of defendants was $245,873.00. Further consideration of the general question of overall costs of these proceedings has confirmed my original view that any estimate would be so highly speculative and subject to so many qualifications and reservations as to be hardly worth providing. Chinese Dissidents {: #subdebate-63-110-s20 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 14 November 1979 **Senator Tate** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a question without notice concerning political dissidents in China. He asked whether the Government would make representations to the Chinese Government regarding their treatment and whether a seminar on China could be arranged for interested senators. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No protest has been delivered to the Chinese Government concerning the 15 year gaol sentence imposed in October on **Mr Wei** Jingsheng. In the case of a second political activist, **Ms Fu** Yuehua the Australian Ambassador in Peking was directed to make enquiries about her current welfare. Before he could do this however **Ms Fu** was brought to trial and has now had her case adjourned to a date to be determined. > >In keeping with the humanitarian interest of the Australian people and our obligations to the United Nations, the Australian Government is concerned about the detention of people for political reasons and other infringements of human rights wherever they may occur. You will appreciate, however, that the Australian Government is limited in terms of the action that we can take in respect of matters which fall within the domestic jurisdiction of another country. > >The Chinese Government's announcement earlier this year of the introduction of a legal code as part of the modernisation process was widely welcomed as an encouraging development. It is regrettable however that this process of legal reform has not yet led to a situation where individuals may freely express their political views without fear of repercussion. > > **Senator Tate's** suggestion of a comprehensive seminar on China is commendable. The Minister for Foreign Affairs would be happy to make officers of his Depanment available to provide an oral briefing to interested honourable senators at an early opportunity. Alleged Social Security Frauds {: #subdebate-63-110-s21 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 19 November 1979, **Senator Mcintosh** asked me questions concerning **Mr Chris** Nakis. In substance, the questions were: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Attorney-General aware whether permission was sought from or given by the Court for **Mr Chris** Nakis to leave Australia? 1. Does the Attorney-General know the present whereabouts of **Mr Nakis?** The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) **Mr Nakis** was excused by the Court as a witness on 10 July 1979. On 12 July application was made to the Court for permission to up-lift the current passport of **Mr Nakis,** which was then in the custody of the Court, and to do so for travel purposes. The application was opposed by some defence Counsel. The Magistrate granted the application, holding that he had no power to bind **Mr Nakis** over and noting that **Mr Nakis** had been excused as a witness. 1. ) As I understand it, **Mr Nakis** is at present in Greece. Alleged Social Security Frauds {: #subdebate-63-110-s22 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 20 November 1979 **Senator Cavanagh** addressed to me the following question without notice: >Does the Attorney-General recall the answer that on his advice the Governor-General issued a pardon covering the period from 1 January 1975 to 31 March 1978. This was a pardon on the Minister's advice, covering a period of some 22 months more than the period for which he was prepared to grant an indemnity. Do I take it from these figures that **Mr Nakis** has no pardon or indemnity for any offence he may have committed in the period prior to 1 January 1975 and that he could be prosecuted? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: > **Mr Nakis** has no pardon or indemnity for any offence he may have committed prior to 1 January 1975. The period in respect of which the pardon was recommended was determined after consideration was given to the terms of a private information that was presented against **Mr Nakis** on 20 April 1979. Reference was made to that private information in my answer to **Senator Wriedt** question on 15 November 1979 which is recorded in *Hansard* at pages 2309 and 23 10. Alleged Social Security Frauds {: #subdebate-63-110-s23 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On 21 November 1979 **Senator Douglas** McClelland addressed to me a question concerning a pardon granted to Miss Anastasia Artopoulou who was called as a witness in the committal proceedings. In anwering that question I stated that I would let the honourable senator have certain additional information when I was able to find it out. The information is as follows: >The date of the pardon granted to Miss Artopoulou was 1 7 July 1979. > >Miss Artopoulou departed from Australia to Greece on 2 1 August 1979. > >No further advice with respect to Miss Artopoulou was given to the Governor-General after the pardon was granted. In my view there was no occasion to tender further advice to the Governor-General in relation to the matter. Alleged Social Security Frauds {: #subdebate-63-110-s24 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -On 21 November 1979, **Senator Melzer** addressed to me the following question without notice: >My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, follows the answer that he gave to **Senator McClelland.** Is it true that six or more people have been granted a pardon or an immunity from prosecution in return for their evidence in the alleged social security fraud case? How many people in all have now been granted either pardons or immunities from prosecution because of the evidence they will give in this case? Have these people been paid or offered, or have they asked for, a reward in connection with the evidence they will give? Is it proposed to pay any reward that is to be paid in Australia or in Greece? In part answer to that question I said that I did not propose to give details of who are the people to whom immunity from prosecution had been granted because of the effect on the conduct of the prosecution and the sub judice rule. I went on to say that I would take note of the question insofar as it related to payments to particular persons who had been granted a pardon or immunity and see to what extent it could be answered. Having further considered the matter, I have concluded that it would not be appropriate to give any further answer to the question at this stage because of the subjudice rule. Ranger Uranium Mine {: #subdebate-63-110-s25 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP **- Senator Kilgariff** asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice on 6 November 1979: As the Northern Territory Government has indicated its interest in taking over the Federal Government's share in the Ranger Uranium mine at Jabiru, Northern Territory, to give that Government and the people of the Northern Territory a more direct share and participation in the development of uranium mining in the Territory, and having in mind that the Federal Government is at present reviewing applications from overseas and Australian mining interests which wish to purchase the Federal Government's shares, what is the present position in relation to the overall matter? ls it the intention of the Federal Government to permit the Northern Territory Government to become an interested party? The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has not yet made a decision on whether or not to dispose of its interests in the Ranger uranium project. At this stage the Government has only indicated its preparedness to examine proposals for the acquisition of its interest in the project. Following an examination of these proposals the Government will be in a position to decide whether or not to dispose of its interests. The Northern Territory Government wrote to the Commonwealth Government on 5 November 1979 proposing that the Commonwealth Government transfer its interests in the Ranger project to the Northern Territory Government. The Northern Territory Government has been advised that, while the Commonwealth Government can appreciate the reasons which lay behind the proposal made by the Northern Territory Government, the proposal is not one which the Commonwealth Government could contemplate. Export of Gaseous Hydrocarbons {: #subdebate-63-110-s26 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- On 13 November 1979, **Senator MacGibbon** asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate the following question without notice: Did the Leader of the Government in the Senate see the article in today's *Australian* relating to a report yesterday from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources which called for much greater Australian use and, by implication, consumption of natural gas as opposed to exporting this valuable fuel? As this report from the CSIRO is so obviously relevant and correct, will the Government immediately increase the incentives for the use of natural gas and other hydrocarbon gaseous fuels in Australia so that a total embargo on the export of gaseous hydrocarbons can be brought down as soon as possible? The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: My attention has been drawn to the article referred to by the honourable senator headed 'Exported LPG needed here warns CSIRO' which suggested, interalia, that LPG produced from Bass Strait for export could be used more widely for transport purposes within Australia. In accordance with Government policy, Australia only exports that quantity of LPG which is surplus to Australia s requirements. On 27 June 1979 the Prime Minister announced a series of new energy initiatives including measures to encourage the use of LPG as a substitute for motor spirit. It is estimated that 10 to 15 per cent of Australia's motor vehicles will ultimately be powered by LPG. The measures announced were removal of the 2.125 cents per litre tax on automative use of LPG conversion of Commonwealth vehicles to LPG wherever possible and new Commonwealth vehicles to be equipped for LPG running initiation of discussions with the States and Territories to ensure proper safeguards are instituted and unnecessary barriers removed to encourage LPG use acceleration of the work of the LPG Task Force to provide advice on the practical aspects of greater usage of LPG and ways of overcoming constraints on its wide use. The Government has a responsible attitude to the development and use of Australia's energy reserves ensuring that Australia's requirements are met and that the surplus is available for export. Computer Security Expert {: #subdebate-63-110-s27 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 26 September *(Hansard,* page 954) **Senator Gietzelt** asked me a question without notice concerning a seminar conducted by an American computer security expert. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The expert was brought to Australia and New Zealand by an Australian organisation (On Line Systems) to conduct public seminars in State Capitals and Auckland on the topic of computer security and audit The cost per attendee at these two day seminars was set at $260. Due to the importance and relevance of the seminar to their activities, Departments and the Auditor-General's Office had made arrangements to have officers attend the public seminars, and the Public Service Board, being aware of this, negotiated with the organisation to provide a special seminar in Canberra. The cost of the Canberra seminar was shared by Departments and Authorities. Fifty-seven representatives attended, at a cost of approximately $ 120 per person for the two day session, each receiving two books. Travel and accommodation costs were thus avoided. The material presented at the seminar was supplementary to and not a substitute for that contained in the books and reflected the current state of knowledge in a rapidly changing environment. Further, it focussed on aspects of importance to the public sector and also provided an opportunity for participants to have discussions with the expert and between each other in an area where public sector expertise needs to be enhanced. Computer security and audit is an area of vital importance and concern to Government operations and there is a need to keep abreast with and exchange knowledge in relation to the latest developments and thinking in this field. These reasons justify the seminar having been held and the arrangements made by the Public Service Board provided the seminar in the most effective and economical manner. Discrimination Against Women {: #subdebate-63-110-s28 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 11 October 1979 *(Hansard,* p. 1209) **Senator Douglas** McClelland asked me a question without notice concerning the employment of women in the Australian Public Service. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The fact that there are only 23 women in the Second Division of the Australian Public Service reflects, in part, the fact that until late 1966 married women were precluded from becoming officers in the Service. Another major influence on the participation of women in senior levels in the Service is that the average length of service of female officers is significantly less than that of their male counterparts, reflecting in part the higher resignation rates of female officers. Since 1966, however, the representation of women in the more senior levels of the Service (excluding the First Division) has increased markedly. For example, in 1973 there were only two women in the Second Division. > >The role of women in the Australian Public Service and the removal of any discrimination are under constant attention by the Public Service Board. > >The Equal Employment Opportunity Bureau in the Board 's Office is responsible for implementing and monitoring the equal employment policy as it relates to women. The Bureau encourages the fullest possible employment and promotion of women, consistent with the merit principle. It investigates any complaints by women of discrimination because of their sex or marital status when seeking employment, or in employment, in the Australian Public Service. The Bureau has published guidelines to ensure proper treatment of women in selection processes. The activities of the Bureau are outlined in the Public Service Board Annual Reports. > >The Board monitors, on a continuing basis, trends in statistical data on the employment of women and results of this work are published from time to time in the Board 's Annual Report and statistical publications. Public Service Board {: #subdebate-63-110-s29 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 16 October *(Hansard,* page 1316) **Senator Gietzelt** asked me a question, without notice, concerning the Public Service Board and its activities. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >As indicated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his initial response, the Public Service Board is a statutory authority whose enabling legislation vests it appropriately with certain independent powers in relation to the staffing of the Public Service. Section 22 of the Public Service Act requires the Public Service Board to report annually to the Parliament. This requirement, together with the other means available to the Parliament, enables an appropriate degree of scrutiny of the Board 's activities. > >A response to the criticisms raised by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts will be provided in the usual manner. The advertisements placed by the Public Service Board concerning the industrial dispute on the Commonwealth Employees ( Redeployment and Retirement) Act were explained to the Senate Estimates Committee on 24 September 1 979 *(Hansard,* pages 409-4 1 1 ;. Rights of Commonwealth Citizens {: #subdebate-63-110-s30 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 17 October 1979 **Senator Mulvihill** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >I direct a question to **Senator Carrick** as the sort of ball distributor to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It deals with the recent utterances of senior Ministers of the Thatcher Government in which they have accused overseas visitors of sponging and of being bludgers- a word which I do not use- in relation to the British health system and even employment rights, as though they are going to put the cleaners through everybody. As the concept of the British Commonwealth is used sometimes to allow Commonwealth nationals to get early voting rights and other things here, I wonder whether we could alert our High Commissioner to the need to have close consultations with British Government to ensure that it realises that, whilst British citizens have rights, citizens of other Commonwealth countries also have them. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Although I am not aware of the particular statements to which the honourable senator refers I assume that they refer to proposals to change the rules governing entry to the United Kingdom. At the time the honourable senator asked his question there was considerable speculation and reported discussion on this matter. > >Since the honourable senator asked his question the British Government published a White Paper containing Government proposals for revised immigration rules. The new rules, which are expected to become effective in February 1980, reflect the British Government's desire to tighten entry provisions to the United Kingdom. > >The main changes embodied in the new rules are: > >People who are admitted for temporary purposes such a visitors, students and working holidaymakers will not be eligible to remain for another, temporary, purpose if this carries with it the prospect of eventual settlement. > >Husbands and fiancees of women who are UK citizens but who were not born in the UK will no longer qualify for admission to the UK for settlement with their wives or fiancees. > >Age limits for working holidaymakers will be reduced from 30 to 25 years and the period of stay reduced from five to two years. > >The British authorities have stated that the working holidaymaker scheme as it will now be applied will still be broadly comparable to the reciprocal Australian working holiday rules. The British authorities envisage that it will still be the case that more young Australians will take working holidays in the UK than Britons in Australia. Australians who require detailed information on how they might be affected by the new rules should approach the British High Commission in Canberra or British Consulates General in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane or Perth. > >I can assure the honourable senator that the Australian High Commissioner in London was in close consultation with the British Government on this matter before the new proposals were announced. Kampuchea {: #subdebate-63-110-s31 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 17 October 1979 **Senator Sibraa** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >As the true nature of the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea is now becoming apparent to all Australians, will the Minister explain the technical reasons why the Government continues to recognise this monstrous regime? Can the Minister explain why the Government does not adopt the policy of nonrecognition of any of the various regimes in the country as has been adopted by the United States Government? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >A comprehensive reply to **Senator Sibraa** 's question has been provided in a reply to a question on notice (No. 4917) asked by **Mr Howe,** Member for Batman, on 16 October 1 979, and I refer him to it. Uganda {: #subdebate-63-110-s32 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 6 November 1979 **Senator Wheeldon** asked me, as Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >Does the Government have any idea whether or when the Government of Tanzania proposed to withdraw its army from Uganda, which country it is occupying at present? Is it not a breach of the United Nations Charter that the armed forces of Tanzania should be in occupation of Uganda? In view of the keen interest which the Government appears to take in the internal situation of other Commonwealth countries in Africa, does the Government have any views on the matter of the Tanzanian military occupation of Uganda? Has it raised or does it intend to raise this matter in any of the forums in which it has raised some of ;he other matters concerning African countries? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Australian Government upholds those general international principles which call for respect for international borders and the sovereign integrity of States, and the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. For this reason it cannot condone the Tanzanian incursion into Uganda. The Government has no evidence that Tanzania has had any expansionist motives in Uganda. We hope therefore that circumstances will permit the early withdrawal of Tanzanian troops from Uganda but we see this as a matter for the two Commonwealth Governments concerned. Funding of Political Parties {: #subdebate-63-110-s33 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 19 November 1979 *(Hansard,* page 2421) **Senator Mason** asked me a question without notice concerning the funding of political parties. The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to my views on this matter set out in House of Representatives *Hansard,* 21 March 1979, page 945. Kampuchea: Recognition of Pol Pot Regime {: #subdebate-63-110-s34 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- On 20 November 1979 **Senator Wheeldon** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice: >My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, arises from reports that the Australian Government is to withdraw recognition from the Pol Pot Government, which claims to be the Government of Cambodia. Whether these reports are correct or not, will the Government do whatever it can to ensure that an act of selfdetermination by the Cambodian people takes place before the Australian Government recognises any future government in Cambodia and will it refrain from recognising the present government in Phnom Penh until such time as it is satisfied that the people of Cambodia wish that government to be the government of that country? The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government continues to recognise the Pol Pot administration of Democratic Kampuchea for reasons which are explained in an answer I gave to a question from **Mr Falconer** on 20 November and in an answer **Senator Carrick** gave to **Senator Hamer** on 1 9 November. > >The Government favours the creation of a neutral and independent Kampuchea, free from Great Power rivalries. To achieve this objective, the Government considers that a negotiated settlement in Kampuchea, in which all interested parties are involved, will be necessary to bring peace and stability to that country. In the meantime, the Government will continue to encourage international support for the principles that might form a basis for such a settlement, the two most important being the withdrawal of all foreign forces and self-determination by the people of Kampuchea free from external pressures.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 23 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791123_senate_31_s83/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant