Senate
19 March 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 769

PETITIONS

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– On behalf of Senator Evans I present the following petition from 15 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and/or sex;

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasigovernmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 23 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.

Uranium Mining and Enrichment

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 72 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that the construction of a uranium enrichment plant in North Queensland and the mining of uranium on the Herveys Range area should not be proceeded with on the following grounds:

1 ) No safe method has yet been devised for the disposal of nuclear waste.

The mining of uranium ore exposes workers to considerable danger from radon gases.

The danger of poisoning chemicals seeping into surface and underground water supplies as a result of uranium ore mining and refining of uranium ore could pose serious health hazards for persons living in the Townsville region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take all possible steps to abandon or postpone indefinitely the mining of uranium in the Herveys Range area, and the construction of an enrichment plant in the Townsville region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 166 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I present the following petition from 15 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex is a fundamental human right:

That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals under federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discriminaton in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and/or sex.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-Discrimination Legislation

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present two petitions, similar in wording, each from 14 citizens of Australia, as follows:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy and /or sex;

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals- in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasigovernmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

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

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 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 representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp, Hamer, Lewis and Scott.

Petitions received.

page 770

TERTIARY EDUCATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME

Notice of Motion

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

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

That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should increase the allowance payable under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme to 120 per cent of the amount set as the poverty line.

page 770

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 770

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVY: AUSTRALIAN PORT FACILITIES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Minister whether an assessment of the risk of Perth becoming a prime nuclear target had been made before- I emphasise the word ‘before’- the Prime Minister offered the use of Cockburn Sound to the United States. The Minister replied that he would refer that matter to the Prime Minister. I now ask: Has he done so? If so, what is the answer?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I have referred that matter to the Prime Minister. I have not had an answer provided to me as yet, but as the question was asked only yesterday it would be unlikely that anyone would expect me to have an answer by now.

Senator Tate:

– Why not?

Senator DURACK:

– It takes time to get questions transmitted and considered and there are a number of other matters concerning the Government as well, of which perhaps Senator Tate would not be aware. In view of the fact that Senator Button has asked the question again today, I will endeavour to obtain an answer for tomorrow.

page 771

QUESTION

RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR FISHERMEN

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications advise me whether any radio frequency has been made available for use by Australian and/or foreign fishermen operating in the north-west of Western Australia? Has there been any request or discussion on the matter? Is it under consideration? If so, on what terms and conditions?

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

– I am advised by the Postal and Telecommunications Department that requests have been received by the Department from Lombardo Marine Group Pty Ltd and M. G. Kailis Pty Ltd, each of which is seeking assignment of a private frequency for use on the North West Shelf and in other adjacent waters. There have been discussions between officers of the Department and Mr Lombardo and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission. The OTC is preparing a combined technical and commercial proposal for consideration by the company, which would employ OTC transmitters and receivers for the shore-based end of the service. I am also advised that the Kailis company is engaged in similar negotiations. At the moment, I am not in a position to say just when those negotiations are likely to be concluded.

page 771

QUESTION

AIRLINES RE-EQUIPMENT PROGRAM

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to Senator Chaney as the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity and the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to Monday’s statement by the Minister for Transport in respect of the re-equipment program for Ansett Airlines of Australia and also the comments which have been made by a vicepresident of the Boeing company that Boeing could not see its way clear to meet the offset obligations involved in such a contract. The Minister for Transport stated that he thought that these matters might be satisfactorily settled. I ask: Can we accept it as a fact that the Government will take the same attitude in respect of offset orders as would apply in the case of Trans-Australia Airlines and that that obligation will be important in respect of any negotiations which take place between Ansett and the Boeing company?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am not in a position to give a full response to that question, but I can assure the Senate that the Government sees the offset situation as important and it would certainly expect to deal with the airlines in an evenhanded manner, f will ask the Minister to give me his reply to the question raised by the honourable senator in case there are more matters of detail pertinent to it.

page 771

QUESTION

BAN ON RUSSIAN SHIPS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that the International Longshoremen’s Association of the United States of America has imposed bans on Russian ships entering East Coast ports of the United States because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Is the Minister also aware that a Mr Ernest Spencer, the General Manager of Opal Maritime Agencies Pty Ltd, an agent for Soviet shipping companies in Australia, is reported to be discussing in Siberia this week the transfer of these Russian roll-on roll-off ships to the Australian trade? Will the Minister consider the imposition of a ban on the Soviet ships that are being transferred to the Australian trade as a result of sanctions in the United States?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that matter to the Minister for his consideration and early reply to the honourable senator.

page 771

QUESTION

TASMANIA: JOINT FISHING VENTURE

Senator TATE:

– My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Minister will recall the suspension of negotiations concerning a joint fishing venture in Tasmanian waters with the Russian fishing corporation, Sovrybflot, which was part of the Australian response to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Is the Minister aware that this project would have provided up to 1,000 jobs in the southern Tasmanian community not only in the provisioning of Soviet vessels but also in the building of dry dock facilities to service such vessels? Does he concede that the Premier, Mr Lowe, in agreeing to the suspension of negotiations early in January, thought that this was the first in a series of consistent steps dealing with Australia’s trading and commercial relationships with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Since that is evidently not the case, will the Government take immediate steps to restore negotiations on this project which has been approved by the Department of Defence; or is Tasmania to be singled out to bear the only significant economic burden of Australia’s response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The Government’s decision to suspend approval of the project to test the extent of the natural resources adjacent to Tasmania, of course, was part of the Government’s response to the invasion of Afghanistan. It is certainly an interesting and very good example of the fact that the Government was taking steps that did have economic consequences, and not, as Opposition members maintain, concentrating only on an Olympic boycott. The feasibility of the fishing venture that was suspended did not in itself offer great employment benefits to Tasmania. The proposal for the establishment of a floating dock and fish processing plant in Tasmania by USSR-Australian interests was contingent upon the success of the feasibility venture. The Government has made it clear that the approval for subsequent projects would not necessarily have been granted, but the cost of its decision and other decisions will be shared by the community. In this instance, the forgone benefits to the Tasmanian economy were prospective, and the Government is prepared to give consideration, in the light of those matters, to the question that Senator Tate has raised.

Senator TATE:

– I ask a supplementary question. I do not understand from the answer whether the Government will offer 1,000 alternative jobs to the southern Tasmanian community- the Minister said that the whole community will bear the cost of that decision- or whether he has said that the Cabinet will reconsider the opening of negotiations on that fishing project if the feasibility study shows it to be worth while continuing.

Senator DURACK:

– The Government is not accepting the estimate made by Senator Tate. I want to make that quite clear. I think that the answer made it clear that it was a feasibility study only, but the question of the community sharing the costs of decisions of that kind will be considered.

page 772

QUESTION

PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry say when legislation to introduce plant variety protection will be introduced into the Parliament? I believe that the legislation is in its final stages. Can the Minister assure the Senate that this legislation will be introduced in this session?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– The legislation referable to plant variety rights is, as the honourable senator suggests, in the process of drafting and is at an advanced stage. I cannot say exactly when the legislation will come into the Parliament. That will depend on the culmination of the drafting process and it will depend, as all legislation depends, on the priority accorded to it. Certainly I can assure the honourable senator that the appropriate legislation is being drafted and will come into the Parliament as soon as is seen to be responsible and possible.

page 772

QUESTION

WOOL INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister seek to protect the interests of individual wool buying houses and wool growers from the effect of the secondary boycott imposed by the Government on the wool industry with the prohibition of wool exports, in the same way as he proposes to protect Mr Laidely in the current dispute in the petrol industry; or does the Prime Minister regard the principle of the Government being a third party in the industrial dispute in the wool industry as being different from the principle enunciated in section 45D?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The short answer is no. However, let me say that the Government’s action in passing regulations to control the export of wool is a step it has taken most reluctantly, after its patience has been virtually exhausted by a dispute which has gone on now for 10 or 11 weeks. The union has proved to be quite intractable and has been acting in defiance of a decision of the Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The action of the Government has been made necessary by the union ‘s tactic of keeping some of the stores open, with its members who work there assisting those who have gone on strike. There has been an enormous cost to the wool growers and brokers as well as to those members of the union who are on strike. There has been a great cost and threat to the wool industry and its ability to meet its orders, which is the reason why the Government has taken the step it has. As I said, it has taken that step most reluctantly, having waited 10 or 1 1 weeks for the union to observe the Full Bench decision in this matter. Fortunately, talks are going on still, and I hope that those talks will lead to an early resolution of this matter.

page 772

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ELECTION: TURKEY CREEK INCIDENT

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and concerns the so-called Turkey Creek incident in Western Australia. Is the Minister aware of reports on the Australian Broadcasting Commission Nationwide programs on 6 March and 17 March concerning the incident which took place at Turkey Creek during the recent Western Australian election? In view of the time that has elapsed since the incident, with no charges being laid against the persons allegedly involved, can the Minister advise the Senate whether breaches of Commonwealth or State laws occurred and whether the matter is likely to be taken further?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It is true that there has been quite a lapse of time since that election and the incidents which were reported on Nationwide. I have had a number of discussions with the State Attorney-General about the matter. The first of those discussions was just after the election and the most recent was late last week. The position is that the Western Australian Police Commissioner made a statement on 1 1 March that charges would not be laid against the two men involved in the incident at Turkey Creek on the basis that police investigations revealed that no breach of the law was involved. I understand that two possible offences were investigatedfirstly, that the two men might have entered a reserve without authority, and, secondly, that bribery was involved in offering beer and wine to prevent the Turkey Creek Aboriginals from voting. The problem with respect to that is that Turkey Creek is gazetted under an Act which does not make it illegal to take alcohol on to a reserve, whereas reserves gazetted under the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act are so protected. No evidence could be found to support a charge of bribery. I think there would be no doubt that practically everybody would regard what happened at Turkey Creek with abhorrence.

The State Attorney-General has referred the matter to the Crown Prosecutor in Western Australia and has sought a report from him. The State Attorney and I will confer when that report is to hand. The State Attorney has made it quite clear just how he regards the incident and has, I think, very properly drawn attention to his own record in providing in the Aboriginal Communities Act of Western Australia the power for communities to ban alcohol completely if that is their wish. As I recollect, he has expressed the view that, if what happened was not illegal, that is a clear indication that a change is needed to the law. That is a view which I would certainly support. This is a matter on which I have not made very much public comment, in the belief that it would be likely to come before the courts and that, therefore, political comment would not be particularly appropriate. But I certainly would not want any honourable senator to be under any impression other than that I share the sense of abhorrence which I am sure is felt by most honourable senators.

page 773

QUESTION

MR JUSTICE STAPLES

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he has seen reports that he, the Attorney-General, had approached Mr Justice Staples of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission through a third person to persuade him to accept a transfer to the Law Reform Commission. Is this report correct? If it is correct, did he make his approach as a result of a Government decision that he should do so or was he acting on his own initiative?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The reports to which Senator Button refers are correct, I think, in broad terms. The position is that as a result of discussions within the Government I did take steps to make inquiries as to whether Mr Justice Staples would be interested in an appointment to the Law Reform Commission. The object was simply to find out from Mr Justice Staples whether he would be interested. If he had been interested, the appointment would have been offered to him.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. My question asked the Minister: Did he make his approach as a result of a Government decision that he should do so? The Minister, in his answer, replied ‘as a result of discussions within the Government’. The supplementary question is, therefore: Was there a decision of the Government or not?

Senator DURACK:

– I do not propose to add to the answer. How governments make decisions is a matter which I do not propose to disclose and which I do not disclose. As I said, the approach was made as a result of discussions that took place within the Government.

page 773

QUESTION

TASMANIA: JOINT FISHING VENTURE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows a question asked by Senator Tate in relation to the proposed Russian fishing invasion of Tasmania. I ask whether Senator Tate’s reference to /,000 jobs was not a pie in the sky estimate on a multiplier basis, not of the direct employment which could conceivably have been created had the proposal gone ahead in its fullest possible way, but rather a matter of looking at all the supplementary service jobs which may or may not be created for the people who may be directly employed and who would probably number no more than 200 or 300. I ask also whether it is a fact that substitute proposals have been put forward and are being considered and whether they are not more definite and more beneficial to Tasmania than the Russian proposal. I ask further whether the interests of Tasmanian fishermen will be taken into account by the Government in any steps which it may take in relation to the carving up of Tasmania’s fishing potential rather than handing over to the Russians the advantages which otherwise would be directly available to Tasmanians who do not seem to be being considered by Senator Tate and those who are complaining about what has happened in relation to the Russian proposal. Would it not have been more appropriate -

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I ask whether this is a question seeking information, or is just a tall, fishy story?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator will put his question in a forthright way and seek the information that he desires.

Senator Townley:

– Why don ‘t you start again.

Senator RAE:

– I reject the suggestion that I should start again.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, just put your question.

Senator RAE:

-I just ask: Would it not have been more appropriate in the interests of Tasmania had Senator Tate used his undoubted talents to assist the Tasmanian Labor Government to prepare its submission to the Commonwealth Grants Commission on a basis on which it could have substantiated the matters put forward, rather than raising the question of Russia, Afghanistan and fishing?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise another point of order, Mr President. How can a Minister in his reply say whether it is within the competence of the undoubted talents of Senator Tate to use his influence somewhere else? Is that a question?

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister will reply to the areas which fall within his responsibility as Minister.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I really do not have any information to give in relation to this matter, apart from that provided in the answer that I gave to Senator Tate, although I am interested in some of the information that Senator Rae has provided in his question. I certainly want to emphasise the fact that I have no information and I do not know that there is any information available to the Government in relation to this claim of 1 ,000 jobs in prospect. As I said, it was all a very futuristic proposal and it depended upon a feasibility study. I will take note of the questions that Senator Rae has asked. I will refer them to the appropriate Minister and ask him to take account of them.

page 774

QUESTION

IWASAKI LAND PURCHASE

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the Government is aware of any approaches made to the Queensland Government by the Japanese Iwasaki organisation to acquire 1,200 hectares of land extending north from Corio Bay to the Shoalwater Bay Army base. Is Mr Iwasaki interested in acquiring this land to construct an airport of international standard? Is the Government aware of the concern expressed by Australian Army officers at this proposed development which, if realised, would restrict air space available to the Shoalwater Bay Army base? Is there also concern at the prospect of an airport of international standard under the ownership of a foreign national being established in an area of considerable strategic importance and adjacent to an Australian defence base?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The question asked by Senator Mason seems to refer to the areas of responsibility of a number of Ministers. I will take note of the details of the question and refer it to the appropriate Ministers.

page 774

QUESTION

HALLETT COVE OIL REFINERY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing either the Minister for Transport or the Minister for Industrial Relations. Is the particular Minister aware that the Seamen’s Union of Australia last week again refused to allow an oil tanker to berth at the Hallett Cove oil refinery in South Australia and that, as a result, the refinery was closed down through running out of feed stock? I ask whether the Minister is aware that the Seamen’s Union will not allow a tanker to berth at the refinery until the refinery’s feed stocks are down to seven days or less and that this is not the first time the refinery has been forced to close down. I also ask: What steps will the Government take to stop this continuing sabotage by a militant union which has no regard for either the South Australian economy or the jobs of so many fellow workers?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am sure that Senator Carrick would have had all the detail of this matter, but I am afraid that I do not. I will have to seek information for the honourable senator. I will also check with the Minister for Industrial Relations to see whether he would like to add to the answer which I am able to obtain.

page 774

QUESTION

MINISTRY: INCOME TAX RETURNS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. It follows the recent disclosure that one private company for which a former Minister was responsible did not file taxation returns for 1 1 years. I ask whether he will seek an assurance from the Prime Minister that his private company and the companies of his surviving Ministers do submit taxation returns as required by law?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is not within the ministerial responsibility of the AttorneyGeneral. I call Senator Hamer.

Senator Walsh:

– I raise a point of order. The question was directed to Senator Durack as the Minister representing the Prime Minister and asked whether Senator Durack would seek an assurance from the Prime Minister that his surviving Ministers are complying with the law.

The PRESIDENT:

-If Senator Durack wishes to reply, he may do so.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Prime Minister.

page 775

QUESTION

PALESTINIAN SELF-DETERMINATION

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the Minister studied the statement issued by the President of France, Mr Giscard d’Estaing, in Kuwait recently in which he announced his full support of selfdetermination for the Palestinians? Has this communique been endorsed by countries such as Belgium, Spain, Britain and Ireland? Is it not strange that there was no mention in the communique of the security of the state of Israel? What is the attitude of the Australian Government to this matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Minister for Foreign Affairs is aware of the statement that the French President made in Kuwait on 2 March referring to the right of Palestinian self-determination in the context of a negotiated settlement. The general attitude of European countries to the statement of the French President can be summed up in the words of the Lord Privy Seal of the United Kingdom who, in the House of Commons on 12 March, said:

President Giscurd was stating what has been the position of the nine since last autumn. I agree that Palestinian selfdetermination must be one element in a comprehensive settlement, Another, as the Prime Minister said on French television the night before last -

That is, two nights before this statement was made - isthatthe Palestinian people must undertake that Israel has tofight to exist within secure borders.

T he position of the Australian Government on this matter has not altered. Australia has never given any specific recognition to the Palestine Liberation Organisation and will not do so while it maintains its denial of Israel ‘s right to exist. At the same time, the Government does recognise that the Palestinian people, as distinct from the PLO, do have certain legitimate rights.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 1 October last year, said:

Israel’s right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries must be accepted. The legitimate rights of the Palestinian people to a homeland alongside Israel, and the corresponding responsibility that they live peacefully with all their neighbours must also be recognised.

page 775

QUESTION

ARBITRATION ACT: APPOINTMENTS

Senator GIETZELT:

– Can the AttorneyGeneral indicate what qualifications are required for appointment as an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act 1902? What criminal convictions would debar a person from being appointed pursuant to this Act? Can an undischarged bankrupt be appointed an arbitrator under the Act? Does the Registrar of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court keep a register of all arbitrators and consultants so appointed under the Act?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– That question really asks for a legal opinion. Apart from that, it seeks in some considerable detail information about matters arising under an Australian Capital Territory law which I do not have the ability to provide at the present time. I will take note of the question and see whether an answer can be provided for Senator Gietzelt at an early date.

page 775

QUESTION

CANBERRA TELEPHONE DIRECTORY

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I ask a question of national import of the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to page 31 of the new Canberra telephone directory in which the yellow pages advertising contractor to Telecom Australia for New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, in an advertisement headed ‘National Yellow Pages Service’, states in the text of that advertisement that it provides a full national coverage, yet the advertisement shows only a partial map of Australia- the large island- and neglects the most important island, that is, the island of Tasmania? Is the Minister aware that Tasmanians do not like being left off the map? Will the Minister ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to see that it does not happen in the future?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I will pass on that message to the Minister with very great enthusiasm.I think that leaving off Tasmania means that the hulk of Australia’s water resources are not represented on the map, that the bulk of Australia’s great scenic beauty is not represented on the map and that the bulk of its political talent, which is on this side of the chamber, is not represented. I feel as offended as Tasmanians must feel by this advertisement and, certainly, I will take it up with the Minister.

page 776

QUESTION

AWARD WAGES FOR ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:

-As the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is aware, approximately 10 months ago award wages were granted to Aborigines working in communities in Queensland. The Minister would be aware also that two investigations or surveys have since been carried out. Can the Minister now inform the Parliament of the commencing date for payment of award wages in Aboriginal communities in Queensland, including the Torres Strait?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am aware of the fact that the award wages issue has been before the Queensland Industrial Court for a considerable time. The matter was adjourned, as the honourable senator indicated in his question, to enable surveys to be made. At the same time, there have been some dealings between the Commonwealth and the State Government about the cost of award wages. I am not aware of when the matter is relisted for hearing, but I note with some surprise the honourable senator’s suggestion that it has been delayed for a period of 10 months. My recollection was that an adjournment of something like six months was agreed to, but I do not contest the point which the honourable senator made. I was to have had talks with Mr Porter in Brisbane last Friday and those talks would have touched on the matter Senator Keeffe raised. Unfortunately, the air strike prevented those talks and they have been postponed until just after Easter. I will check the up-to-date position on the award wages matter and let the honourable senator have further information on it.

2,4,5-T

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health refers to the confidential survey carried out by Coalite Ltd, which has been reported fairly prominently in the Press. I remind the Minister that that chemicals company has manufactured the herbicide 2,4,5-T. Apparently the survey alleges that people exposed to that chemical could face an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease and that a higher level of blood cholesterol and triglycerides is evident in people exposed to the dioxin. As these matters are highly emotive and lead to community concern about health, will the Minister refer the matter to the National Health and Medical Research Council for examination and present an early report to the Senate on the matter?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I am not in a position to comment on the survey mentioned by Senator Jessop. I am aware of previous questions on and public interest in the matter of 2,4,5-T and its effects. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health and see whether it is a matter which is not already under study by the National Health and Medical Research Council and whether he considers that that would be the appropriate body to undertake such a study. I will see that any information available is given to Senator Jessop as soon as possible.

page 776

QUESTION

BOWEN COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to Senator Durack, as both Attorney-General and Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Attorney-General will be aware that the Deputy Prime Minister, when presenting the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry Concerning Public Duty and Private Interest, stated that, as the Government accepted many of the recommendations of that Committee, it would take steps to implement them immediately. I ask the Attorney-General: What is the general progress in relation to that commitment? In particular, in relation to his own portfolio, has he completed his review of the proposals relating to changes to the Crimes Act to expand the present bribery provisions and to make it an offence to misuse official information? I would be indebted if the Attorney-General could tell the Senate also whether the Government has yet received the report of the Public Service Board on implementing the recommendations of the Bowen Committee in relation to public servants.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I am not in a position to answer most of the aspects of the question asked by Senator Evans. I will have to refer them to the appropriate bodies. As far as the aspect of the question which refers to my area of responsibility is concerned, work has been progressing on that recommendation about an amendment to the Crimes Act. I think that Senator Evans would recognise that this is a fairly difficult area. That work has not yet been completed. I have not yet had an opportunity to give the matter consideration, although I know that work has been done on it.

page 777

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ELECTION: ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE INVOLVEMENT

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I address a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it a fact that during the last Western Australian State election officers from the Aboriginal Legal Service in Darwin took an active role in campaigning? If this is so, who were the officers involved and who paid their expenses during the campaign? Did they take leave from their duties as employees of the Aboriginal Legal Service to carry out campaigning or were they still on the payroll of the Service? If officers were involved, as suggested, and it was at the expense of the Aboriginal Legal Service, which is a Commonwealth funded body, what action does the Government intend to take in this case or in respect of any other incidents that are proven?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Honourable senators may remember that I was asked a question by Senator Rocher about the involvement of the Western Australian Aboriginal Legal Service in the same election. I indicated in answering that question that the financial rules which apply prohibit the use of Commonwealth funds and assets purchased with Commonwealth funds for electioneering purposes. I heard a report that the Aboriginal Legal Service in Darwin had been involved. I made inquiries. My Department has informed me that the Legal Service in Darwin was approached for assistance by one of the candidates in the electorate of Kimberley. The assistance sought was for two people to act as scrutineers. The person requesting that assistance was Mr Bridge. The Legal Service arranged for two solicitors to carry out these duties in a voluntary and unofficial capacity, with all expenses being met by the campaign committee. I have been assured that the resources of the Legal Service provided by my Department were not in any way involved in that election process. No leave was involved because the solicitors from the Legal Service carried out the duties in their own time. They left late on Friday and came back on Sunday.

I give that jetail because, as I indicated in response to an earlier question, I take seriously the requirement in the financial rules that Commonwealth funds should not be used for electioneering purposes. I think that it is of some importance if we are concerned about maintaining support among members of the public for Commonwealth programs in this field and avoiding divisions within the community. Such incidents could give rise to ill feeling. I certainly have had complaints from Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland. I think it is very important that we ensure that there is a careful segregation between those activities which are for the direct promotion of Aboriginal advancement- I think we fund 1,000 organisations around Australia- and direct electioneering which in Australia at the moment is a private matter and not something which is provided for out of public funds.

page 777

QUESTION

MORNINGTON ISLAND: EMPLOYMENT OF ABORIGINALS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did formerly unemployed Aboriginals commence work this week on Mornington Island under the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme? Are Aboriginals employed under this scheme paid award wages and does each person work a similar number of hours a week? Can the Minister advise the level of funding provided to the Mornington Island Shire Council for the project and the number of Aboriginals involved?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It is my understanding that a new project under the Community Development Employment Projects Scheme commenced at Mornington Island either this week or very recently. I am sorry; I have forgotten the precise date. In common with other CDEP projects around Australia, people are paid at an award hourly rate but they do not necessarily work a full week; so there is usually a variation in how much is earned according to the amount of work which is undertaken. I have visited various projects and usually there is a considerable variation in the amounts of money earned by those who choose to work for the whole week and those who choose to work for a relatively short period. I think that answer covers the third part of the question also. Not everybody works similar hours each week. There is a fairly high degree of flexibility, with people choosing to work more or less as the inclination takes them.

I am not able to give the honourable senator a figure on the amount of money involved but I will get it for him. The amount of money is worked out on the basis of what social security payments would be available by way of unemployment benefit, with a margin added for overheads, equipment and things of that sort. There is a formula which provides for a fixed amount according to the number of people who are available for employment and who would otherwise, therefore, be eligible for unemployment benefit. The CDEP is introduced only when it is the wish of the community that it should be available as an alternative to unemployment. Its objective is that communities undertake useful projects which will improve the general amenity of the community and which will avoid the social dislocation which seems to be involved in people sitting around in remote communities receiving unemployment benefit.

Senator COLSTON:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Do I take it that the decision to work or not to work and the number of hours worked is the Aboriginal’s decision; or should the Aboriginal council make a decision on the hours which each person will work?

Senator CHANEY:

– There is a fair degree of flexibility. The council has the responsibility for the supervision of the project. The funds do not permit everybody to be employed full time. The amount of finance involved is not sufficient to cover that. In a number of communities, particularly northern communities such as Elcho Island, the scheme has been used to very good effect. In my own experience there is considerable flexibility with, in general, the individuals deciding the number of hours work they want to undertake. The whole CDEP area, which the Government decided it would expand late last year, is one in which it has found some administrative difficulties. We are not satisfied that we have the best set of rules yet. The scheme is currently under examination by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs and my Department. There may be a further refining of the rules over the next couple of months. 1 will get further information for the honourable senator on the Mornington Island project and let him have it.

page 778

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator Teague addressing a question to the A Attorney-General-

The PRESIDENT:

– That is so. No reflection on a member of the judiciary is allowed in this chamber.

Senator Teague continuing to address a question to the Attorney-General-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must not reflect on a member of the judiciary. If he will recast his question I shall call him later.

page 778

QUESTION

UNITED STATES CONSULATE IN BRISBANE

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that a proposal last year to close the United States Consulate in Brisbane was rescinded in the light of widespread community protest? Is the Minister aware that this decision has now been reversed and closure of the Consulate is imminent? Again, there is massive community action for the retention of the Consulate. Once more this has my unqualified support. In view of the importance to the Australian-United States alliance of adequate representation being maintained in an area of nearly one-quarter of the Australian continent- an area more important than any other part of Australia, particularly with regard to the export of energy resourceswill the Minister assure the Senate that the Australian Government will use all its resources to influence the United States to keep the Brisbane Consulate open?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will have to refer that question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and ask him to provide an early answer for Senator MacGibbon.

page 778

QUESTION

MR JUSTICE STAPLES

Senator BUTTON:

– I address a question to the Attorney-General. It arises from an answer he gave me earlier today to a question concerning the inquiries he made of Mr Justice Staples as to whether he would be interested in an appointment to the Law Reform Commission. In view of the answer, I now ask: When did the discussions take place within the Government regarding this matter and when was the inquiry made of Mr Justice Staples as to whether he would accept such a sideways transfer?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I did not make the inquiries about Mr Justice Staples. I took steps to see whether he could be sounded out as to whether he would be interested in doing so. My approach to see whether he would be interested was made on the Friday before last. I cannot remember the date of it. I believe that Mr Justice Staples was consulted about his attitude to the matter on the Monday following, that is, the Monday before last. There had been some discussions about Mr Justice Staples. I cannot put a figure or time on when the discussions were held. But the actual discussions about the proposal that I made in relation to this matter took place on the Thursday, the day before I made the approach.

page 779

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator Teague addressing a question to the A Attorney-General-

The PRESIDENT:

– I am listening very intently to the question. There shall be no reflection on a member of the judiciary. Reference can be made to a judgment in a critical way, provided it is couched in proper parliamentary language. I will pay close attention to that.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. The accusation is that serious damage has been done by a justice of a court. If he has done serious damage, surely he should be charged with murder or some other crime. One could not say anything more defamatory of him.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is a reflection on the honourable gentleman. I ask the honourable senator to be extremely cautious in the wording that he uses.

Senator Teague:

– I will seek to follow your ruling, Mr President. I am not seeking to make any personal reflection on any member of the judiciary; I am speaking of the outcome of the decisions, which have brought about serious damage.

Senator Wheeldon:

- Mr President, I rise to a point of order. 1 do not think that one can circumvent the forms of the Senate by saying ‘I do not wish to reflect on a judge’, and then reflecting on the judge. If one makes the allegation that the judge, in his capacity as such, has brought down wrong or disastrous decisions one is reflecting on him as a judge. It has been ruled before that this can be dealt with only by way of a substantive motion and not by way of a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am watching very closely what is being said because it is important that we do not cast reflections on members of the judiciary. If you do so, Senator Teague, I will have to ask you to cease putting your question.

Senator Teague:

– I speak of an outcome of serious damage to public confidence in the soundness of the arbitration and conciliation process and I speak of an outcome of serious damage to the public interest, let alone the livelihood of employers and employees, because of such dislocations as the Telecom strike last year -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Teague, put your question directly. Ask for the information that you require.

Senator Teague continuing to address his question to the Attorney-General-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I will not allow Question Time to be used in this way.

page 779

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. On 6 March I asked the Minister a question concerning the Olympic Games. His reply dealt with an earlier question that I had asked concerning fund raising by the Olympic Supporters Club. I therefore ask him again: If the Australian Olympic Federation decides to send a team to the Olympics, will the Government take any action to stop the selected athletes attending?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

-I believe that the attitude of the Government to the boycotting of the Olympic Games in Moscow is well known. The Government believes that such an boycott is an appropriate and responsible reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At the same time, if it is the opinion of the Australian Olympic Federation that Australian athletes should go to the Olympics in Moscow, the Government has undertaken that it will take no steps to stop such athletes from going, if indeed, in view of all the matters that are related to their going, they see fit to do so.

page 779

QUESTION

CLOTHING, TEXTILES AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of a statement by the President of the National Farmers Federation, Mr Don Eckersley, that should the present levels of protection in the clothing, textile and footwear industries be maintained 500,000 employment opportunities would be forgone? Does the Minister agree that this is a realistic assessment by Mr Eckersley? On the other hand, is the Minister aware of the social and economic dislocation that would result from implementing recommendations outlined in the Industries Assistance Commission’s draft report on clothing, textiles and footwear? Can the Minister provide an assessment of the cost to non-metropolitan areas of the IAC draft recommendations?

Senator Georges:

– Just off the top of your head, Fred.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will resist the invitation of the Opposition. I regard the matter as very important and very sensitive. I will refer it to my colleague.

page 780

QUESTION

OFFICE OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENTS

Senator GEORGES:

– I refer the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate to the dismissal of Mr Campbell from the Office of National Assessments by his director, Mr Bob Furlonger. Did the Government exert any influence in the decision regarding Mr Campbell’s dismissal? What pressure was brought to bear on the ONA to have him dismissed?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Prime Minister.

page 780

QUESTION

JAPANESE SUBMAKINE IN SYDNEY HARBOUR

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I direct a question to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. It has been reported in the media that a third Japanese submarine may have been found in Sydney Harbour. The financing of the search comes from overseas interests, and if the discovery of the submarine were confirmed there would be the likelihood of the submarine being moved and perhaps the remains of the Japanese crew being disturbed. Will the Australian Government ensure that appropriate action is taken in regard to this submarine, as in other cases where ships of various nations sunk during World War II are recognised as tombs?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will take note of the question. I will refer it to the appropriate Ministers. I think there will be several Ministers involved. I will attempt to obtain an answer.

page 780

QUESTION

UNION BALLOTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General with some trepidation because it has judicial overtones. The question refers to a ruling given by Mr Justice Sweeney on an Australian Journalists Association case and whether or not the flow-on will be a completely different definition of an informal vote in a trade union ballot or, for that matter, any ballot that is conducted under the Commonwealth Electoral Act? I think the Attorney-General took that matter on board about 1 4 days ago.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I recall Senator Mulvihill asking that question. I regret that, as yet, an answer has not been provided for him. I will make inquiries and find out what has been done and activate a reply as soon as possible.

page 780

QUESTION

SENATORS’ DIARIES MAP

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to you, Mr President. Are you aware that a map in the back of the diary prepared for use by senators shows Tasmania not in the same colour as Australia or the British Commonwealth but in the same hue as Vietnam, Laos and Kampuchea? In view of the sensitivity of Senator Townley about these matters, could this be looked into in relation to future publications?

The PRESIDENT:

– I am not aware of the matter to which the honourable senator referred. I will look at the question later.

page 780

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN ELECTION: ABORIGINAL LEGAL SERVICE INVOLVEMENT

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Does the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, with his responsibility for the welfare and promotion of Aboriginal affairs, reject and condemn the slanderous implications in the earlier question asked by Senator Kilgariff that employees of the Northern Territory Aboriginal Legal Service were using Commonwealth moneys in an election campaign in Western Australia, when the action of those Northern Territory employees in assisting an Aboriginal candidate in Western Australia was honourable and to be commended?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I certainly reject any suggestion that there was anything slanderous in the question asked. The question put by Senator Kilgariff differed from the questions put by some other honourable senators in that it was phrased as a question and did not contain assertions of fact. It raised matters for clarification. I believe that there is no basis on which it could be said that Senator Kilgariff’s question raised allegations that could be described as slanderous. From my point of view, it was extremely useful that the question was asked because it enabled the matter to be put to rest. As I tried to indicate in my answer, there is a degree of feeling in the community about what people see as the use of Commonwealth funds for partisan political purposes. If allegations of that sort are abroad, it is desirable that they be made as specific as possible and that they be examined. If they are found to be untrue, that should be established; if they are found to be true, then something should be done about them. I very definitely reject the imputation in the question. I am pleased to have the chance to put the record straight in this matter. At the same time, I am distressed, and I hope that all Commonwealth-funded bodies will show the same care in dealing with anything that has to do with the election process.

page 781

QUESTION

FISHING FEASIBILITY STUDIES

Senator ARCHER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the approaching conclusion of several joint venture fishing feasibility studies, can the Minister advise whether the existing resources available to the Department of Primary Industry can provide the capacity to collate and analyse the information as it is received? What rate of backlog is occurring?

Senator SCOTT:
NCP/NP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is yes. In addition, the Department is developing a computer-based system, the aim of which is to make data from foreign fishing in the Australian fishing zone available in minimum time. At the moment, summaries of radio reports are available weekly. AH vessels are required to maintain log books, and these logs are the principal source of detailed information on foreign fishing. Currently, it takes one to two months for this information to enter the computer. The availability of information depends on the time of receipt of log sheets from the States, which are responsible for the day-to-day collection of information in the field. At the moment information has been received on squid feasibility fishing in southeastern Australia up to mid-February and on north-western trawling to the end of 1979. Information on squid feasibility fishing off southwestern Australia and the Dalmor trawling venture off southern Australia has not yet been forwarded to Canberra. Additionally, the feasibility fishing companies are required to submit reports on their ventures within six months of termination of the ventures. Preliminary reports have been received from a number of these ventures. The monthly summaries of radio reports and the salient features of feasibility fishing reports are made available to industry through the monthly Australian Fishing Zone bulletin prepared by the Fisheries Division of the Department.

page 781

QUESTION

UNITED STATES CONSULATE IN BRISBANE

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Earlier in Question Time today Senator MacGibbon asked me a question in relation to the closure of the United States of America Consulate in Brisbane. I understand that the United States Government has decided as an economy measure to close it from 30 September 1980. Senator MacGibbon was concerned to know what attitude the Commonwealth Government was taking in relation to the matter. I have obtained information that the Government is making representations in

Washington and in Canberra to ask the United States Government to reconsider its decision.

page 781

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– by leaveDuring Question Time Senator Rae took the opportunity under the guise of a question to subject me to personal abuse. From my note of what he said, firstly he implied that I was supporting a Russian invasion- a term he emphasises- of Tasmania. That is a charge to which I take the strongest exception. Secondly, he stated that I was not concerned with the livelihood of Tasmanian fishermen. Thirdly, he said that the figure of 1 ,000 jobs which I said were in jeopardy in the southern Tasmanian community was without foundation and therefore implied that I was misleading the Senate.

As to the first charge, it is sufficient to say that the Australian Department of Defence reviewed the joint fishing venture proposal with the Russian fishing corporation Sovrybflot and Henry Jones (IXL) Ltd and cleared it to go ahead within Australian waters and jurisdiction. Secondly, as to the charge that I am not concerned with the livelihood of Tasmanian fishermen, I state that the joint fishing venture would have opened up a completely new fish resource, jack mackerel, for which there is no Australian market. The joint venturers would have opened up a new export market enabling Tasmanian and other Australian fishermen to engage in that new resource and to sell at world market prices to the joint venturers. It would have added to the livelihood of Tasmanian and Australian fishermen. Thirdly, as to the charge that I was perhaps misleading the Senate in speaking of 1,000 jobs being in jeopardy, that shows that Senator Rae has no conception of the scope of the venture which was designed to provide provendering for 300 to 400 vessels, a fish processing plant -

Senator Archer:

– What rubbish!

Senator TATE:

- Senator Archer compounds the attack on me -

Senator Archer:

– Absolute rubbish!

Senator TATE:

– The honourable senator compounds the attack on me with his interjection that I am speaking absolute rubbish.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Tate, continue with your statement on how you were misrepresented.

Senator TATE:

-I am being continually misrepresented by way of interjection. The joint fishing venture would have provided jobs connected with the provendering of 300 to 400 vessels, a fish processing plant, a dry dock facility and accommodation facilities for hundreds of Russian fishermen when exchanging crews. The best estimates of joint venturers on the commercial judgment of Henry Jones (IXL) Co. Ltd and Sovrybflot -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator is correctly making a personal explanation, claiming to have been misrepresented. How far can he reasonably go in making his statement?

The PRESIDENT:

– He must not debate the issue but he is quite in order at the moment. I call Senator Tate.

Senator TATE:

- Mr President, I am establishing within the shortest compass possible that I in no way misled the Senate by speaking of 1 ,000 jobs. I was relying on the best commercial judgment of Australian and Russian joint venturers. I conclude by stating that it is a matter of regret that Senator Rae should attack me in this way rather than try to help lay the foundations for Hobart becoming the world’s logistic centre for research and development in the Antarctic region.

page 782

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL STAFF

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 5 March Senator Colston asked me a question relating to the employment of a staff member of the Minister for Science and the Environment as a reporter for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Mr Staley has written to Senator Colston, and I raise the matter now purely because the question having been asked in public, I thought something should go on the record with respect to it. Mr Staley advises that the Australian Broadcasting Commission informed him that Mr O’ Sullivan, who is on the personal staff of Mr Thomson as an electorate assistant, does not work as a reporter for the ABC. He has never been a full time officer of the ABC, although he has worked as a freelance journalist in Cairns from time to time. This employment was of a purely casual nature to present news bulletins and to conduct occasional interviews. I am assured by the ABC that MrO ‘Sullivan is no longer employed on this basis and indeed has not been for some weeks.

If I could add slightly to that, I am advised that at no time did MrO ‘Sullivan have any editorial control over news bulletins that he was employed to read. That is the job of the journalist in charge. At all times MrO’Sullivan was under the supervision and control of ABC employees. The only programming he undertook was selection of music and general organisation of timing of programs. The matter does not appear to be one of great sensitivity.

page 782

RIGHTS OF SMALL BUSINESSMEN

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Puplick proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The need to secure adequate protection for the rights of small businessmen against boycotts or threats by companies or trade unions.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– I submit that the following is a matter of importance for the Senate to discuss, namely:

The need to secure adequate protection for the rights of small businessmen against boycotts or threats by companies or trade unions.

I believe that it will be useful for the Senate to spend some time debating the rights of small businesses in Australia and, indeed, the rights of individuals in Australia. I think it important to establish at the outset the scope of the small business sector in Australia at the moment. The Trade Practices Consultative Committee in its report ‘Small Businesses and the Trade Practices Act’, volume 1, December 1979, stated:

  1. . small business constitutes approximately 90% of business enterprises by number in Australia, and accounts for approximately 40% of employment in the private sector and somewhere between 20% and 25% of Gross non-farm Domestic Products.

That translates into the fact that there are some 370,000 separate individual enterprises within that category, and that there are some 1 . 6 million people employed in the small business sector in Australia. The need for particular protection for small business against boycotts and against intimidation has been recognised for a long time. In August 1976 the Trade Practices Act Review Committee, the Swanson Committee, reported in the following terms:

We consider that a collective boycott, i.e. an agreement that has the purpose of or the effect of or is likely to have the effect of restricting the persons or classes of persons who may be dealt with, or the circumstances in which, or the conditions subject to which, persons or classes of persons may be dealt with by parties to the agreement, or any of them, or by persons under their control, should be prohibited if it has a substantial adverse effect on competition between the parties to the agreement or any of them or competition between those parties or any of them and other persons.

The Committee went on to say: we consider that there should be a general prohibition upon an agreement which prevents or restricts or is likely to prevent or restrict, the engaging in of competitive conduct by all or any of the parties to the agreement, whether among themselves or with other persons, where that agreement has, or is likely to have. a substantial adverse effect on competition in the market or markets in which any of the parties to the agreement operate or, but for the existence of the agreement, would or would be likely to operate.

That was translated into legislative reality by amendments made to the Trade Practices Act in 1977. The then Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, Mr Howard, in introducing the amendment which has now come to be known as section 45D, in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives on 3 May 1977 said:

Collective secondary boycotts are prohibited where they have both the purpose and effect of either substantially damaging a particular business or substantially lessening competition in a market. Secondly, the Government believes that the Trade Practices Act should take an even handed approach to secondary boycotts and apply, so far as possible, to both business and employees alike . . . The previous approach of section 45d to deal only with the actions of employees has been altered so that the section now applies to the conduct of any person.

In contrast to our attempt to protect the position of small businessmen in Australia through the operation of section 45d, yesterday in the House of Representatives the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lionel Bowen, said:

Section 45d has no right at all to be in the Trade Practices Act.

Going on from there, he called for the repeal of section 45 d, implying that it was useless, that it had no effect and that it had no real purpose. Yet, within a matter of minutes Mr Bowen was to be contradicted by his front bench colleague, Mr Young, who in one of those temporary lapses when he actually let the truth of the matter slip out said:

In some instances section 45d has intimidated some trade unions; action that might have been taken by some trade unions has not been taken because of section 45D.

There, from a front bench spokesman of the Opposition, is a quite clear statement in the Parliament and now in Hansard that section 45 d has had the effect of preventing certain action being taken by trade unions when otherwise it would have been taken. This issue, crystallised in the Leon Laidely case, involves many different facets. There are the individual rights of Leon Laidely, there is the oppressive role of large unions, there is the collusive role of large corporations, there is also the supine role of the New South Wales State Labor Government and the active participation of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the destruction of the livelihood of Mr Leon Laidely.

What of Mr Laidely ‘s rights? There are those who claim to be genuinely concerned but who in fact say: ‘Sure, let Mr Laidely have some rights, provided that, firstly, they do not bother us; secondly, the cost of giving effect to them is prohibitive; and, thirdly, they effectively come to mean nothing whatsoever’. There is the role of the trade union movement in this dispute. It seeks the unfettered exercise of what it considers its right- the right to destroy those who do not kowtow to it and to wreak whatever havoc it thinks fit upon the public of New South Wales or Australia generally.

There is the role of the multi-national corporations, Amoco Australia Pty Ltd and Total Australia Ltd. Where now are the Australian Labor Party’s shrill screams and embittered denunciations of ‘wicked multinationals’? Once hand in hand with the unions, according to members of the Labor Party these multinationals have suddenly become actors of unqualified rectitude and industrial players of implicit propriety. What of the role specifically of Amoco? It has been happy to dump Mr Laidely who, after all, had been with Amoco for only 18 yearssince it started its operations in New South Wales. What is to be its pay-off? Is it that it has now secured the contract to supply petrol to the New South Wales Public Transport Commission? Is it, in fact, that the price of Amoco ‘s industrial prostitution is now to be measured not in pieces of silver but in litres of petrol?

What of the role of the State Government? Credit has been given by some people to the New South Wales Government for apparently arranging some sort of settlement. The members of the motoring public of New South Wales know better. They know who runs things in Sydney; they know who decided what was and what was not an essential service. They know who made the decisions about who could have petrol and who could not. The people who run Meals on Wheels knew who they had to plead with to get supplies of petrol to cater for those people who are in need of help. It certainly was not the New South Wales Government or the New South Wales Minister for Energy that they had to beg to for permission to carry on.

What of the role of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? How do judicial members of the Commission square their sacrifice of Leon Laidely with the principle that I foolishly thought guided all judges, namely, justice for all, equal justice for all- equal justice for the small as well as the big, for the individual as well as the corporation? When people speak of getting rid of section 45d and using the Conciliation and Arbitration Act perhaps they are mindful and supportive of the comment made in this morning’s Canberra Times by Don Rawson, who wrote:

The primary task of the Arbitration Commission is to secure as much peace in industry as it can. This means holding the ring between the big employers and the big unions, and on the record so far no small business which gets in the way can expect help or sympathy from the commission.

It is no wonder that people say: ‘Well, in that case, the way out of this is to put everything under the control of the Commission because by doing so we will effectively make sure that small business gets crushed in the process’. In this instance Leon Laidely has been tried. He has been prosecuted by the union, has not been defended by the company that had been his supplier for 1 8 years, and has been judged by the Commission. Collectively they have found him guilty, but guilty of what? He has been found guilty of being a small businessman, guilty of being an individual, guilty of not being powerful enough to get justice or to use industrial muscle. He has been sentenced to the destruction of his business which he has worked so hard to build up and to develop over such a long time.

This issue boils down to a test of the sort of society that we want. It is pan of the continuing battle of the corporate state, that beloved handmaiden of all totalitarians and socialists, against the individual. On this side of the chamber, senators stand for the rights of the individual. They recognise that it is only the Parliament which can protect the individual when he is under threat by large concentrations and monopolies, be they of capital, labour or the judiciary. It is this Parliament alone and its enactments and determination to protect the rights of individuals that stand as the only protection that the individual has. One of those important protections is section 45d.

I believe that the companies, in the fullness of time, will come to regret their acquiescence and support of union muscle in this matter. They will learn to their cost that the only benefit to be gained by surrendering to the tiger is that one acquires the privilege of being eaten last. They will come eventually to see the reality of that situation. The companies should bear in mind that in 1978 Leo Gorman was sacrificed. Now in 1980 Leon Laidely is to be sacrificed. Who will the unions determine is the next to be sacrificedanother individual, a group of individuals; individuals today and perhaps who or what tomorrow?

How is there any public interest that can possibly be protected by the destruction of individual rights? The Trade Practices Commission in its annual report for 1978-79 stated in relation to the Leo Gorman case:

This matter was finally decided in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which found that, in the light of the industrial situation then existing -

That is to say, the blackmail of the State of Victoria by the withholding of petrol supplies- it would be lacking in industrial reality -

That is to say, the inability of people to stand up to the muscle of the trade union movement- and contrary to the public interest for Mr Gorman to continue to seek to collect petrol with his own tankers.

It is claimed that it would be contrary to the public interest for an individual to demand the protection of his own individual rights by the law in Australia; that it would be contrary to the public interest for people to insist that they have a right to be able to compete in the market and a right to call upon people to protect their interests when they are under threat. All of a sudden it has become contrary to the public interest for individual rights to be protected in Australia. It has become contrary to the public interest for people to stand up for their rights. The New South Wales Branch Manager of Amoco Australia Ltd sent to Mr Laidley a letter, a copy of which was tabled in the House of Representatives yesterday and which appears in its Hansard of yesterday at page 837. He commenced by saying:

Dear Leon-

That must have been comforting for a person who has been in an arrangement with the company for 18 years. The branch manager goes on to make a lengthy explanation about why the current situation has arisen. He concludes by saying:

In the interests of industrial peace and due to circumstances beyond its control, Amoco is unable to supply your Company with petroleum products.

The phrase ‘in the interests of industrial peace and due to circumstances beyond its control ‘, if anything, is the perfect cop-out by a large company. The company has not made the decision because it wants to get its petrol back on the road, because the dispute is costing it money, or because it is to the company’s economic advantage to find a settlement; the company says that it has made the decision in the public interest. The price of the public interest has been Leon Laidely. At the end of the day what is it that the apologists have all finally agreed upon? They have agreed upon peace at any price; peace at the price of Leo Gorman last time; peace at the price of Leon Laidely this time; peace at the price of surrender to industrial muscle and blackmail; peace at the price of capitulation to the strong and the abandonment of the weak; and peace at the price of the triumph of the big organisation and the destruction of the individual.

It is peace by surrender; indeed, peace without any shred of honour. Does it not remind honourable senators of Europe in the 1930s when there was peace at the price of Abyssinia, peace at the price of the Sudetenland, peace at the price of the Anschluss and peace at the price of Czechoslovakia? Perhaps in the long run this situation will come to the same thing. While the unaccountable, unrepetent and almost uncontrollable monopolies of capital and labour, aided and abetted now by the New South Wales Labor Government and the judiciary, continue to raise the cost of this so-called peace to intolerable levels they end up leaving Australia with their self-serving peace at the cost of the basic liberties of free individual men and women throughout Australia. Those rights can be protected only by this Parliament when it makes laws for the protection of individuals and is then prepared to see that those laws are given effect to and is prepared to see that individual rights are not sacrificed to some vision of what the corporate state requires and what the public interest requires in terms of the destruction of individuals. These advocates of industrial peace at any price would do well to mark the words written several centuries ago by Tacitus: ‘Atqui ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant’- they make it into a desert and they call it peace. This Parliament cannot countenance buying peace if that is now the asking price.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator Puplick which refers to the need to secure adequate protection for the rights of small businessmen against boycotts or threats by companies or trade unions. The Opposition does not oppose the motion. However, we have some concern about some of the matters that have been raised by Senator Puplick. It might have been helpful if he had phrased his motion to use the term ‘small businessman, Mr Leon Laidely’ instead of using the term ‘small businessmen’. At the beginning of his remarks Senator Puplick expressed a general concern. He said that it was useful for the Senate to debate the rights of small business and the rights of individuals in Australia. We share that view. It is useful to debate such matters. He went on then to indicate the size of the small business sector and its importance to the Australian economy.

The Opposition shares Senator Puplick ‘s concern about the situation of small business in Australia and it shares his concern about the growth of the corporate state which has been very rapid in this country in the last 30 years, 27’ years of which we have had Federal Liberal government. If Senator Messner who is to follow me in this debate asked small businessmen in South Australia about their attitudes to the Tonkin Government he would find that they are concerned about the plight of small businesses under the policies announced by that Government.

Senator Lewis:

– You are not concerned about the trade union involvement.

Senator BUTTON:

– I am coming to that, Senator Lewis. The honourable senator should not worry. If Senator Lewis wants to debate industrial relations with me, he should move a motion about industrial relations and I will be happy to debate the subject with him. At the moment we are talking about the plight of small business. This was a matter about which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) expressed the greatest concern in 1975. In his 1975 policy speech he said:

Small business and private companies in particular are in desperate straits. In our first Budget we will change the tax rules which operate unfairly against small business and private companies.

I would have thought that one of the chief concerns of small business in Australia was to survive. That is the prime right of any small businessman or any businessman for that matter. The Prime Minister seemed to recognise that in 1 975 when he referred to small business being in desperate straits.

Senator Lewis:

– Do you agree with it?

Senator BUTTON:

-The Prime Minister went on to say by way of a promise, Senator Lewis, that as a first stage in the implementation of the Mathews Committee recommendations on company taxation, a stock valuation adjustment would be introduced. We know the history of that; it was scrapped last year. The Prime Minister promised:

Shareholders in private companies will be given the option of being taxed as a partnership in order to minimise the double taxation of private company income.

That promise has never been implemented by the Fraser Government. In the Prime Minister’s policy speech of 1 977, dealing again with small business, he said:

Private enterprise is the source of most of Australia’s jobs, We will take further steps to assist business so that new jobs can be created. Times have been difficult for Australia ‘s thousands of small businessmen. We have helped all business with our tax concessions on trading stocks and so on and we will make more finance available to small business through the Commonwealth Development Bank and the AIDC.

Senator Messner:

– Which we have.

Senator BUTTON:

-I will come to that in a minute. Honourable senators opposite should not get excited. If they lead with their chins they have to cop it on their chins. We will deal with these matters as we come to them. The Prime Minister went on to say:

It will now take steps to make access to finance easier by an extension of the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank to enable it to lend to all kinds of business, including equity finance for small businesses:

He also stated that finance would be easier to obtain by: an extension of the Australian Industry Development Corporation’s activities in small businesses, including possibly joint ventures with States and private sector institutions, in the provisions of finance.

The Reserve Bank and major groups of financial institutions have been informed that it is Government policy for adequate finances to be available to small businesses without arbitrary limits.

Honourable senators should look at all these promises and expressions of concern about small businesses which have been made by this Government and by its Prime Minister. The first matter I want to deal with is the fact that the Government has extended the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank but it has not placed the Bank in a position to permit overdraft financing of small business. There has been no extension of the AIDC’s activities as promised. In relation to the promise about the Reserve Bank, the Senate will be familiar with the fact that in answers to questions on this matter the Treasurer, Mr Howard, has indicated quite recently that it was not the policy of the Government to discriminate against small business but acknowledged that these problems had arisen. One can go right through this material, this record of promises in relation to small businesses, and see a picture of total failure in respect of the small businessman’s primary right which we would say is to survive in the context of the current economic situation.

Of course, Senator Puplick ‘s remarks went much wider than small business when he talked about the plight of individuals and small shareholders. What has this Government done about the plight of the small shareholder? Senator Lewis and his colleagues are always ready to interfere in relation to trade unions but they have not done much about the sort of comment made by Sir Cecil Looker on 13 December 1979 in relation to the transactions of Ansett Transport Industries Ltd. Sir Cecil Looker is an expert in these matters as a result of his associations with Associated Securities Ltd. When talking about the ATI transactions he said:

When Abeles and his merry men returned from the US with a deal which they put before Ansett to sign where was the concern for the small shareholders then? They were left out in the cold.

These are matters to which Senator Puplick could well address his attention in the context of his general remarks. I referred to the promises made by the Government in relation to small business. The most important promise made to small businessmen concerned interest rates. The rate of interest of overdrafts of less than $100,000 has recently risen by one half of a percent.

Senator Messner:

- Mr Deputy President, under Standing Order 419 1 ask you to rule on the relevancy of Senator Button’s remarks.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no point of order.

Senator BUTTON:

– It is estimated that this rise in interest rates will cost small businessmen $50m. I can understand Senator Messner’s passionate concern to prevent these facts being made known to the small businessmen of Australia, having launched himself on this exercise. But the important point is that this is what has happened under this Government.

Senator Teague:

– What about Laidely?

Senator BUTTON:

– We are not in government. It is the function of an Opposition to try to stimulate better government in this country. If Senator Teague does not like the process of being stimulated I suggest that he leave the Senate. I could go through all the promises that have been made by this Government but I refer to the promise about interest rates. The Government, by way of a seduction to small business in Australia, promised in 1977 that interest rates would be reduced by 2 per cent in the next 12 months. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony), always ready to open his mouth on these matters, said that if interest rates did not fall by 2 percentage points in the next 12 months he would eat his hat. I suggest that Senator Puplick commend that course to the Deputy Prime Minister of this country.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Aren’t you going to say something about trade unions?

Senator BUTTON:

– Of course I will say something about trade unions. But I will summarise the matters to which I have referred. I make the point that under the Fraser Government small business which is the subject of the matter of public importance and the concern of Senator Puplick and others -

Senator Lewis:

– Adequate protection.

Senator BUTTON:

– If Senator Lewis would listen to me for a moment he would know that I made the point that the prime interest of small business is to survive. Bankruptcies in Australia under the Fraser Government have increased by 1 1 7 per cent in four years. Where is the concern about the fate of those small businessmen who went to the wall under the policies of this Government? No doubt somebody on the Government side who is passionately concerned about this issue will tell us about that. The most important concern which we have as a party for small business and the misplaced concern which Senator Puplick seems to have is that small businessmen should continue to survive. As Senator Puplick said, 90 per cent of the businesses of this country employ 40 per cent of the people of this country and produce 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the wealth of this country. Those are the things about which small business must be primarily concerned.

Let me turn now to the question which has concerned Government senators for very obvious reasons. I refer to the aspect of the matter of public importance which relates to boycotts. The Opposition has said right from the time of the introduction of the present Trade Practices Act into the Australian Parliament that it would not work in terms of industrial relations in this country. What did the Government do? Ever astute to produce a derivative society in this country, it borrowed from the United States a provision relating to secondary boycotts which exists in the United States legislation and incorporated that in the Trade Practices Act. Trade practices legislation relates basically to competition between businesses. Ever since the present Government has been in office it has watered down the provisions of the trade practices legislation which deal with basic questions of competition. It has been conceptually wrong on this one issue from the beginning. It has made Australia a derivative society, it has borrowed from the Americans and has incorporated in our legislation something which is totally alien to the institutions which have been developed in this country. The United States of America does not have a conciliation and arbitration system. It does not have a conciliation and arbitration Act. Industrial negotiation in the United States is basically carried out by collective bargaining. It is in the context of competition and restrictive trade practices that the question of secondary boycotts becomes very important.

Senator Lewis:

– We would have had difficulty borrowing the legislation from the Soviets, wouldn’t we?

Senator BUTTON:

-Of course the Government would have had difficulty. It has borrowed the legislation from the United States, having not one whit of imagination of its own and not one whit of understanding of the nature of the industrial relations system in this country. That is the Achilles heel of conservative governments in this country. They do not understand the nature of the system which has been developed and which they support time and again. The Government says: ‘Go back to the umpire’. But it says that only if a matter is being negotiated in a different way. When it comes to a basic industrial relationship with which the matter of public importance is presumably concerned, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act disappears.

Senator Messner:

– Will you deal with the question now?

Senator BUTTON:

– I have been saying to honourable senators opposite all along that if they want to protect small business in this country and if they are so concerned about it they should get off their plush red seats in this chamber and tell the Prime Minister of Australia that he should honour some of his promises to small business- about six in number- that he made in 1975 and 1977. They should get off their plush seats and tell Mr Anthony to eat his hat as a result of his promise about interest rates which vitally affect small businessmen in Australia. They should listen to the voices of Opposition senators who have been quite consistent on this issue. We do not solve what are essentially industrial disputes by chickening out of dealing with them within the system where they appropriately belong.

Senator Teague:

– What about Laidely?

Senator BUTTON:

-What about Mr Laidely? Mr Laidely is a man who entered into agreements with trade unions and broke them. If he is the man whom honourable senators opposite want to defend they should put it on the line about Mr Laidely. He is not a typical small businessman in Australia. The typical small businessman in Australia is the one who has been going broke under this Government. That is what we are concerned about. That is what the Government has to be concerned about.

Senator Messner:

– Tell us about the agreement.

Senator BUTTON:

-If the honourable senator will cease interjecting for a minute I will tell him all I can. The point which I seek to make is that we have consistently said that the provisions of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act do not settle these problems; they promote them. Only yesterday we moved in the House of Representatives for their deletion. If honourable senators look at the Gorman and Laidely cases, about which they are so concerned and as a result of which thousands of small businessmen and other members of the public have suffered, they will see that they were both settled by the intervention of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. That is a fact, unpalatable as it may be to honourable senators opposite. If the Government is concerned about Mr Laidely- a man who breaks his agreements with trade unions- as distinct from the thousands and thousands of small businessmen to whom Senator Puplick referred, it can stick to him.

There is also the question of public interest, which is of vital concern to all businessmen and citizens of this country. The important thing is to find the mechanisms which will best resolve disputes of the nature we have been talking about in connection with Senator Puplick ‘s proposition, the sorts of specifics of this subject of very general concern which he has raised about the plight of small businesses. Section 45D has done tremendous harm to the public interest. The Government has been consistently warned over the last four years that it would do tremendous harm. The Government has been warned about it not only by us but also by industrial relations experts. It has been warned of its inappropriateness to the Australian social and political scene. It has been warned about the dangers inherent in all of these potential disputes which can be inflamed by the intervention of lawyers advising a particular businessman. The people who suffer from those sorts of things are the members of the public of Australia. They include, as I have said, numerous small businessmen, thousands of whom have gone broke under the policies of the present Government.

I would suggest that Senator Puplick shows his concern in a very genuine way by going back and telling the Prime Minister that he ought to honour a few of his promises, that he ought to repeal this provision of the trade practices legislation and that he ought to take up the challenge which has been offered to him by the Premier of New South Wales to try to solve this problem in a fundamental way by supporting a referendum which would provide the Commonwealth Parliament with powers to make laws relating to all these matters.

Senator Lewis:

– But you would not want us to use them.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, we would. The Labor Party would support it. Half the troubles of this country are caused by conflict between State and Federal laws on this issue and conflict between State and Federal awards. If the Government is concerned about the public interest in these matters, those are some of the things that I advise it to do. We commend the concern behind this proposition and we do not oppose it, but the Government must at least smarten its footwork in the way it goes about the matter.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Townley)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I agree with a great deal of what Senator Button has said, particularly his statement that a great deal of the disputation in this country is caused by the difference between State and Federal awards. Unhappily, I heard of the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to a simple question asked yesterday in the House of Representatives by a member of the Australian Labor Party as to whether he would take the initiative in pushing the simplification and overcoming the duplication in State and Federal awards, as he quite properly put forward at the Premiers Conference, and as Mr Wran did as recently as a week ago or so. But again, I am afraid, Mr Fraser ‘s stance in the House yesterday was not as noble or big thinking as his stance was at the Premiers Conference as he turned in a political answer.

I commend Senator Puplick for proposing that the Senate discuss today the need to secure adequate protection for the rights of small businessmen against boycotts or threats by companies or trade unions. I admire also his quick footwork in getting his proposition before Mr President at one minute past midnight, beating me into Mr President’s office by a few minutes. In passing, I make the comment that it is time we stopped the absurd situation of having honourable senators hanging around the corridors of this place like Cinderellas until one minute past midnight in order to slip a note into Mr President’s office.

Senator Georges:

– You have not been here long enough to find out what are the alternative means.

Senator CHIPP:

-I would hope to get unanimous agreement that it is an absurd situation. We ought to look at the situation which prevails in the House of Representatives, where Mr Speaker has some discretion as to which proposition to choose.

Senator Georges:

– Oh, no, we will not go that far.

Senator CHIPP:

– The Senate has an impartial President, Senator Georges. I agree with most of what Senator Puplick said as well. My remarks today will be limited to the situation in the oil industry. I allege that oil companies are ripping an incredible amount of money off the consumers and are also doing exactly what Senator Puplick does not want big business to do, that is, driving small businesses out of business. I am speaking about the independent retailers. I hope that Senator Puplick will be equally zealous in pressing their cause as he has with Mr Laidely, whose cause incidentally the Australian Democrats totally support. I commend Mr Fraser and the Government for the action they have taken regarding Mr Laidely. I wanted to say that publicly. There is abundant evidence that the Government is allowing oil companies to get away with a colossal rip-off on petrol prices. 1 am talking about the official maximum wholesale price set by the Prices Justification Tribunal for petrol and other petroleum products. I am very critical of the actions of the PJT in this respect. I do not know whether I am being fair in doing so as I do not know whether it is the PJT’s fault or the Government’s fault for nobbling its powers, but the PJT is granting or rubber-stamping applications for price increases in petrol to an outrageous degree.

For example, on 29 January last it granted increases ranging from 3.4c a litre for standard grade petrol of British Petroleum to 4.89c a litre for that of Total. The maximum wholesale price for standard petrol in Melbourne how ranges from 29.97c a litre for BP petrol to 31.92c for Esso petrol. My contention is that that price is too high. It must be too high because of the way in which the oil companies can discount petrol to various retailers. I am not in a position and I do not think the PJT is in a position to look at the unit costs and the costs or retailing, advertising distribution and whatever. But, taking it from the other end, if the oil companies can offer petrol to certain retailers of their choice at 4c, 5c or 6c a litre below the maximum wholesale price set by the PJT, logic demands that one must conclude that the price set by the PJT is far too high. Nobody in his wildest imagination would believe that the oil companies would sell petrol to retailers or to consumers at a loss. That beggars imagination. I believe that the conclusion that I make is inescapable.

Senator Georges:

– Where did you get those figures of 4c, 5c and 6c a litre? They seem to be extravagant.

Senator CHIPP:

– I will come to those. I have evidence in my file from Western Australian retailers of those sorts of discounts having been offered.

Senator Georges:

– Per gallon?

Senator CHIPP:

– A litre. I give an example of one operator who leases his site in the Perth metropolitan area. He purchases super petrol at 31.28c a litre and retails it at 34.9c a litre. This gives him a margin of only 1 1 Vi per cent for costs, charge accounts, overdrafts, et cetera, which is barely enough. Before the latest price rise his margin was 14 per cent. The only rebate he gets from the Caltex organisation is 0.00 1 3c a litre. To keep his head above water he has to sell his petrol at 34.9c a litre. Five other service stations within 100 metres of him, including two self-service company owned service stations, retail petrol at 32.2c a litre, which is 2.7c a litre less than the retail price of the independent operator. Let me explain my fears in this matter. There are three kinds of persons who retail petrol. One is the independent operator who owns his service station, buys the petrol from the oil company, usually at a very high price, adds his margin and sells it to the motorist. The second type is the person who leases the service station from the oil company but still buys the petrol from the oil company, puts his own mark-up on it and then sells it to the consumer. The third category is the person who simply sits at the cashier’s desk and takes the money.

The property is owned by the oil company. The petrol is owned by the oil company. The oil company pays most of the cost. He virtually is just a cashier. I allege that it is the aim of oil companies in Australia to drive types 1 and 2 totally out of business so that the companies in fact have a monopoly of the retailing of this precious resource. One can look at their marketing policies where they are in fact driving the independents out of business by charging at a greatly discounted rate the petrol to their own totally owned service stations. The PJT and the Government, by allowing this too high price for petrol, are facilitating and assisting the oil companies to drive independents out of business. I would have thought not only that these people are important- the Laidleys and the thousands of other independent service operators are important, in terms of Senator Puplick ‘s matter of public importance- but it is even more important than they because this means that this precious disappearing resource, petrol, is coming under the influence of a monopoly, a multinational group of companies.

I will be conservative, to satisfy Senator Georges. I have not checked the statistics, I will err on the side of conservatism. Let us imagine that there are five million motorists in Australiathere are many more, but let us take that figureand that each of them buys 50 litres of petrol a week. Again that is a conservative estimate. Let us assume that each of them is paying 3c per litre more than he should for the petrol. In other words, the oil companies- not the independent retailers, but the oil companies- are receiving a super profit of 3c per litre. That means that there is a rip-off going on in this country today of the Australian motorist of something like $7lAm a week, every week of the year. To me that is a problem of gigantic proportions. I believe that is within the terms of Senator Puplick ‘s motion.

He will know of the battle that the Australian Democrats had to preserve the South Australian Southern Cross Petroleum Group, a group of 33 private, independent operators who were given seven days’ notice by the Golden Fleece company that they were not getting any more petrol. The operators went to every other oil company for petrol and were refused supplies. Yet other oil companies were buying up independents who had gone broke in the meantime because they could . not get petrol. The oil companies were putting their own shingle ‘Selfserve’ out front and opening up business with petrol coming out of their ears. That is one case that involved a group. Happily that situation has been resolved by public pressure. This, to me, clearly indicates a master plan on behalf of oil companies to get a monopoly.

I turn now to the disappointment that I have because of the Governments nonimplementation of the Fife package. This was an exciting document introduced on 30 October 1978 that promised three things: First, the oil companies would be prohibited from unfairly discriminating in price between their lessees or licensed dealers- that is what I have just been describing; secondly, that the prohibition on unfair price discrimination between lessees or licensed dealers would not impinge upon the freedom of oil companies to price their sales to other independent buyers, subject to the existing law; thirdly, the oil companies would be prohibited from their retailing petroleum through direct sales sites; fourthly, lessees or licensed dealers would be given the right to obtain compensation from oil companies for an unjust termination of their lease or license or a refusal by the oil company to renew a lease or a licence. When Mr Fife introduced that package on 30 October 1978-18 months ago-he said:

If the Government decides to adopt these measures they will be effective from today, October 30 1 978.

But the draft before us now is known as the Garland draft Bill and does not contain any retrospectivity. It does not prohibit breaking a Government promise that oil companies would be prohibited themselves from retailing petrol through direct sales sites. I believe it is scandalous that oil companies which have the importation, the manufacture, the wholesale distribution of this precious disappearing resource, should also be able to move towards a monopoly of retailing. In the State of Maryland in the United States of America, I understand that it is an offence for an oil company even to own a service station. This was the thrust of the Garland package which apparently has now been discarded by this Government. What is even worse is that the Garland Bill is going to remain on the table for public comment and discussion until this October. I believe that if the Government waits until October to bring in these restrictions, limited now though they are, every independent, battling Aussie retailer of petrol will have been sent to the wall. I shall quote a statutory declaration. If any honourable senator wants to see it, I will be happy to let him have it. It was given to me personally by a service station operator. The statutory declaration states:

I am a licensee of an Ampol service station and early in 1979 I negotiated to buy from an independent Australian oil company motor oil of specification and quality identical to that supplied by the major oil company to its service stations. It was my intention to purchase this oil at 37 cents per litre and re-sell it at 42 cents per litre to service station lessees who were paying at that time 62 cents per litre to their supplying oil company.

In other words, this person could buy this motor oil 20 cents a litre cheaper than the oil companies were supplying it. He thought he was on to a good deal because he was still making a profit at 42c a litre. He goes on to swear:

I contacted 18 service station lessees, many of whom I have known for many years and did not receive one firm order and the reason given to me was that no-one was prepared to risk the consequences of buying from anyone other than their landlord.

The landlord is the oil company involved. We heard of all sorts of cases where price discrimination has been sending people bankrupt, where we have had the curtailing of supply by real or ficticious shortages’. We have had the terminating of franchises for no reason. We have even had the most outrageous thing in Western Australia where Shell demanded that a service station have an open, blank, signed cheque hanging up in the middle of the night by its bowser for the driver to collect, otherwise the company would deliver no petrol. I agree with the spirit of Senator Puplick ‘s motion. I implore him to be zealous in chasing after the oil companies, not only for the rip-off of all Australian consumers, but also for the way they are devastating the Aussie battler, the private, independent petrol retailer.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– It is ironic that a Government senator, obviously with Government support, should have the audacity to bring in any motion to the Senate professing concern about small business. Let us have a look at what has happened to small business since the Fraser Government has been in office. In just four years the number of bankruptcies has more than doubled. That is a major indicator of the condition that small business is in. In just four years the number of bankruptcies has more than doubled. On interest rates- always critical to small business which normally has borrowed about 50 per cent of its total funds, paying interest on the money- the long term bond rate hit 1 1.2 per cent a fornight ago. That is the highest it has ever been. It has never been so high before, even in 1950 when inflation under the then Menzies Liberal Government was running at 25 per cent.

Even at that time the long term bond rate did not hit the 1 1 .2 per cent which Malcolm Fraser has managed to achieve in the last few weeks. Of course, the Government, because it substantially abandoned discipline over the money supply again- something which it used to say a few years ago was critical to any responsible economic policy- has been trying to prevent other interest rates following that market rate upwards. It has not, of course, been entirely able to prevent it. It has flowed on to bank overdrafts. It flowed on to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia yesterday which is now charging 1 1 per cent on its small loans and 13W per cent on its larger advances. Inevitably, it will flow on into private residential building and thereby have a devastating impact on a major area of small business activity, that is, house building. Some small businessmen, who became bigger businessmen, have prospered, and I will say more about that later.

Obviously, the reason the Government chose today to bring in this ludicrous matter of public importance and thereby expose itself to welldeserved ridicule is that it thinks it can gain some political advantage because of an industrial dispute which has affected fuel deliveries in New South Wales in recent weeks and possibly because of another industrial dispute to which I will refer shortly. The matter is ludicrous in terms of the Government’s record, not ludicrous in itself. Indeed, the sentiments expressed are supported by the Opposition. It is not the matter of public importance which is ludicrous, it is the circumstances in which it was midwifed

I think it is necessary to give briefly some background about that industrial dispute. Some months ago Mr Laidely purchased a service station which had formerly been supplied by tanker drivers who were covered by a special award for oil company tanker drivers. It is a Federal award. Mr Laidely intended to use driver contractors- virtually contractors- who did not have an award as tanker drivers but operated under the New South Wales State transport award. Significant differences in remuneration and benefits are provided by those two awards. It was believed, I think with some justification, that the intention was that ultimately drivers who worked under this award would substantially displace drivers who worked under the Federal award. That was an industrial dispute, but thanks to the foolish amendment to the Trade Practices Act which was introduced in 1977 by the Fraser Government an industrial dispute inevitably will finish up in a judicial court, because the Fraser Government has attempted to enforce what is its industrial law through the Trade Practices Act.

The whole point of the Bills introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday by Mr Bowen is to get industrial disputes out of the civil courts, out of the judicial courts, and back into the industrial commission, where industrial disputes properly belong. It is not just an expression of value judgment to say that industrial disputes belong in an industrial court. There are very compelling, absolutely decisive reasons for doing that. The system cannot operate effectively in any other way. As Mr Bowen said yesterday, if industrial disputes are to be directed to judicial courts, as they will be as long as section 45 D remains in existence- we are put in the situation where a dispute is still continuing by way of private litigation in the Federal court and the Government cannot do anything about it. Under its own law, the Government cannot do anything about that private litigation currently before a judicial court. It can prevail upon the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, to mention one who has a record in this area, privately to use moral persuasion or appeal to the common sense of the parties involved in that litigation in a judicial court to withdraw the action. In the issue before last of the National Times, an article referring to an almost identical dispute a couple of years ago in Seymour, Victoria, stated:

During a private conversation with Gorman, Arbitration Court President Sir John Moore-

Gorman being the person who was in a situation analagous to that of Mr Laidely-

  1. . appealed to the businessman’s sense of national interest. Gorman eventually withdrew his court application under 4SD.

In that instance, the good offices of Mr Justice Moore managed to solve what otherwise might have been a dispute that dragged on literally for months and months. To quote from Mr Bowen ‘s speech yesterday in relation to his package of Bills, the purpose of which is to take issues such as this out of the judicial court and into the industrial court, he said: “ Can honourable members imagine there being any industrial peace or sanity in this nation if we had to wait for the decisions of a judicial court which was bound strictly by the rules of evidence, whose decisions were subject to appeal, and when the appeal decision was eventually subject to a High Court appeal if leave were granted for that?

I do not think I need to say any more about that aspect of the debate, except to comment on one of Senator Puplick ‘s statements. He quoted from the report of the Swanson Committee. As far as I know he quoted it correctly, but he quoted it selectively. The Swanson Committee recommended that these procedures be kept out of judicial courts, and the whole purpose behind the Bills Mr Bowen introduced yesterday is to get matters out of the judicial courts.

The matter of public importance refers to the need to secure adequate protection for the rights of small businessmen against boycotts or threats by companies or trade unions. The Opposition supports that. Indeed, I think there is a more than reasonable case to be made for adding something to it; that is, that as well as being protected against big business and unions, small business ought to have some protection against the depredations of other small- to become large- predatory businessmen and government. That raises the second irony, the second absurdity about the Government bringing this matter up at this time. The matter of public importance explicitly refers to the damage that boycotts can do to small business. On Monday we were told that the Government was going to boycott all wool exports from Australia. The Government, not a union, will boycott all wool exports. Yet a Government senator, with the approval of the Government, and wool growers almost inevitably are small businessmen, has the audacity to express concern about the damage that boycotts can do to small businessmen.

On the face of it, the Government’s decision to boycott wool exports is peculiar logic. Incidentally, it is a perfect example of a secondary boycott because the object of the boycott is to bring pressure on a third party to act in a way in which it might not otherwise have acted if that secondary boycott action had not been taken. It is a secondary boycott imposed by the Government, not by some union, and the Government professed earlier to be concerned about the long-term effects on the demand for Australian wool that would accrue to restraints on the supply of Australian wool. It was argued, and I guess there is some plausibility in the argument, that if a manufacturer in Japan or somewhere else cannot get Australian wool, he will either buy wool from somewhere else or he will use some other fibre and then might be reluctant to switch back to Australian wool when it becomes available. Whatever merit that belief may have had, the Government’s solution was to cut off all wool exports- not to restrict the supply but to embargo it altogether. That is very peculiar logic, I must say. Not even this Government would be so absurd as to take that action for that reason. Liberal-National Country Party governments have always danced to the wool brokers’ tune. They have done it for as long as there have been Liberal-National Country Party governments.

The situation in the wool industry until this week was that a dispute between the Australian Wool Selling Brokers Employers Federation and the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia was disrupting the dispatch of wool from Association brokers’ stores. It was not just possible; it was actually happening. Wool was bypassing the associated brokers, being sold through private treaty merchants and exported from the country. Like wool users, once wool growers break long standing habits and sell wool privately, that is, outside the associated brokers, they might continue to do so even when the associated brokers industrial dispute has been solved. In other words, the situation which existed until this week posed a threat to the long term interest of the associated brokers.

The Government, acting as Liberal and Country Party governments have always acted, took this ludicrous action to protect the wool brokers, not to protect the wool industry. Does anyone actually believe the Government’s official line when all the Government’s statements on the matter are put together? It strains credibility well beyond breaking point to accept that the Government, which purports to be concerned about restrictions on the supply of wool to other countries, solves the problem by cutting the supply off altogether. Of course, it has acted in this way because the associated brokers twisted its arm and told it to take this action, not to protect the wool industry but to protect the wool brokers.

The depredations, advantageous to small businessmen, upon other predatory small businessmen, fall roughly into two classes. There are the small businessmen who get a special advantage because of the position they hold or those who use the inside knowledge gained from the position they hold to trade as a principal. There have been a number of examples of this in Australian history, some recent and some not so recent. For example, Mr Fraser ‘s relatives obtained loans at a 4 per cent rate of interest. They obtained them illegally because they happened to be friendly and to have influence with influential people in the Government of Victoria and in the State bureaucracy of Victoria. The Prime Minister’s relatives, because they are the Prime Minister’s relatives, can get that sort of special advantage. That disadvantages all the other small businessmen. A senior Minister in the Government gained inside knowledge about the rezoning of land south-east of Melbourne and turned that knowledge into very profitable advantage for himself. Of course, that Minister was Mr Lynch. He then concocted some highly artificial arrangement so that he would not pay tax on the ill-gotten gains either. Under this Government, which has senior Ministers who are involved up to their ears in this sort of thing, how can anyone expect any sort of commercial morality to be viable in this country?

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

-Firstly, I commend my Liberal Party colleague from New South Wales, Senator Puplick, for bringing this matter forward today in the interests of small businessmen in Australia. Too seldom do we have the opportunity in the Senate to discuss the problems of small business. I commend him for doing this, particularly as such a case is in evidence in his own State at this very moment. I will read the wording of the matter of public importance. I thought that we were supposed to be talking to the matter of public importance. No one listening to the broadcast of proceedings on the radio would have any idea of what the subject matter being debated is because Opposition senators have not on one occasion addressed themselves to the subject matter. The matter of public importance reads:

The need to secure adequate protection for the rights of small businessmen against boycotts or threats by companies or trade unions.

Of course, that matter is relevant in Australia at any time. We know that the detailed law contained in the Trade Practices Act which, in all its forms has been brought before the Senate and discussed by honourable senators on many occasions in the past, does protect smaller firms against the predatory effects of larger firms. That was one of the major reasons for its introduction and for the support that was given to it by the Opposition in this place when it was passed in 1975. In 1977 we saw the amendment to section 45d of the Trade Practices Act as a result of the Swanson Committee recommendations to ensure that secondary boycotts, which were directed against small businessmen to drive them out of business, by employee organisations, employer organisations or suppliers of any sort, acting through a third party, were outlawed. At that time we saw a lot of jumping up and down by the Opposition in regard to this matter. (Quorum formed).

The Australian Labor Party being as it is, subject to the control of the trade union movement, must carry out a routine ritual defence of the situation by opposing the trade practices legislation even though it is obviously and clearly in the interests of the small business sector. Of course, this legislation is of great support to the competitive aspect of the free enterprise system. By doing this the Opposition is admitting the fact that it would like to see the destruction of the free enterprise system and consequently it does not seek to defend it. Section 45d of the Act is clearly designed to protect competition in the economy and the small businessmen. At the moment, of course, we are talking about the most recent case that is available to us, the case of Mr Laidely. The facts of that case provide a good case study for the Opposition when it considers the small business situation in Australia today. Senator Button found that he had nothing else to discuss other than matters totally unrelated to this aspect of the law. He talked about everything but that aspect. In fact, I did not think it was possible for him to talk for so long and not to mention anything in relation to the actual subject of the matter of public importance. The fact is that the Opposition will not face up to this matter. When one considers what happened recently in New South Wales, one can see pretty clearly why it does not face up to it.

I draw the Senate’s attention to an article that appeared in the Weekend Australian which described the way in which the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia is seeking to merge with the Transport Workers Union to establish a bottleneck or a stranglehold on business throughout Australia. Could anything be more uncompetitive than that? Could anything be more designed to destroy small business in Australia than that? Where is the cry from the Opposition that it seeks to protect small business in the light of that relationship? Not one word has been mentioned about that matter. In fact, honourable senators opposite have addressed themselves to every question they possibly could other than the most important ones that are affecting the very life-blood of small business and the free enterprise system in Australia. It is clearly obvious that this attitude will continue while members of the Opposition owe their livelihoods and their seats in this place to the trade union movement.

Let us look at some of the other things that the merger of the Federated Storemen and Packers Union and the Transport Workers Union perhaps may produce in Australia. The thought of that happening is quite horrific. I read that Mr Simon Crean will be the leading light in this new union which is going to control Australian affairs. Already in the last day or so on the waterfront in Sydney we have seen action taken by the Transport Workers Union of Australia in order to get themselves involved in the strike in which the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia is involved. So there is a direct relationship. In this article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald we see the headline ‘Storemen halt fuel supplies to shipping’. This is to restrict the bunkering of ships leaving Australia carrying Australian wool. Will that help the small businessman who is delivering goods to ships to be carried away on export?

Senator McLaren:

– Such as Nareen wool.

Senator MESSNER:

-Of course it is not. The Opposition is not at all concerned about the effects of that sort of activity.

I would draw the attention of the Senate to the very important part of the small business sector which the motor trades represent. If we refer to the Small Business and Trade Practices Act Review which was released recently by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland) and which was prepared by the Trade Practices Consultative Committee, at page 27 of that report, we will see that of the small enterprises engaged in various activities in Australia, the motor trades sector accounted for 10 per cent of all employment by small enterprises. I think that that is a highly significant part of the Australian small business sector and clearly it is one part which deserves support.

Senator Chipp talked earlier about measures by which the small business sector, particularly the petrol reseller, will be protected by the legislation to bc brought down by this Government and which indeed is being circulated at the present time. Those particular matters are the earnest and the demonstration of the activity of the Fraser Government in support of small business. But do we hear any cries about that from the Opposition? No. It is left to the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, to talk about that particular matter. There has been no cry at all from the Opposition. All we hear is this half-hearted, wet behind the ears defence of the trade union movement. (Quorum formed). I would just like to make the point that the exclusion of section 45d from the Trade Practices Act, if that were to happen, would be a gross inequity to the small business sector in Australia. That would mean that the Australian business sector would be wide open to attacks from the trade union movement whenever it saw fit. Nothing could be more destructive of small business or of competition in the economy. I am not being challenged on that, but I would like honourable senators to know that in the House of Representatives yesterday this very point was acknowledged by the spokesman for the Australian Labor Party on industrial relations, Mr Mick Young, when he said:

In some instances section 45d has intimidated some trade unions: action that might have been taken by some trade unions has not been taken because of section 45d.

To take the argument a little further, the point is that the trade union movement quite often tries to use the argument that secondary boycotts are somehow contemplated by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. But they are not. A boycott in the real sense, meaning a strike, is. A secondary boycott is not. Consequently this law enshrined in the Trade Practices Act properly to protect the interests of small businessmen, to preserve the elements of competition within the private enterprise economy, is clearly aimed at ensuring that the small and private business sector continues. I believe that we have now had adequate debate on this matter. We have heard absolutely no expression of opinion on this particular matter from the Opposition. I now move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, surely we will be allowed to answer the points raised by Senator Messner? In fact he has challenged us so to do.

The PRESIDENT:

– Under Standing Orders this matter cannot be debated.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 26

Majority……. 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 795

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-by leave- On 22 November 1979, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence tabled its report entitled ‘Australian Defence Procurement’. During the course of the investigations of the Sub-Committee on Defence Matters, allegations were made to the Sub-Committee that there had been intimidation by the Department of Defence of a prospective witness and a witness. The nature of the allegations was the subject of a separate hearing of the Sub-Committee on Defence Matters. Subsequently the Department of Defence was given an opportunity for those of its officers involved to reply to these allegations. The replies were forwarded by the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) on 19 November 1979.

The Sub-Committee received conflicting views on whether intimidation of the prospective witness and the witness actually took place. It understands the apprehension of these public servants in regard to what they believe to have been intimidation; it also appreciates the sensitivity of the Department of Defence to unfortunate Press publicity arising out of submissions placed before the Sub-Committee. On the evidence available the Sub-Committee cannot establish that such intimidation took place in relation to its investigation. Therefore the Committee and the Sub-Committee believe that further pursuit of the matter is unlikely to lead to a definite conclusion. The Committee and the Sub-Committee consider that it is essential that parliamentary committees should at all times have full access to all relevant evidence and that witnesses should have free access to give evidence, within the accepted rules relating to the disclosure of classified or other restricted information.

page 795

QUESTION

REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE

Ministerial Statement

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– by leave- In November 1977 the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare presented a report which it aptly titled ‘Drug Problems in Australia- an Intoxicated Society?’ The Government has given detailed consideration to this report and I now present a summary of the Government’s response to its proposals. Before doing this, however, I wish to point out that the Senate Committee’s report and the report of the Commonwealth Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, which has now been tabled, overlap to some extent in their consideration of drug problems. For this reason the Government has decided to deal with those aspects of the Senate Committee’s report relating to illegally used drugs as an integral part of its overall consideration of the Royal Commission’s report. This statement therefore relates solely to those parts of the Senate Committee ‘s report that deal with legally used drugs.

I should remind honourable senators that the Government’s response to the Senate Committee’s report comes at a time when the Government must balance the need to exercise continuing restraint on expenditure and flexibility in Budget strategy against the need to set in train positive action in some of the important directions proposed by the Senate Committee. The Committee’s primary recommendation was for the development by the Commonwealth of a broad long term healthoriented national strategy giving special consideration to the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, analgesics and illicit drugs. The Government has supported the concept of a national strategy in tabling the report of the Royal Commission. Over time and within the limits of its powers and resources, the Government will co-ordinate the implementation of the strategy with action on the Royal Commission’s report.

An effective attack against the problems caused by alcohol, tobacco, analgesics and barbiturates also requires action by State governments. Indeed, this point was made by the Senate Committee. It is against this background that the Commonwealth gives an assurance that it will do its best, in co-operation with the States, progressively to give effect to this strategy. As already announced, the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of DependenceNSCC may provide a useful forum for discussion of the issues. Such a strategy would require the Commonwealth to accept leadership responsibility in combating abuse of all drugs and the problems deriving from this abuse; drug abuse should be recognised as both a social and a medical problem, although one that may have legal implications; priority should be given to those drugs which have the most adverse effect on public health, particularly where usage puts others at risk; and programs should be closely directed to their particular aims, and their effects monitored.

A major aspect of the drug problem is that any regulatory restraints which Commonwealth or State governments impose on the production or use of alcohol, tobacco and other legally used drugs will have significant effects on primary industry, on manufacturers, on distributors, on retailers and on consumers. These important aspects have to be weighed against the undoubted disadvantage and harm caused to the community by the irresponsible use of drugs. The Senate Committee made 68 other detailed recommendations concerning licit drugs. I shall now summarise the action the Government proposes to take in relation to these.

A specific policy on alcohol and alcohol abuse has been adopted by the Government. In the terms of that policy, the Government will employ preventive and curative measures to combat alcohol abuse. The Government will endeavour to persuade those whose consumption is presently acceptable from abusing alcohol in future and will do what it can to reduce consumption where it is already excessive. To achieve its aims the Government will use both general and specific approaches. The ideal general approach would be to discourage alcohol over-use and abuse while not restricting the freedom to drink responsibly. Unfortunately, no such ideal approach has yet been developed, here or overseas, but the Government will encourage such development.

As examples of specific approaches, the Government strongly supports a number of recommendations of the Senate Committee concerning drink-driving. As these are matters for State legislation, they will be sponsored and supported by the Commonwealth at the Australian Transport Advisory Council. Rather than require a ban on advertising of alcoholic beverages, as recommended by the Senate Committee, the Government has decided to continue to rely on the voluntary code which has been developed by media and alcoholic beverages industry groups. The operation of this code is oversighted by the Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Council and monitored regularly by the Commonwealth Department of Health. The Government will seek an extension of the code to discourage the use of sporting and other personalities in the promotion of alcoholic beverages. Its intention in doing this is to discourage irresponsible drinking.

The Government recognises that the introduction of the Senate Committee’s proposals relating to the use of taxation policies to reduce the overall consumption of alcohol would have significant implications for the Budget, the overall level of prices, the relative price structure of alcoholic drinks, and the wine, brewing and spirits industries. For example, to equalise taxes on beer, wine and spirits on the basis of alcohol content at existing levels of tax applying to spiritsone recommendation of the Senate Committeewould require 29c additional excise on a typical bottle of beer, $1.76 on a typical bottle of table wine and $3.23 on a typical bottle of fortified wine. Clearly, such proposals would have serious implications. The Government will, however, take health considerations into account when formulating levels of excise on alcohol in future Budgets.

I now turn to the Senate Committee’s recommendations concerning tobacco. The Government recognises that smoking at any level is harmful to health. Therefore, as with beer, wine and spirits, health considerations will be taken into account in formulating the level of tobacco excise in future Budgets. As regards the Tobacco Industry Trust Account, discussions will be held with the tobacco industry on possible redirection of funding for research into alternative varieties of tobacco leaf having a less detrimental effect on health. For those smokers who cannot break the habit, practical assistance will be offered. To enable an informed choice by these smokers, tar and nicotine yields will be required to be printed on cigarette packets, and action taken to reduce progressively the tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes. The timing of these reductions will be discussed with the tobacco industry.

In summary, the Government supports the Senate Committee’s report in general principle, bearing in mind that the speed of implementation must be tailored to emerging circumstances and that the effects of decisions as they are taken will need to be monitored by continual evaluation. On behalf of honourable senators and the Government, I thank the Senate Standing Committee for its valuable contribution in providing a broad ranging traverse from a wide field of experience and views on the range of problems in the drug field in Australia and the possible methods of tackling them. I have now a response to all of the recommendations of the Senate Committee and I seek leave to have that incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT FROM SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE ON DRUG PROBLEMS IN AUSTRALIA

( Licit Drugs Aspects Only)

Recommendation I

That all Governments in Australia adopt the seven declarations of the proposed national strategy as the basis or the strategy for their approach to drug abuse.

Response

The Government supports the national strategy as proposed and, over time and within limits of its powers and resources, will co-ordinate implementation of the strategy with follow-up action in relation to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. Implementation of this recommendation will also incorporate action on the Government’s policy on alcohol and alcohol abuse. (See response to Recommendation 38.)

Recommendation 2

That blood alcohol level be expressed in Standard International Units (millimoles per litre) and that the new system be phased in with appropriate publicity.

Response

The Commonwealth will support and sponsor through the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) when the introduction of Standard International Units makes this change appropriate.

Recommendation 3

That governments and the public use the term ‘road crash ‘ instead of’ road accident’.

Response

The Commonwealth will support and sponsor at ATAC and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NH&MRC).

Recommendations 4 to 7

That government imposts on all alcoholic beverages be adjusted annually so that real prices of the beverages remain constant.

That government revenue policies operate to keep at approximately the same level the prices of the absolute alcohol contained in beer, in wine and in spirits, bearing in mind that the Government has at its disposal various revenue devices with which it can achieve this aim.

That a sates tax or excise on wine be phased in over a period which will enable the wine industry to adjust appropriately.

That the excise imposed on beers of a low alcohol content (defined as not more than 2.5 per cent by weight) be 30 per cent less than that on other beers.

Response

Tax rates on alcohol are matters to be determined in a budgetary context: the Government will take health considerations into account in setting those rates.

Recommendation 8

That the Commonwealth Department of Health and the health policy body in each State and Territory continually monitor the levels and patterns of alcohol consumption and formally advise their respective Governments, before each budget, of the health considerations to be taken into account when examining excise and other revenue from alcohol.

Response

The Commonwealth Department of Health already performs this function.

The States’ attention is being drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendation 9

That the Federal Government take urgent steps to introduce into the Commonwealth Public Service an appropriate program to deal with alcohol abuse, and that all possible encouragement be given to the State Public Services to follow the direction taken in Victoria.

Response

The Public Service Board, in consultation with the Commonwealth Department of Health, has produced guidelines and is currently pursuing a program on alcohol misuse. The Board and the Department will be asked to report on the appropriateness and effectiveness of the program.

Recommendation 10

That, in view of the demonstrated value of alcohol programs in industry, adequate long-term funding bc provided by Commonwealth and State Governments specifically for the purpose of promoting, monitoring, evaluating and designing such programs.

Response

The Government will support this proposal, within the constraints of existing resources.

Recommendation 1 1

That the Federal Government give practical support and encouragement to Australian firms and trade unions for the development and introduction of their own alcohol-abuse programs with suitably trained personnel.

Response

The Government is currently encouraging the development of these programs through the Community Health Program and will continue to support the proposal, within existing resources.

Recommendation 12

That Commonwealth and State Governments participate with trade unions and employers in further research into and development of appropriate alcohol-abuse programs.

Response

The Government will support this proposal, within the constraints of existing resources.

Recommendation 13

That the Federal Government implement the recommendations made by Committees of both Houses on alcohol and its use by the Aboriginal community, and report to the Parliament on the steps which it takes in accordance with those recommendations.

Response

Action has already been taken by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and a report made to Parliament.

Recommendation 14

That the Australian Capital Territory Police have restored to them the authority to enter licensed premises to deal with the problem of under-age drinking.

Response

Already implemented.

Recommendation15

That State and Territory licensing laws be more strictly enforced than at present.

Response

This recommendation is being drawn to the attention of the States and Territories.

Recommendation16

That section 60 (bona fide travellers provision) of the New South Wales Licensing and Liquor Act be repealed.

Response

This recommendation is one for consideration by the New South Wales Government. The Commonwealth notes that section 60 has been repealed, but that the repeal is in the context of a liberalisation of the New South Wales Licensing Act and therefore contrary to the intent of the recommendation.

Recommendation 17

That State Governments defer relaxation of regulations regarding sales outlets and that the Commonwealth Government not in any way increase the availability of alcohol.

Response

This recommendation is being drawn to the attention of the States and Territories.

Recommendation 18

That the Commonwealth Department of Health examine the relationship between merchandising and alcohol consumption patterns and advise on the types of sales outlets most appropriate to attainment of the desired national goals.

Response

Some preliminary work has already been done by the Department. Further work will be undertaken, within the constraints of existing resources.

Recommendation 19

That the Commonwealth Department of Health prepare and publish a comprehensive analysis of the costs of alcohol abuse in Australian society.

Response

Accepted, within the constraints of existing resources.

Recommendations 20 to 22

That the Commonwealth Government ban the advertising of alcoholic beverages, whether by way of corporate advertising or by exhibiting of the brand name of such beverages in a planned fashion, on radio and television and in areas under direct Commonwealth control, such as in the Territories and at airports.

That, until a total ban has been implemented, the question of substantial compliance with the voluntary code for the advertising of alcoholic beverages by brewers, distillers, wine makers and all retailers of alcoholic beverages be reviewed annually.

That State Governments and local government authorities be encouraged to ban the advertising of alcoholic beverages.

Response

The Government does not support a total ban. The Government notes that the industries concerned have developed a uniform voluntary code of advertising of alcoholic beverages. This code is oversighted by the Alcoholic Beverages Advertising Council and monitored regularly by the Commonwealth Department of Health.

The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and Trade Practices Commission already play important roles in this area.

Recommendation 23

That the Federal Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (now Home Affairs), and the State Ministers responsible for youth, sport and recreation, appeal to sportsmen and sportswomen throughout Australia not to lend their names and prestige to the promotion of alcoholic beverages.

Response

The Government supports the proposal and will attempt to have it implemented through an amendment to the voluntary code of advertising of alcoholic beverages.

Recommendation 24

That the Commonwealth Government make any grants to sporting and cultural bodies conditional on their not accepting money from manufacturers and retailers of alcoholic beverages and investigate the possibility of indemnifying such bodies for loss of revenue, at least in the short term.

Response

Not accepted: some sporting and cultural bodies would experience financial difficulties, as it is unlikely that other interests would take over the support foregone, if the proposal were introduced.

Recommendation 25

That the Commonwealth Government consider refusing tax deductibility for expenses incurred in the promotion of alcoholic beverages.

Response

Not accepted. This proposal is inconsistent with the general principle of the income tax law that expenditure incurred in deriving assessable income, or necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of deriving assessable income, is an allowable deduction provided the expenditure is not of a capital, private or domestic nature. Furthermore, adoption of the recommendation would involve the complex task of isolating expenditure on promotion and, in the case of multiproduct enterprises such as retailers, it would be necessary to isolate the costs of promoting a particular product, or range of products, from their general costs of promotion.

Recommendations 26 and 27

That, if diversionary programs are shown to be effective, they be introduced in all States and Territories.

That provision for the evaluation of effectiveness be incorporated in any diversionary programs introduced.

Response

The Commonwealth will support and sponsor at the Health Ministers’ Conference and ATAC, and will draw the recommendations to the attention of the States and Territories.

Recommendations 28 and 29

That, if evaluation shows random breath tests to have positive effects on driver behaviour, they be introduced in all States and Territories.

That the police extend breathalyzer testing in the vicinity of all places where people drive after drinking.

Response

The Commonwealth will support and sponsor at ATAC: and will draw the recommendations to the attention of the States and Territories.

Recommendation 30

That the suggestions of the Australian Law Reform Commission regarding screening tests of drivers be adopted.

Response

Already implemented throughout Australia.

Recommendation 3 1

That blood samples be taken from all persons over a specified age who are involved in serious road crashes.

Response

The Commonwealth will support and sponsor at ATAC.

Recommendation 32

That the option to issue qualified licences to convicted drink-drivers be introduced in all States and Territories.

Response

The Commonwealth will support and sponsor at ATAC, noting that the proposal has already been implemented in New South Wales, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.

Recommendation 33

That learner drivers be provided with information about the effects of alcohol and other drugs on driving, that questions on such effects form part of the licence test, and that literature on the interaction of alcohol and drugs with driving be sent with notices of licence renewals.

Response

The first two proposals are already implemented throughout Australia. The Commonwealth will support and sponsor at ATAC the proposal for forwarding literature on the interaction of alcohol and drugs with driving, with notices of licence renewals.

Recommendation 34

That, except for pilot programs, Commonwealth and State Governments give financial assistance only to educational programs which identify the dangers of drink-driving and which have been demonstrated to produce the desired behavioural changes.

Response

The Commonwealth will support and sponsor at ATAC.

Recommendation 35

That Commonwealth and State Governments support the researching and development of mechanical devices to deter drink-driving and, when perfected, require that they be fitted to the vehicles of recalcitrant drivers, at their own expense, as a prerequisite to any renewal of their driving licences.

Response

The Government supports the proposal in principle, but maintains that it would be wasteful to duplicate work in progress overseas. Accordingly, the Commonwealth will sponsor the approach proposed in the recommendation at ATAC when the required technology is developed.

Recommendations 36 and 37

That a Sub-committee on Drugs and Driving be established within the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence, with at least the following functions-

To formulate and state a national policy relating to alcohol, other drugs and driving.

b) To monitor and assess the drink-driving problem and problems associated with driving and other drugs.

To monitor and assess existing drink-driving counter-measures.

d) To examine proposals to counteract the drink-driving problem and problems associated with driving and other drugs.

To formulate guidelines for the implementation of viable proposals, each of which should have an evaluation component built in.

To report its findings, and to recommend lines of action, to Commonwealth and State Governments.

That the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence be required to report publicly every two years on the activities and progress of the Sub-committee on Drugs and Driving.

Response

The Government supports these recommendations in principle, but notes that the functions that are proposed are not within the ambit of the National Standing Control Committee as presently constituted. Therefore, the Ministers for Health and Transport will be asked to delegate the tasks to appropriate existing bodies.

Recommendation 38

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

Response

The Government accepts this recommendation and, as part of the proposed national strategy ( Recommendation I), has adopted the following policy on alcohol and alcohol abuse:

Health-oriented Policy on Alcohol

The Government’s concern is with the abuse of alcohol.

Alcohol abuse is drinking an amount which can cause short or long-term damage to the health or social or financial well-being of the drinker, those who depend on him or strangers. The actual amount which constitutes abuse is not fixed, lt varies from individual to individual according to physical attributes such as size and other attributes such as earning capacity. Within the one individual alcohol abuse also varies from one occasion to another- an amount that a person could safely drink at home would be abuse if that person were driving a motor vehicle.

The Government’s initiatives to combat alcohol abuse will be both preventive and curative in nature. The Government will endeavour to persuade those whose consumption is presently acceptable from abusing alcohol in the future, lt will also do what it can to reduce consumption where it is already excessive.

To achieve its aims, the Government will use both specific and general approaches. As an example of specific approaches, the Government is accepting, and supporting through the Australian Transport Advisory Council for adoption by States, a number of measures designed to curb drink-driving. Searches for, develop’ ment of, and implementation of effective, specific approaches will continue to be supported.

General approaches have proved harder to develop. The ideal approach would be to discourage alcohol overuse and abuse but not to restrict the freedom to drink responsibly. Unfortunately, no such ideal approach has yet been developed, here or overseas, but the Government will encourage such development.

The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare recommended that this policy should include a clear statement of the Government’s intention to bring about an overall reduction in the level of alcohol consumption by the community. The Senate Committee made this recommendation because of the general observation that any community or group which increases or decreases total alcohol consumption also has an increase or decrease respectively in most alcohol-related problems.

The Government favours an overall reduction in alcohol consumption, although not necessarily by each Australian, as many citizens drink responsibly. It is aware that implementation of any national policy which involves reducing overall alcohol consumption will also involve some curtailment of the rights of responsible consumers of alcohol. The present frequency and seriousness of alcohol problems in Australia make it necessary for the Government to adopt this approach at least in the short-term, until some more satisfactory way is found of discouraging alcohol abuse.

Recommendation 39

That Commonwealth and State Governments determine as national policy a commitment to a decrease in per capita consumption of tobacco.

Response

The Government accepts this recommendation, and notes that a reduction in tar and nicotine yields would also decrease harm to health.

Recommendations 40 and 4 1

That tar and nicotine contents be stated on cigarette packets.

That the Commonwealth Department of Health establish upper limits for tar and nicotine contents, and progressively reduce permitted levels until all cigarettes with tar and nicotine contents in excess of the established upper limits are banned.

Response

Accepted.

The Departments of Business and Consumer Affairs, Health and Primary Industry will be asked to oversight the marking of tar and nicotine yields on cigarette packs and action to reduce progressively the tar and nicotine yields of cigarettes. The timing of these reductions will be discussed with the tobacco industry.

Recommendation 42

That the recommendations on the rights of non-smokers made by the National Health and Medical Research Council at its 8 1st and 82nd sessions be implemented immediately in areas under direct Commonwealth control; and that State Governments and local government authorities be urged to implement these recommendations also.

Response

Action has already been taken in some areas, e.g. in the Australian Capital Territory, prohibition of smoking in lifts and Government buses, and creation, by consensus, of non-smoking zones in the Department of Health buildings.

Although extension of action to office buildings generally will be difficult, the Government accepts the proposal and will ask that its implementation with respect to buildings under Commonwealth control be monitored by the Standing Consultative Committee on Occupational Health Services.

Recommendation 43

That the Commonwealth Government ban the advertising of tobacco products, whether by way of corporate advertising or by exhibiting of the brand name of such products ina planned Cushion. on radio and television and in areas under direct Commonwealth control, such as in the Territories and at airports.

Response

Not accepted. The Commonwealth Department of Health already monitors observance of the existing voluntary code and will continue to report, as necessary. In addition, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission play important roles in this area.

Recommendation 44

That, until a total ban has been implemented, the question of substantial compliance with the voluntary code for the advertising of cigarettes by manufacturers and retailers be reviewed annually.

Response

See Recommendation 43.

Recommendation 45

That State Governments and local government authorities be encouraged to ban the advertising of tobacco products.

Response

The Government will refer this recommendation to the States, with a statement of Commonwealth action on Recommendations 43 and 44.

Recommendation 46

That the Federal Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (now Home Affairs), and the State Ministers responsible for youth, sport and recreation, appeal to sportsmen and sportswomen throughout Australia not to lend their names and prestige to the promotion of tobacco products.

Response

The current voluntary advertising code already prohibits the inclusion of well-known past or present athletes or sportsmen smoking cigarettes in advertisements.

The States’ attention is being drawn to this recommendation.

Recommendation 47

That the Commonwealth Government make any grants to sporting and cultural bodies conditional on their not accepting money from manufacturers and retailers of tobacco products and investigate the possibility of indemnifying such bodies for loss of revenue, at least in the short term.

Response

Not accepted. See the response to Recommendation 24.

Recommendation 48

That the Commonwealth Government consider refusing tax deductibility for expenses incurred in the promotion of tobacco products.

Response

Not accepted. See the response to Recommendation 25.

Recommendation 49

That laws which make the sale of tobacco products to minors illegal be strictly enforced, and that the penalties prescribed be increased.

Response

This recommendation is being drawn to the attention of the States and Territories.

Recommendation 50

That the Commonwealth Government declare as policy its intention to decrease the consumption of tobacco at the rate of 2 per cent a year for the five financial years commencing with 1978-79.

Response

Reduction of the rate of 2 per cent per annum is considered arbitrary, and is not supported. However, see the response to Recommendation 39.

Recommendation 5 1

That excise policy be one tool used to reduce the consumption of tobacco.

Response

Tax rates on tobacco products are matters to be determined in a budgetary context: the Government will take health considerations into account in setting those rates.

Recommendation 52

That the Commonwealth Government end its annual financial contribution to the Tobacco Industry Trust Account.

Response

Discussions will be held with the tobacco industry on possible redirection of funding for research into alternative varieties of tobacco leaf having a less detrimental effect on health.

Recommendation 53

That State Governments cease their contributions to tobacco-growing research.

Response

The Government will refer this recommendation to the States, with a statement of Commonwealth action on Recommendation 52.

Recommendation 54

That the Commonwealth Government gradually move towards ending all specific and general subsidies to the tobacco industry within the next ten years while ensuring adequate structural re-adjustment arrangements for tobacco producers.

Response

Not accepted. The only relevant subsidy is the bounty on fertilisers: it would be administratively difficult to withdraw this from part of a mixed holding, and open to question on legal grounds.

Recommendation 55

That the Commonwealth Government ensure that the burden of any readjustment falls in the first instance on imported leaf.

Response

Not accepted. The proposition in this recommendation raises complex problems of trade policy.

Recommendation 56

That the proposals for restrictions on the sale of compound analgesics adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council at its 83rd Session, in April 1977, be implemented by Commonwealth and State Governments.

Response

Already implemented by the Commonwealth. This recommendation is being drawn to the attention of those States which have not already legislated.

Recommendation 57

That all analgesics, whether sold with or without prescription, carry the following warning on the container:

CAUTION: This preparation is for the relief of minor and temporary ailments and should be used strictly as directed. Prolonged use without medical supervision could be harmful.

Response

Already implemented by the Commonwealth as regards non-prescription sales. However, not accepted in relation to prescription analgesics, as no other prescribed medication is required to carry a warning of this kind. This recommendation is being drawn to the attention of those States which have not already legislated.

Recommendation 58

That all non-prescription analgesics in pack sizes containing more than twenty-five tablets or twelve powders be available only from pharmacies.

Response

Already implemented by the Commonwealth. This recommendation is being drawn to the attention of those States which have not already legislated.

Recommendation 59

That the Commonwealth Department of Health monitor consumer usage of and attitudes towards proprietary medicines to measure the effects of various intervention strategies.

Response

Accepted, within the constraints of existing resources.

Recommendation 60 to 73

Not considered: deal with illegal use of drugs, and are relevant to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs.

Recommendation 74

That proposed amendments to the ordinances in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory relating to restrictions on the use of amphetamines be treated as a matter of urgency.

Response

No further action required- alreadyimplemented.

Recommendation 75

That the Commonwealth Department of Health be responsible for the development and dissemination of approved definitions of the various terms used in describing the drug problem.

Response

Accepted, within the constraints of existing resources. For some time, technical assistance of this nature has been provided by the Department, but only in relation to drugs of dependence: this should be extended to all drugs.

Recommendation 76

That the Commonwealth Department of Health develop and disseminate a standard protocol for the collection of comparable data and that researchers working on drug-use problems be encouraged to use this protocol.

Response

Accepted. However, the World Health Organisation is currently preparing a basic document of this nature, and it would be appropriate to await this before any Australian document is prepared.

Recommendation 77

That the Commonwealth Department of Health produce and regularly upgrade an appropriate statement of national goals, in order of priority, for research into drug use.

Response

The Government will support the development of priorities in the light of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs.

Recommendation 78

Not considered: deals with illegal use of drugs, and is relevant to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs.

Recommendation 79

That the Commonwealth Attorney-General refer to the Australian Law Reform Commission for inquiry and report such changes to the criminallaw, if any, as may be necessary to ensure that persons who choose to use intoxicating substances are deemed to be responsible for offences which they commit while under the influence of such substances.

Response

Accepted.

Recommendations 80 to 83

That the community be made fully aware of the objectives of the National Drug Education Program.

That all drug-education programs be evaluated against the stated aims of the National Drug Education Program.

That funds be withdrawn from drug-education programs which are found to be ineffective.

That, where possible, evaluation of the various State drugeducation programs be conducted by means as effective as those used by R. P. Irwin in his studies of Canberra high school students in 1973 and 1974.

Response

Accepted. The States will be advised of action the Commonwealth proposes to take in respect of funds under the National Drug Education Program.

Recommendation 84

That the annual allocation of Commonwealth funds to the National Drug Education Program be increased to allow for proper evaluation of the programs under its supervision.

Response

No further action required- already implemented.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I present the following paper.

Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare: ‘Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?’- Ministerial Statement, 19 March 1980.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

Any Senate committee is a servant of this place and operates to carry out tasks given to it by the Senate, to report to the Senate and to seek a response from the Government to that committee ‘s recommendations. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare commenced its work at the end of 1975 and it reported here on 25 October 1977. The Government’s response today is to the report presented here some 2½ years ago. We are very grateful for the response. It is a careful response. It is reluctant in some areas to endorse or accept what has been recommended. But, for all that we were not granted, the response does come up with major statements of goals and intentions which have never before been made in this country by national governments.

We should not lose sight of what the Government has offered in this response because it is very important to people concerned with the abuse of drugs in Australia. Before discussing these matters I place on record the Committee ‘s appreciation of the support it received after presenting its report in 1 977 from many groups throughout Australia. There has been a very good response from the Press, which has taken up and understood our report. There has been a very good response from many citizens and from the learned health colleges, which have endorsed almost universally what we have recommended. There has been very good support from the churches throughout Australia, which have made their views known in support of our recommendations. The support of many other responsible community bodies has been important and has been welcomed.

In accordance with normal procedures, under the two hour rule, there has been very little time to examine this report before its presentation. But some preliminary observations can be made. If one says that the Government’s response is a bit like the curate’s egg, I hope it does not sound too ungrateful, because the parts of the response that are good I think are very good. In summary, the Government has accepted in whole, unreservedly, some 10 of the recommendations. It has accepted, subject to Budget constraints, a further four or five recommendations. It has indicated that it will support and will seek the States’ co-operation on a further 17 recommendations.

The Government has declined to comment on several recommendations on the grounds that the matters are for Budget consideration. It has indicated that between the time when the report came down and the time when the response was presented today some 10 recommendations have already been implemented. The Government did not consider in its response some 15 of the recommendations that were made and I will come back to that matter. The Government rejected some 12 of the recommendations, notably those that had to do with advertising of legal drugs. In the tabling statement which was put down in 1977 the following statement appeared in relation to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare:

This is the first national parliamentary report into the use and abuse of alcohol and tobacco in Australia and the first attempt to state a national strategy for coping with drug abuse.

That statement remains true. That was the first attempt to formulate any kind of national policy. It is very heartening to the Committee to see that since then at least two royal commissions have also attempted to take a national view of drug use. The first of these to report was the South Australian royal commission. I place on record, certainly in terms of the general discussion which took place, my appreciation of what Professor Sackville ‘s royal commissioners did in putting down a very sensitive document on drug use. I say that without going into any particularities or particular recommendations which were made. The Committee also notes that Mr Justice Williams, in reporting to the Government recently, also followed our policy of trying to identify a national strategy and national approach. In the tabling statement, the Committee stated also:

  1. . we see it as an important national goal to reduce our levels of consumption of alcohol and tobacco . . .

The Government has in fact responded positively to those recommendations. The first recommendation, which called for the adoption of a national policy- we set out a national strategyhas been accepted by the Government. The Government’s response was:

The Government supports the national strategy as proposed and, over time and within the limits of its power and resources, will co-ordinate implementation of the strategy with follow-up action . . .

For that the Committee is grateful. Recommendation 38 reads:

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

Today we have from the Government perhaps the most extensive and most satisfactory of all its responses. The Government has accepted this recommendation. It has accepted the need for a specific national policy on alcohol and alcohol abuse. The Government has given a statement of its intention and, by accepting the recommendation, it has accepted the need to bring about an overall reduction in the level of alcohol consumption in the community. In a page which the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) has had incorporated in Hansard the Government has actually stated in detail what that national policy should be. I will quote just one line from it, where the Minister stated:

The Government favours an overall reduction in alcohol consumption . . .

It is an entirely new departure for national governments to state this kind of goal and to make this kind of commitment.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But what will it achieve?

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I am asked what this will achieve. The Government requires a statement of goal and intention as a starting point. A statement that there should be a reduction in alcohol consumption is the starting point to allow many community groups which are concerned about this question to come back to the Government and say: ‘You have now identified that this is your goal and we call upon you to take action to implement it’. The same position applies in relation to tobacco. Two and a half years ago the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare made the following comment in a statement put down in the Senate:

There is no declared national policy which identifies a national goal of diminished per capita use of tobacco.

We called upon the Government to make such a declaration. The statement made by the Minister for Social Security today in response to the presentation of the report contains a most significant sentence. I commend this sentence particularly to the tobacco manufacturing and retailing companies in Australia. I refer it particularly to the Tobacco Institute which puts around such crude lobbying material to senators and members. The Minister said:

The Government recognises that smoking at any level is harmful to health.

Senator McAuliffe:

- Senator Baume is a shareholder in a tobacco company.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I am attracted by my colleague ‘s interjection. He says that Senator Baume is a shareholder in a tobacco company. He is wrong. I am a shareholder in three tobacco companies. What is the best way to learn what the companies are doing? The best way is to buy the minimum number of shares, which I think is somewhere between five and 10, and to make use of that shareholding. One of my good colleagues, Dr Gordon Sarfaty of the Cancer Council of New South Wales- I am sure Senator McAuliffe will approve of the work he is doingattended a recent annual meeting of one of the tobacco companies. At the meeting he moved a motion that a statement in the annual report was wrong and that the error should be corrected. The tobacco company in question, Amatil Ltd, asserted in its annual report that there was no evidence that smoking was harmful to health. Yet today Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle on behalf of the Government made what I believe to be a most significant statement, one for which we now have government imprimatur. She said:

The Government recognises that smoking at any level is harmful to health.

That national statement is long overdue. It will be widely disseminated, widely received and widely repeated. The statement now commits governments to work from a basis that smoking is harmful to the health of the community. What governments do about the matter poses another set of questions.

One of the other recommendations made by the Committee was that Commonwealth and State governments determine as national policy an overall commitment to a decrease in per capita consumption of tobacco. The Government has accepted a commitment to reduce the consumption of tobacco. It is the first time ever that we have had a goal, a statement of intent, clearly defined and set down. However much the Government may not have accepted our particular strategies for achieving that goal, we now have a goal statement on tobacco when previously one did not exist. For that, we thank the Government, and I think I thank the Government on behalf of many organisations, including the various cancer societies and medical groups.

Some of the other recommendations give rise to a little confusion. Recommendation 23 which dealt with sportsmen and sportswomen stated that the relevant Federal Minister- it was then the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and is now the Minister for Home Affairs- and the State Ministers responsible for youth, sport and recreation appeal to sportsmen and sportswomen throughout Australia not to lend their names and prestige to the promotion of alcoholic beverages. No doubt the same thing has been promoted in the Senate on various occasions. Senator McAuliffe will remember with pleasure the debates we had. The response of the Government is that it supports that proposal. The Government said that it will attempt to have the proposal implemented through an amendment to the voluntary code on the advertising of alcoholic beverages. The Government has committed itself to encourage sportsmen and sportswomen not to lend their names and prestige to the promotion of alcoholic beverages. Would any honourable senator not endorse that recommendation and the Government ‘s response to it?

The other recommendation concerning sportsmen and sportswomen was recommendation 46. The same recommendation made in regard to alcoholic beverages was made on tobacco products. The Government supported the proposal made in relation to alcoholic beverages but in relation to tobacco, where the same recommendation was made, this Government says something different. The Government said that the current voluntary advertising code already prohibits the inclusion of well known past or present athletes or sportsmen. The Government did not indicate that it is willing to lend its moral authority to try to convince our sportsmen and sportswomen that they should resist tobacco advertising and tobacco sponsorship in their roles as sportsmen and sportswomen. Recently in Western Australia Shirley Strickland, who is now Shirley de la Hunty, and Dr Ric Charlesworth have been moving in a very strong way to try to discourage their sporting colleagues from accepting cigarette tobacco promotion. In Sydney an old rugby league hero, Norm Provan appeared in an advertisement making it clear that as far as he was concerned tobacco promotion was not consistent with the kind of fitness he required when playing rugby league. We have the same kind of support from Bobby Fulton, Graham Eadie and many other sportsmen and sportswomen. There is some inconsistency between those responses. It seems to me that if we want to lend our authority, through the Minister, in relation to alcohol promotion we should do the same in relation to both the legal drugs.

I want to make some other comments in this brief speech. The first relates to the Government’s response to recommendations 36 and 37 which deal with the establishment of a subcommittee on drugs and driving to be established within the National Standing Control Committee on Drugs of Dependence. The Government supported these recommendations in its response but did not want to use the National Standing Control Committee because that Committee as present constituted does not deal with legal drugs. The very reason we wanted this sub-committee established within the National Standing Control Committee was that until it deals with legal drugs it is dealing only with part of the problem and until it deals with legal drugs it is in no position to play a central role in the formulation of policy in Australia.

This is an important matter. The report of the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs about which the Senate is currently concerning itself was presented yesterday. That report recommends that the National Standing Control Committee plays a central role in policy formation and in policy implementation in relation to overall drug control. It cannot do that job while it is dealing only with illegal and illicit drugs. When we come back to deal with the report of the Williams Committee I will have something to say about that matter. Until legal drugs are included as part of the overall drug problem we will be left with the fallacy that the drug problem is about illegal drugs. It is a fallacy which we recognise. While the National Standing Control Committee is constituted to deal only with illegal drugs and while it does not take on these other functions which take into account the use of the drugs which we all enjoy, it will not be a suitable body for national policy implementation or formation.

The Government commented in responding to the Standing Committee’s report that the Committee’s primary recommendations related to alcohol and tobacco. The Government suggested that illicit drugs would be dealt with in the context of the Royal Commission. Without canvassing any matter presently before the Senate, I point out that the response to the report of the Royal Commission which was tabled yesterday stated that the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee would be dealt with in a separate statement. What emerges is that the recommendations of the Standing Committee concerning illegal drugs have not been dealt with anywhere at all. The Government’s response to the 14 specific recommendations between recommendation 60 and 73 stated:

Not considered: deal with illegal use of drugs, and are relevant to the Royal Commission Inquiry into Drugs.

That would have been a proper statement if the response to the report of the Royal Commission had included a statement on what the Senate Standing Committee had also said. It is quite true that Mr Justice Williams heard evidence from some members of the Senate Standing Committee. I think that several of us appeared before him. My colleague, Senator Walters, appeared before him. I certainly did. It is true that some of the matters which were raised by the Standing Committee were considered but its views in relation to the use of certain illegal drugs have not been considered at all. If they have been considered we have not been told.

Senator Chipp:

– They have certainly been rejected.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I note my colleague’s comment that they have been rejected. I must say in fairness that when the Standing Committee reported on illegal drugs, particularly cannabis, it presented a split view. Both those views were not rejected. One of them has been endorsed by the Government. I acknowledge that it was not the view that I held. Nevertheless, nowhere has there been any considered statement as to why the recommendations we made were not dealt with. For example, we believed that it was inappropriate to place cannabis in the single convention of narcotics. It does not belong there. It is not a narcotic. We were only endorsing a recommendation of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse in 1 97 1 that cannabis was inappropriately placed. That is one of the Standing Committee’s recommendations which has not been dealt with.

We do not know where the matter rests. It is in some kind of limbo. I can understand that the Government would have been placed in a complicated situation. On one side was the Royal Commission report which was tabled yesterday. On the other side, the Standing Committee report had to be considered.

Senator Chipp:

– How can you say that it is in limbo? The Royal Commission specifically said that there should be no change in the legislation for 10 years.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-Somewhere in the middle the recommendations which the Standing Committee made were lost. I take Senator Chipp’s point. If the recommendation of the Royal Commission that there should be no change in the legislation for 10 years is accepted, so be it. The recommendations which the Standing Committee made were neither extraordinary nor extreme. They were designed to make the law slightly less frightening. The Royal Commissioner made it clear in his report that in practice the courts in Australia were carrying out some of the recommendations which we made, namely that users of some illicit drugs be punished by fines and not by gaol. The Royal Commissioner made certain other recommendations which were somewhat in accord with what we wanted. The problem is a clash of values between what some honourable senators believe, what the Royal Commission believes and the way in which the Government chose to approach the matter.

We have received from the Government a very worthwhile and useful declaration of intent in certain areas where none existed before. We are grateful that after two and a half years a response to the Standing Committee report has been received. We will now study further exactly what each of the 68 responses means. We will follow the progress of their implementation. I remind the Senate that it has given to the Standing Committee a continuing oversight in this area. The Committee is at present studying therapeutic drugs. No doubt, if it wishes, it will return to further consideration of any of the matters which it covered in its report ‘Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society?’. Our concern throughout the inquiry was to promote a balanced, careful and humane view on drug use. We were doing it initially in a total policy vacuum. The Government’s response means that there is slightly less of a vacuum than there used to be. A more positive response is still required but to the extent that we have made progress I thank the Government.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I do not wish to speak for long on this subject. It is interesting that the Government’s response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare should have been made two and a half years after the report was brought down. Significantly enough, the response came one day after the tabling of the very important report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. The response to the Senate Committee report has interrupted the debate on the Royal Commission’s report. Hence, I have no desire to hold up the proceedings of the Senate. I believe that we can probably discuss sensibly all the matters involved in the debate on the Williams Report.

I cannot share Senator Baume ‘s enthusiasm for the statement that has come down any more than I could share the Government’s enthusiasm yesterday for the reponse from Mr MacKellar on the Royal Commission’s report. After two and a half years’ consideration of what I believe was a very good and important report, one that was well accepted throughout the community, all we have, in the words of Senator Baume, is a declaration of intent. The Government has spoken about what it intends to do, not how it intends to do it. It has said nothing about the expenditure of any of the vast sums of money that it receives every year from excise on tobacco and alcohol. For example, the statement reads:

In the terms of that policy, the Government will employ preventive and curative measures to combat alcohol abuse.

Nowhere in the statement are preventive or curative concrete measures written down and presented to the Parliament to prevent the very real problems that alcohol causes. I remind the Senate that the Standing Committee described the alcohol problem in this county as having the dimensions of a national disaster. It listed an extraordinary number of deaths of Australiansover 30,000- caused by alcoholism in the last 10 years. It said that deaths from cirrhosis had risen by 75 per cent, a quarter of a million Australians could be classified as alcoholics and that one in every five of our hospital beds is occupied by a person suffering from the adverse effects of alcohol. The Committee referred to similar problems caused by tobacco. The Government accepted the report at the time. The Senate has had two full debates to my knowledge about the report. Yet, after two and a half years, we have a 1 6-page statement of intent. The Government intends to take certain measures when it has the money.

The very important and sensible recommendations about advertising are passed over. The very important and sensible recommendations about cutting the excise on low alcohol beer to encourage its use and equating the excise on all forms of alcohol are passed off with the statement that these are budgetary matters and that perhaps in the future health factors will be considered. Health factors should be considered all the time. They should be primary in the calculation of what sort of excise we should put on alcohol and whether we should encourage the use of low alcohol beer in the community. We have had the extraordinary statement from Senator Baume that for the first time ever government has admitted that tobacco is harmful to health. As an ex-smoker, I can well remember reading on every packet of cigarettes I had a statement which was put there by government regulation that tobacco is harmful to health. Governments and everybody else in this community have recognised this for years. lt is just not good enough for governments to put down statements saying that they know that these things are harmful and that it is bad to use them and to consider that that is a significant step forward, any more than it is sensible to tell us in this statement that we can control the sort of advertising of alcohol we have in this community through self-regulation by the advertising industry or the brewing industry. I do not believe that Senator Baume was really serious when he said that he thought that that was the correct proposition, and I am certain that Senator Walters will not think so. The brewers and the advertisers claim now that they do not take advantage of sporting heroes or champions to promote their goods in this country. Of course they do. They always have and they still do. They get round the television advertising ban very effectively, as anyone who watches cricket, football or anything else on television in this country will know. The Senate Select Committee recommended that we should get over this problem by banning this sort of advertising, which is affecting the consumption that is causing the two biggest drug problems in this community.

Senator Chipp:

– Was your Committee persuaded to the view that the Benson and Hedges advertisements around the grounds at cricket matches increased the sale and use of tobacco?

Senator GRIMES:

-I cannot speak for the whole Committee. I do not think any member of that Committee believed that the advertising of tobacco and alcohol had other than the primary aim of increasing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco. Certainly part of it is for increased grandeur. But for the alcohol and tobacco industries to claim that the advertising is not aimed at increasing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco is utter nonsense.

I come back to a final expression of disappointment about which I must agree with Senator Baume. The Committee made a split recommendation, as he said, on the penalites for the use of cannabis and what we could do about its use in this community.

Senator Peter Baume:

– All the other recommendations were unanimous on cannabis.

Senator GRIMES:

– Yes, all of the others were. But this statement ignores it. As I and others will say later, the response of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, to say the least, is disappointing. This community will again end up in a state of limbo over cannabis with the Government’s apparently accepting, from the statement, the extraordinary recommendation of the judge who conducted the Royal Commission that we have a moratorium. I assume the judge means that we leave everything as it is for 10 years, which would mean that people could probably do what they like in the Australian Capital Territory, that they would get into diabolical strife in Queensland if they were caught and that they would get into lesser strife in Tasmania et cetera. We cannot dodge this problem. It is a pity that the Government has dodged it by ignoring what is in this report and by apparently going along with the Royal Commissioner, who in fact has ignored the problem largely.

I do not believe that this is a satisfactory response. I do not believe that we achieve anything simply by making statements and declarations. I agree with Senator Cavanagh that we do not get anywhere in this community by establishing more and more committees and having more and more investigations. The evidence is in. The facts and figures are in. The 1971 select committee made sensible recommendations. This standing committee amplified those recommendations and made very sensible ones. We now have recommendations in a wider sphere from the South Australian royal commission, the Federal royal commission and from Mr Justice Woodward’s royal commission. We cannot go on having more and more committees. We cannot go on having this paralysis of our political will to do something about the drug problem in this community.

Senator Melzer:

– We know what has to be done.

Senator GRIMES:

– We know what has to be done and we know that we can do it with a sensible approach. We should not dodge the problem because it is politically difficult, because of budgetary reasons or because of anything else. I am sure that other members of the Committee on this side of the House and other members of this Parliament will not allow this Government or any future government to go on dodging the problem by producing statements like this one or the one which was produced with the report of the Williams Royal Commission. Having said those few words, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 807

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle)- by leave- agreed to:

That intervening business be postponed until after the consideration of General Business, Order of the Day No. 300 (Drugs- Royal Commission- Report).

page 807

CUSTOMS TARIFF (URANIUM CONCENTRATE EXPORT DUTY) BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise in connection with the first reading of this money Bill to speak briefly in relation to a matter which is of considerable concern to the Opposition generally and to most Australians, that is, youth unemployment. I want to speak about it tonight in the context of a number of attempts which have been made by Government spokesmen to lay the blame for current youth unemployment on a variety of institutions in Australia and more particularly on individuals in Australia who happen to be unemployed, rather than to lay the blame where it in fact lies. In saying ‘where it in fact lies’, I remind the Senate that in December 1977 we were assured by the current Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that unemployment would start to fall from February 1978 and would continue to fall. In the light of the background promise of the Prime Minister I want to look at the scope of the problem with which we are concerned. Much of this relates to predictions about the state of the economy and all sorts of estimates have been given by Ministers at various times.

Let me tell the Senate about one or two factors of the overall employment situation in Australia which are important in considering the question of youth unemployment in particular. In 1979 40,000 fewer males were employed in private enterprise than were employed there in October 1975. Honourable senators will recall the famous comment of the Prime Minister that if the public sector was squeezed the private sector would take up the slack. If one looks at that in terms of employment and considers that figure of 40,000 fewer males being employed in private enterprise in 1979 than there were in October 1975, one sees to what extent the private sector has taken up the slack in respect of employment. Of course there has been an increase in total employment in Australia. But the majority of the increase is in part-time employment, not full-time employment.

If we look at the figures of increases in employment we find that almost coincidentally some 94,000 more wage and salary earners were employed in the government sector in 1979 than were employed there in 1975. Again we recall the admonitions of the Labor Government in respect of so called big government. It is true that the increase has not taken place in the Commonwealth Public Service sector, but it has taken place in the area of State Government sector employment. That increase has been the only increase in terms of particular employers, as distinct from the 40,000 fewer males employed in private enterprise than there were in October 1975.I will narrow my remarks to deal with the specific question of youth unemployment and look at it in some perspective. Between1964 and 1971 the rate of unemployment amongst 15 to 19-year-olds in Australia varied generally between 3 per cent and 4 per cent. Since 1977 the rate of unemployment in that age group has been above 1 5 per cent all the time, and in June 1 979 the rate of unemployment in that age group was 1 7. 1 per cent. That is the average rate of unemployment in that age group.

I draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that amongst girls the rate was 4 per cent higher as at August 1979 than it was amongst males. The other factor which I think is important to consider in relation to youth is the fact that the duration of unemployment is much longer. I refer the Senate to some statistics on the proportions of young people unemployed in Australia between 1964 and 1977. The percentage of unemployed persons aged 15 to 19 years for example, was 26.8 in 1972; 31.3 in 1973; 30.3 in 1974; 30.3 in 1975; 35.5 in 1976; 43.2 in 1977; and 33.4 in 1979. That is an important and significant social phenomenon in the 10 years covered by those figures. My concern is to deal with this problem and to confront it as it is being dealt with by a number of Government Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister. In January of this year the Prime Minister, addressing the Young Liberals Conference in Melbourne, delivered an attack on the education system in which he said that schools were responsible for unemployment. That attack received widespread publicity.

I remind the Senate that another endeavour of this Government which has also received widespread publicity is the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education, Training and Employment in Australia. After all of the discussions of the Williams Committee, there is one finding of that important Committee which Government spokesmen have studiously ignored. It never appears in any statements by the Prime Minister or the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). That finding is just not referred to. I shall read that particular finding to the Senate. In the recommendations in the report of the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education, Training and Employment in Australia, it is stated:

There have been many attempts to explain the very sharp increase in youth unemployment in terms of poor standards of education, a relative increase in award rates of wages for juniors, the high labour turnover rates of young workers, a large increase in unemployment benefits relative to post-tax earnings from 1 973-on wards, and its effect on the incentives to accept employment in the less pleasant or stimulating jobs, or by some combination of these factors. But the very disturbing increase in youth unemployment from 1974 onwards cannot be explained in this way. The rough similarity of the rates of increase in the percentage unemployment of various groups in the labour market points to the more general factors which caused the recession and which sustain it.

What the Williams Committee is saying there, contrary to the views of the Prime Minister and other Government spokesmen, is simply that the young unemployed constitute a high percentage of the unemployed in Australia in 1980 simply because jobs are unavailable. We never heard at times of high employment in this country of the inadequacies of the education system, and employers were willing to take anybody they could find for employment in that economic climate. The situation now is that in circumstances of relatively low employment or high unemployment Government spokesmen are dealing with the matter on the basis that somehow the education system is at fault. The Williams

Committee, which specifically was set up to inquire into these matters, points out that in its view all those factors, which are suggested by Government spokesmen as being responsible for unemployment, in fact have very little to do with it. In making this comment, I do not in any sense say that there is any justification for Australian schools turning out people who are not adequately educated in terms of literacy and numeracy. There is a legitimate critique of any school system which produces people who are not adequately literate and numerate when they leave school and join the work force. There are all sorts of questions as to why that happens and there are all sorts of doubts which are being assessed at the moment by a Senate committee which is looking into whether that allegation which is sometimes made against the school system is in fact true.

As I said, the Senate committee is looking at that particular problem at present. One cannot in any sense attack an education system on the basis that it is responsible for unemployment without some pretty hard data on the circumstances in which those factors allegedly arise, namely, inadequate training for employment. The phenomenon of youth unemployment in Australia is not unique to this country. It is something which has concerned the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It is something which concerns the Government of the United Kingdom, for example, which has just had a committee of inquiry into this particular problem in Great Britain. It is a matter which has concerned both Germany and the Scandinavian countries. It is a matter which cannot be dismissed as something which is going to go away rapidly or be dismissed on the basis of finding scapegoats for the causes of this very sad and drastic social situation which exists in 1980 in relation to the employment of young people.

The Government’s response on this, as I have said, has been to try to blame all sorts of institutions and all sorts of people for what has happened. It is an extraordinary method of approaching an issue, to blame institutions and individuals for what has happened. Politicians, the so-called leaders of this country, and more particularly the Prime Minister, have themselves in seeking jobs as Prime Minister and as Ministers in the Fraser Government, made the sorts of promises and undertakings which have been made about how unemployment will start to go away from February next year and will continue to decline. These sorts of promises have been made and those sorts of aspirations have been encouraged by Ministers in this Government. It is in that context that the notion of blaming other factors- whether unemployed persons, the school system or the rates of pay, as the Williams Committee referred to- as being responsible for this situation, when these are matters peculiarly within the power, province and influence of government to deal with, is reprehensible and indeed cowardly in terms of a government which accepts responsibility, or ought to accept responsibility, for these matters.

The Williams report, in dealing with unemployment, said that unemployment amongst young people existed basically because jobs were not available. Jobs are not available, as the Williams Committee said. It referred to a number of factors which are used to try to explain the sharp increase in youth unemployment, as the Committee put it. The first factor is poor standards of education, and I have referred to that matter in the context of remarks I have already made. The second factor that has been used as an excuse for high youth unemployment is a relative increase in award rates of wages for juniors. With the greatest respect to people who make that allegation, especially in respect of young girls, who are the most vulnerable in employment, the relative level of junior rates in fact has declined since the equal pay decisions of the early 1 970s and the implementation of those decisions in respect of female rates generally. In addition, the relative position of male junior rates has been eroded in relation to adult male rates in the last few years. So it is not fair to allege that rates of pay have improved for junior employees. Even if that were the case, what should be the attitude of a so-called responsible government in regard to that issue? What does it do? Does it go to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and argue for a reduction in wages? Does it believe that that is an acceptable proposition for a government to put, or does it examine the other factors which are relevant to the question of junior rates of pay?

One of the factors which is persistently argued is that married women are keeping young people out of the work force. That is a social factor which I think politicians of both political parties have to consider very seriously, but not in terms of industrial conscription of some kind or another, or by taxation policies which are designed to squeeze women out of the work force. The last 20 years in this country have seen for many reasons a tremendous increase in the participation of females in the work force. The point has been reached where female workers now constitute more than 35 per cent of the

Australian work force. The reasons for this increased participation, according to women responding to surveys, are not only economic, although they are important in many cases, but also those relating to status, independence, desire to alleviate boredom in suburban situations, and things of that kind which are very important to women as citizens in this country. The fact is that it is a social phenomenon with which any discussion on employment and wages policy has to grapple. My objection to the Government’s attitude is that it is not grappling with the problem.

If one looks at the Treasury submission to the Myers Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia one will see that it contained some extraordinary suggestions about how one accommodates the effect of technological change in Australia. It suggested part-time work, work sharing, and a whole list of things that might be possible. It then stated that the alternative is to force married women back to their homes. If that is to be a policy of the Government, it should be articulated as being the intention of the Government, and it should pursue the policy. I am not recommending that course to the Government because I should have thought that women had equal rights to those of male employees and should be considered, as they are now, with 35 per cent of the Australian work force.

So the argument that women are in some sense responsible for youth unemployment is again an abdication of responsibility for dealing with the issue as it actually is. It is not an argument that should be available to a government. It is not one that should be advanced by any responsible person in a situation where there is no doubt that for a variety of reasons women are a preferred category of employee in Australia. That is something else that all members of the male sex have to face up to. Women are a preferred category of employee amongst employers for the simple reason that they are regarded as being people with greater stability- Senator Guilfoyle should note this- greater maturity, and so on than many of the male members of the work force.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator BUTTON:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was trying to raise the level of debate on the question of youth unemployment in Australia.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Modestly, of course.

Senator BUTTON:

– No, it is not an occasion for modesty, Senator Baume. I think that it is an important and tragic social problem. It is important that we discuss it seriously in the national

Parliament. I will summarise the points that I was making before the suspension of the sitting. They were that youth unemployment in Australia is at its highest level ever, with in excess of 17 per cent of the 15 to 19-year-old age group being unemployed, and that there were a variety of reasons for this level of unemployment. I felt it incumbent upon members of Parliament to face up to what I regard as the real reasons for that problem. I was critical of the Government in a partisan spirit for a number of reasons. Firstly, I was critical because the present Government encouraged anticipations in the community about employment. For example, we had the statement of the Prime Minister of December 1977 that unemployment would start falling from February 1978 and continue to fall. Statements such as that encouraged anticipations which had been dampened by the reality of the situation which in fact has developed.

The’ second matter on which I took the Government to task was that there have been consistent efforts to blame bodies, other than the Government which had assumed these responsibilities, for the level of youth unemployment in Australia. More particularly, . I singled out the Prime Minister’s attempts to blame the education system for youth unemployment. He has made those attempts in the face of the fact that the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education, Training and Unemployment, a committee appointed by this Government, made the very simple and obvious point that youth unemployment existed because there were not sufficient jobs and not because of any particular defects in the education system or defects in the people who were unable to obtain employment.

As I pointed out, the findings of the Williams Committee on that matter have been studiously ignored by the present Government. It has preferred to find excuses and scapegoats for its policies which are responsible for the current situation. Not only did I advert to the attempts to blame the education system but also I referred to debates in the Senate which have sought to blame penalty rates, junior rates of pay and other matters, in addition to the education system, for youth unemployment in Australia. I also referred just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner to those people who tend to blame female employees for the existence of youth unemployment. Of course, that exercise is only an exercise in shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, if I can put it that way. Some people might say that too many women are employed and that if fewer women were employed more juniors would be employed. It does not necessarily follow and of course it is totally unfair in the context of the present employment situation in Australia, where 35 per cent of the work force is made up of women, to blame women for being a preferred category of employees by employers.

The other matter to which I will advert briefly is the impact of technology on employment. Again it is a matter upon which the Prime Minister of Australia has seen fit to pronounce. Early last year he announced that technology would not affect jobs in Australia. Only a few months ago I asked a question in the Senate about what monitoring the Government did in relation to the introduction of high technology, and particularly computers into Australia in order that it might assess the effects of the introduction of this technology on employment prospects for young people and others. The answer given was that the Australian Bureau of Statistics keeps figures about commodities brought into Australia and, of course, computers are included in those figures. No other information was available about the effect of technology on employment. I think it is an enormous omission of government that in 1 980 it does not keep figures on the type of equipment which is being brought into Australia and, particularly, on computers which affect employment.

Senator Chipp:

– Do you think that we should send him the Cambridge report?

Senator BUTTON:

-I think so, Senator. That is a very good idea. But the facts of the matter are that there is no Government information about this matter and the impact of technology on employment is already enormous. I refer the Senate to a couple of facts: I take the example of one major bank in Australia which used to seek 2,500 new employees every year. Most of these employees were women. The number of employees which that bank now seeks at the beginning of the 1980 work year is 600 compared with 2,500 four years ago. The reason for that is the impact of technology in the banking industry. That example can be compounded in a large variety of industries, particularly in the so-called tertiary or service sector of the economy. Of course, it is in that area that women are particularly susceptible to the introduction of technology. The consequences, as I pointed out earlier, are that amongst young women there is a 4 per cent higher rate of unemployment than there is amongst young men. The point I have just made about those figures can be illustrated in a great variety of ways. As I indicated earlier, the sort of response one received from the Australian Treasury in evidence given to the Myers Committee inquiring into technological change was that a variety of things could be attempted to stem this tide of joblessness which is occurring. One of the solutions put by Treasury was to send married women back to their homes. I put it to the Senate that that is a very superficial solution to the problem and one which we should discuss a little more seriously if people are interested in discussing things in this chamber more seriously than we have done in the past.

The Government has announced one response in respect of youth unemployment, that is, the socalled school-work transition program which was introduced in haste late last year. It was discussed briefly with the State governments through the medium of the Australian Educational Council but no actual agreement was reached. It was announced by Senator Carrick, the then Minister for Education. My recollection is that it has been re-announced about five times since then- almost every week- by the new Minister for Education, Mr Fife, as though it were a new statement. But, of course, it is the same school-work transition policy. The expressed aim of that policy is to identify children at risk in the school system, single them out for special attention and provide programs, particularly in the technical and further education sector which will accommodate people who might otherwise be unemployed and which will keep them in the educational system. Some cynics- I do not necessarily join that group- have said that it is merely an attempt to jiggle the unemployment figures by keeping people in school and in educational institutions.

The Melbourne Age editorial of 12 December stated the following views about the Government’s school-work transition program. Having regard to the limited time available to me, I adopt this view, which I now quote, as an honest and perceptive view of the Government’s attitude. The Age newspaper said this:

The plan has all the earmarks of a window-dressing operation drawn up in a hurry to convince the electorate in an election year that the Government is doing something serious and substantial to reduce youth unemployment. The fact is that while the scheme will make school leavers better qualified, it will still not guarantee them work at the other end. Better training opportunities for young people are welcome. Ultimately, though, what Australia needs is not a better class of unemployed, but work for the 6 per cent who cannot find it now.

The Age referred to 6 per cent, but it was talking about overall unemployment levels. My particular concern is about the 17.5 per cent of young people between the ages of 1 5 to 1 9 years. What I am putting to the Senate is that we must perhaps embark on a little more honest and serious debate about the issues involved in this subject matter rather than trying to blame individuals, organisations and particular structures within our society for a problem which is legitimately and properly a problem of this Parliament and more particularly of the present Government.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 812

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate, which is consequential to the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Bill 1980, is to amend the Customs Act 1 90 1 to introduce provisions to ensure that the duty imposed by the Customs Tariff (Uranium Concentrate Export Duty) Bill 1980 shall be payable at the rate in force at the time of export and that the duty shall be paid before exportation or within such further period as the collector of customs allows.

Specifically, the export duty will be levied on the amount of anyhydrous triuranium octoxide- U3 08- contained in uranium concentrate that has been authorised for export by the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony). In addition, to avoid difficulties with adjustments to sales contracts that have been negotiated at a particular price, the Government has further decided that any variation to the rate of export duty will not require a variation to the sale price. To achieve this, provision is made in the Bill for section 1 52 of the principal Act to be altered in the same way as it was similarly amended for the levy on coal exports. I commend the bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 812

OIL INDUSTRY DISPUTE

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) by leave- Honourable senators will recall statements made in the Parliament in recent days regarding the outcome of proceedings under the auspices of the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in relation to the Transport Workers Union of Australia dispute involving Leon Laidely Pty Ltd. The Government has now had the opportunity to consider a letter from Sir John Moore on those proceedings. These proceedings took place against the background of a decision by Amoco Australia Ltd not to supply petroleum products to Mr Laidely. The Government deplores the fact that Mr Laidely’s fundamental right to trade freely has been denied and that this outcome followed proceedings in which Mr Laidely was denied the benefit of being present or represented. Action depriving a person of his rights in this way is totally unacceptable to government.

In these circumstances, the Government considers it has a responsibility to take action designed to redress the inability of Mr Laidely to have his rights properly considered. Accordingly, the Government has initiated steps to provide Mr Laidely with the opportunity to present his case before the same forum which previously dealt with this matter in his absence. The Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, has requested and obtained the agreement of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to reconvene the previous proceedings in this matter and to invite the following parties: The Commonwealth Government, Leon Laidely Pty Ltd, The Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, The Transport Workers Union, oil companies, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the New South Wales Government.

In the course of these proceedings, the Government will be submitting strongly that the parties should direct their efforts to developing a proper resolution of all issues involved in the matter, and in particular, should take into account the position of Leon Laidely Pty Ltd. Mr Laidely and the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association would thereby have the opportunity to discuss with other parties, for the first time, positive ways of settling the matter to the satisfaction of all. This matter was raised by the Government at a meeting of oil company principals this afternoon, and they gave their support for this approach.

I would express the Government’s general concern that in circumstances such as this case a secret agreement can be reached under the present law between two parties at the expense of a third party who is not present. An examination by officials has been instituted on the implications of this, and, in particular, on what can be done to resolve what the Government regards as an unsatisfactory situation. The Government is concerned at any contrivance to frustrate the purpose of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, namely the stopping of organisations, unions or companies, from hindering or preventing commercial dealings between a third party and the boycotted company. Accordingly, the Government has initiated an urgent and full review of section 45d to determine whether amendments are required to ensure the effectiveness of the section. 1 move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition notes this statement with a great deal of interest. For some two hours this afternoon the time of the Senate was taken up with a matter of public importance moved by Senator Puplick, a Government senator, in which his heart bled, as it were, about the plight of small businessmen in circumstances in which they could not rely on the provisions of section 45 d of the trade practices legislation to protect their rights. In the course of that debate, Opposition speakers drew attention first of all to the fact that the plight of small business under the Fraser Government has been a dire one indeed, with increases in interest rates, when 2 per cent reductions in interest rates were promised, when the Fraser Government promised in 1 975 and 1977 a number of things to promote the interests of small business, none of which promises it has carried out. These sorts of things were pointed out, and it was also pointed out that during the period of the Fraser Government the rate of bankruptcies of small businesses has increased by 103 per cent. These matters were raised in answer to the Government’s alleged concern about small business.

The Opposition pointed out in the course of that debate that it shares the concern about small business, particularly about the 40 per cent of the work force that it employs, particularly in relation to the constant threats that are made against small business by the growth of large corporations -

Senator O’Byrne:

– Holmes aCourt and Murdoch.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes; and more particularly of course the fact that the small business sector represents something like 25 per cent of economic capacity, gross domestic product, in the Australian community.

Senator Chipp:

– And employs nearly 50 per cent.

Senator BUTTON:

– As Senator Chipp points out, it employs nearly 50 per cent. That is a matter of constant concern. The situation of small business in Australia has, over many years, one suspects, been persistently eroded by the growth of large corporations and by inadequate government measures to protect small business properly. But today Government senators were concerned to go in to bat for Mr Leon Laidely, the gentleman concerned in the petroleum distribution industry in New South Wales, and to support him on the basis that his right was to rely on the provisions of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, which is a prohibition on secondary boycotts in the area of, in this case, petroleum distribution, and in relation to the general question of trade practices. It was argued by Government senators this afternoon that the Opposition was not concerned about thai particular matter. But of course we supported the Government’s matter of public importance this afternoon, Senator MacGibbon.

Senator MacGibbon:

– You never spoke to the motion.

Senator BUTTON:

-The Opposition supported the matter because it is concerned about the impact on small business of large corporations and, indeed, of trade unions when their activities are detrimental to small business. Of course, where Opposition senators disagree with Government senators, who for the last few moments have been making mindless noises like bull seals instead of listening to the contributions which are being made in this place, is that not just today but for four years we have consistently said that the trade practices legislation in Australia is not appropriate legislation to deal with the sorts of matters that confronted Leon Laidely and the people involved in that dispute. We did not get much comfort this afternoon from Government senators, but we have received it tonight from the Government because the Government has done two things in relation to this matter: It has recognised that section 45d does not work in relation to the sorts of disputes about which honourable senators were talking this afternoon and, secondly, it has invited the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Justice Moore, to chair a conference to try to resolve this issue.

Tonight there has been confirmation, in the Government’s statement, of the view which has been expressed by the Opposition for ages. With the greatest respect- I do not want to put it in too unkind a fashion- the poor idiotic Government senators have wasted their time this afternoon because while they have been arguing in defence of section 45d the Government has been subverting them by preparing this statement.

Senator Messner:

– Come off it.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Messner is making noises like a bull seal again. I will read the last paragraph of the statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) tonight. It states:

Accordingly, the Government has initiated an urgent and full review of section 45D to determine whether amendments are required to assure the effectiveness of the section.

This afternoon Senator Messner was saying that it was all right and it ought to be implemented by the Government. Tonight he sits here making groaning noises, as he ought to, because the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have let him down in the last five minutes by having this statement presented to the Senate. That is a very real difficulty for Government senators. I suggest that Senator Messner looks at the other matters in the statement. I invite him to read it, if he is not what educationalists call an A grade illiterate- that is, a highly paid person who cannot read.

Senator Sim:

– You are the one who cannot even talk sense.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Sim has made a great contribution to today’s debate.

Senator Sim:

– It is better than you have made; at least I have kept quiet.

Senator BUTTON:

– It is very nice to have the honourable senator here. I am just worried that he will die of exertion with the interjections he is making. Let us look at the statement brought down by the Attorney-General in the context of what Government senators were saying this afternoon. It says:

  1. . the Government considers it has responsibility to take action designed to redress the inability of Mr Laidely to have his rights properly considered.

That is precisely what the Opposition said this afternoon, and precisely what it has said right from the beginning. It is what it said in relation to the Gorman case in Victoria which occurred 1 8 months or so ago. That was the same sort of case. The statement goes on:

Accordingly, the Government has initiated steps to provide Mr Laidely with the opportunity to present his case before the same forum which previously dealt with this matter in his absence. The Minister for Industrial Relations has thus requested the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to reconvene the previous proceedings in this matter and to invite the following parties: The Commonwealth Government, Leon Laidely, the Australian Petroleum Agents and Distributors Association, the Transport Workers Union, oil companies, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and the New South Wales Government.

They are the parties which the Commonwealth Government will be inviting to a conference chaired by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Justice Moore. Sometimes I might seem somewhat irascible with the interjections from Government senators about this issue. I want to make it quite clear that I have been saying in this place for four years that Government senators can howl like werewolves whenever industrial disputes develop in this country, but ultimately they have been settled in the way that the Government- it is to be congratulated to this extent- has now proposed, that is, by calling a conference. I have said time and time again in the Senate that honourable senators opposite make all the noises- it is the Afghanistan syndrome againbut when it comes to delivering, they have not been able to do it.

I sincerely congratulate the Government for calling this conference because if one looks at all industrial disputes since the Fraser Government has been in power one will find that the Government has never been responsible for negotiating a settlement. This Government has grandstanded, caused diversity in the community and caused confrontation with the trade union movement. It has done all those things and, in all fairness, it has been Bob Hawke who has been called in to settle those disputes.

Honourable senators interjecting;

Senator BUTTON:

-I have been interrupted by a babbling brook of interjections; if I might say so, it is a polluted stream that has interrupted my remarks on the settling of disputes. Honourable senators opposite might not recognise it but, my God, every journalist and cartoonist in Australia recognises it because whenever there is an industrial dispute they ask why we cannot bring the Australian Council of Trade Unions into it straight away, bring Bob Hawke into it and Malcolm Fraser is the last person they want brought into it. The level of industrial disputation in this country is always lowest when Mr Fraser is overseas.

I do not wish to dwell on matters from the past. I wish to concentrate on the present, and on the statement which has been brought down by the Government. I want to read to Senator Messner, who has taken a keen and intelligent interest in this matter, the next section of the statement. The Government, having announced that there would be a conference presided over by Mr Justice Moore, whom I might say the Government was criticising a few days ago although it has now asked him to chair a conference, states in relation to the conference: . . the Government will be submitting strongly that the parties should direct their efforts to developing a proper resolution of all issuse involved in this matter, and in particular, should take into account the position of Leon Laidely Pty Ltd.

It then goes on to deal with other matters, and finally finishes that paragraph by talking about positive ways of settling the matter to the satisfaction of all’. When one talks about the satisfaction of all, of greatest concern in any of these matters must be the public interest. That is the thing that those on the Government side particularly ignored in the silly matter of public importance which they brought on for debate this afternoon. The statement goes on in a similar vein and expresses concern about the provisions of section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. However, for the first time it tinkers with the notion that perhaps section 45d is not one of the best methods of settling industrial problems in this country but is, in fact, a provocative section. Senator MacGibbon, who is like a captain prepared to go down with his ship, must surely find himself in a difficult position when he interjects tonight because the captain, Mr Fraser, has abandoned the ship and left the honourable senator on the deck. Senator MacGibbon stands on the burning deck and will go down with the ship, but the Prime Minister has abandoned it. That is the point of this statement.

Senator MacGibbon:

- Senator, tell me one occasion when the Labor Party was concerned with the public interest.

Senator BUTTON:

– There is a time limitation. I cannot tell Senator MacGibbon everything. I want to deal tonight with his problem and not the matter he has just raised. In the course of discussion on this matter this afternoon I mentioned that yesterday the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, Mr Lionel Bowen, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, in an effort to secure a solution to the transport or oil company dispute, introduced two private members’ Bills in the House of Representatives. I say quite frankly, I say quite fearlessly in the knowledge that what I say can be quoted back to me for the rest of the time I am here, I say quite confidently to Government senators that they will not solve these problems by having provisions such as section 45 d in the

Trade Practices Act; they will solve these problems by adopting a legislative approach to the sort of solution which the Government has adopted one-off in this statement which has been brought down tonight. They will solve these problems, or at least they will have a better chance of solving them, by adopting a legislative solution. They will solve these problems more effectively if they screw their courage to the sticking place, as has been said, and decide that we should have a uniform system of industrial relations in Australia.

At one stage during the Telecom dispute the Prime Minister made noises about the desirability of a uniform system of industrial relations in Australia and suggested at a Premier’s Conference that such a system was desirable. Mr Wran, the Premier of New South Wales, took up the suggestion and has continued to take it up on a number of occasions. But yesterday in the House of Representatives when the Prime Minister was asked about that suggestion he backed away from it because he had had second thoughts. Sir Charles Court or Bjelke-Petersen- I am not sure whether he has been knighted- who is the Premier of Queensland, as I recall, might object if Australia were to have a uniform system of industrial relations and for that sort of reason the Prime Minister backed away from that suggestion. These problems cannot be fixed up in an ad hoc way, by adopting a case by case, strike by strike, Laidely by Laidely, Gorman by Gorman sort of approach; they can be fixed up only by providing in the legislation of this country mechanisms which will resolve conflict rather than exacerbate it.

As I said, yesterday in the House of Representatives Mr Bowen introduced two Bills. They were designed simply to achieve the effect, firstly, of removing section 45D from the trade practices legislation, a provision which, as I said this afternoon, should never have been included in the legislation. There being a very derivative government, a very derivative society, section 45D was put in the trade practices legislation because similar provisions existed in the United States of America legislation, where a totally different history and industrial system apply. But this Government, with its mindless lack of imagination, thought: ‘That is good for our American cousins, let us try it here.’ It has not worked here and it never will.

Yesterday Mr Bowen tried to have that section removed from the trade practices legislation. Further, Mr Bowen in the proposed legislation which he introduced yesterday and which was rejected by the Government, tried to secure a more permanent solution to some of these problems. He sought to incorporate in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act a number of provisions which would enable the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to provide a legislative mechanism for resolving disputes in Australian society rather than creating confrontation and diversity. It is a function of government to provide mechanisms for resolving differences within society.

Mr Bowen sought to incorporate within the conciliation and arbitration legislation a provision which would specifically allow that body to take hold of cases like the Leon Laidely case or the Gorman case and deal with them in the sort of way which the Government finally has recognised is the appropriate way to deal with such problems. The Government recognised that tonight in the statement which it brought down. That involves including in the conciliation and arbitration legislation, under the definition of what constitutes an industrial matter in Australia provisions, for example, for the use by persons or corporations to whom or to which the legislation applies of contractors in preference to members of an organisation, an organisation being a trade union for these purposes, and which provide also for the security of employment of any employee or class of employees.

The legislation which Mr Bowen introduced and which was defeated only yesterday by Government members in the House of Representatives was designed to achieve a permanent result in terms of a dispute settling mechanism which would rid us of many of these problems. Today the Government adopted that approach in terms of a particular dispute which this afternoon in the Senate was causing so much concern to Senator Puplick and Senator Messner. They sat here in blissful ignorance of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street) behind their backs were preparing a statement providing for the reconciliation of this matter in the way in which this statement tonight announced it will reconcile it.

The Opposition does not in any sense seek to come here and say ad infinitum: ‘We told you so’. I have said: ‘We told you so’. We come here to say also that we congratulate the Government on taking this step. This sort of conference mechanism, mechanism for negotiation, for bringing people together and so on, creating machinery for settlement of disputes, which the Government has adopted in this statement is the right way to alleviate the problems of thousands and thousands of Australians, be they small businessmen, motorists or whatever, who are affected by this sort of disputation, this sort of confrontation and disagreement in Australian society which is so detrimental to the public interest and the interests of the community as a whole. That is why those Bills were introduced yesterday, why the statement in a sense is welcomed tonight and why we particularly welcome the Government’s action in inviting the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in this totally gratuitious way to chair a conference and to try to provide a resolution to this dispute.

It is sad to relate that this is another example of the activities of an incompetent and totally spastic government- spastic in the sense that one hand has no idea of what the other hand is doing. It is said of a dinosaur that if one sticks a pin in its tail it takes two years for the sensation to reach the brain. This Government is exactly like that. For four years now we have been sticking pins into this particular portion of the Government’s tail on this particular issue of section 45d.

Senator Missen:

– Sticking pins in?

Senator BUTTON:

-We have been sticking pins in the Government’s tail. In this case, with the slowest dinosaur in the history of governments throughout the world, it has taken four years, not two years, for any sensation to reach the brain of this Government. But in the statement which was brought down tonight there is an indication by the Government of some recognition, some slow turning over in the mind, some vague sensation, that perhaps it ought to have a look at this matter in a slightly different way. Government members are thinking, ‘Perhaps we ought not to march around the country like the group of Melbourne Club graziers that are looking for punch-ups with trade unions all the time, confronting and causing diversity. Perhaps we ought to think about the public interest for once and try to resolve a dispute of this kind.’ As I say, it is very sad to have to recall that on these issues we have such an incompetent, slow and unimaginative government. The Government has allowed its own senators this afternoon- I do not want to put too fine a point on it- to make idiots of themselves in this chamber defending something which the Government is not prepared to defend.

Senator Missen:

– You are kidding yourself, then.

Senator BUTTON:

-Senator Missen was not in the chamber this afternoon, but his trendy colleague, Senator Puplick, and the unhappy Senator Messner were hung out to dry by Malcolm Fraser. Those two brave little fellows defended section 45D of the Trade Practices Act and Mr Leon Laidely and said that the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was no good and had no business in this area. Those senators were saying all these things this afternoon and were doing their bleeding hearts bit about the plight of small businessmen when the record of this Government in relation to small business is the shonkiest in the history of the country. Those honourable senators were saying these things this afternoon and were being put down the chute by their own Prime Minister and the Minister for Industrial Relations (Mr Street). This has all been revealed tonight by the statement which has been made in the Senate.

The Opposition welcomes the statement. The Opposition welcomes the fact that the sensation, as I put it earlier, has at last reached the brain of the dinosaur and some constructive action is being taken in the public interest. Let us hear no more of this absurdity about section 45d. We hope that the Government will follow up this action in terms of the last paragraph of the statement, get rid of the section 45d procedure altogether and put these questions of industrial relations where they properly belong in this country as has been done in the major body of the statement.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I rise very briefly to reply to some of the points which Senator Button made. While he gets an A for imagery, he gets a Z for literacy. I think that Senator Button has placed a different interpretation on the statement made by the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) than honourable senators on this side of the House. Clearly it is an object of all industrial relations law and all matters relating to conciliation and arbitration that there ought to be negotiation before the settlement of disputes. That fact is set out in the statement in a clear way. Nobody is suggesting that that ought not to happen anywhere in trade practices law or industrial law. I commend the Government for the decision it has taken. (Quorum formed). I am not sure what I have ever done to earn Senator McLaren ‘s disrespect. I imagine that it is something to do with the fact that the Liberal Party returned three senators in South Australia at the last election and the Labor Party two. Of course, Senator McLaren was the leader of the Australian Labor Party team on that occasion.

Senator Teague:

– Wait until next time.

Senator MESSNER:

-My colleague Senator Teague rightly points out that we should wait until next time. Under Senator Jessop ‘s proper leadership we will return three Liberal senators in South Australia. I was making the point that this statement contained a very clear philosophy on the settlement of industrial disputes. The Government and honourable senators on this side of the House support the getting together of parties in order to settle their differences. Clearly that did not happen last week with regard to Mr Laidely. He was not brought into the dispute settling procedures; it is proper that he is. Honourable senators on this side of the House during the debate on the matter today- Senator Button will not recognise this fact- support that very principle.

In fact, we believe that Mr Laidely should have been brought into the dispute settling procedures. We are very glad to see that this will now happen at the Government’s behest. Up until now all we have seen is some behind the back doors or down the back lane activity on the part of the trade union and Amoco Australia Ltd. Settlements have been made apparently at the behest and with the agreement of the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Judgments have been made about people who have no say in their own destiny. We do not believe, as Liberal and National Country Party members, that that ought to happen. We stood up this afternoon to support small businessmen, and we continue to do so. We will stick to those principles while we acknowledge that the ALP has no interest in those matters whatsoever.

I repeat that it is the Government’s initiative which has brought together the parties, including Mr Laidely, the small businessman who has been sold down the river by the trade unions. That is fundamental to the issue and demonstrates the sincerity of the Fraser Government in supporting small business- what this Government is about. It is also about the re-establishment of a sound economy based on small business.

One or two other matters need to be mentioned. Clearly, Senator Button cannot read or, has refused to read or is reading Alice in Wonderland at the same time as he is trying to follow what is going on in the Parliament. The Government is saying, contrary to what Senator Button would have us believe, that it is concerned at any contrivance being instituted to frustrate the purpose of section 45d. Yet Senator Button earlier said that the Government had really sold down the river honourable senators on this side of the House who argued in support of section 45d this afternoon. I do not know where Senator Button gets his ideas from. It is obvious he gets his ideas mainly from the trade union movement. I just cannot comprehend how he can twist words that are so plain to mean something else.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Caught with your pants down.

Senator MESSNER:

-Obviously Senator O’Byrne still thinks it is yesterday because he has not caught up with what I have just said. The Government wants to strengthen section 45d; it does not want to weaken it. The Fraser Government was not saying that, because we on this side of the House spoke on this issue today, we have been somehow sold down the river. The position is quite the reverse. I am glad to see that action will be taken to ensure that the section is made more watertight than at present.

I make one other point about which Senator Button spent a great deal of time speaking somewhat obliquely. He was talking about the fact that the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is the Act under which disputes should be settled. No one argues with that. The fact is that if there were no section 45d which prohibited secondary boycotts against businesses, the law would be inequitable insofar as it would discriminate against small business. We believe on this side of the House, consistent with our views that small business ought to be supported, that section 45d should exist in order to protect small business against undue and unfair competition not only from monopolies of labour but also monopolies of capital

Senator Gietzelt:

– That will be the day.

Senator MESSNER:

-We know about Senator Gietzelt’s point of view but that is our point of view. We believe that small business can be best supported through that sort of activity and protection. When it comes to the dispute settling procedure that role ought to be undertaken within the general framework of industrial law. In no way can we see that to be otherwise. If honourable senators opposite would take time to read some of the reports of the Trade Practices Commission they would see that these points have been raised. They have been debated in this place over the last three years since the introduction of the amendment to the Trade Practices Act in 1977. That is quite clear. For Senator Button to rave on in the same old way and say that we are not at all concerned about this area is totally wrong. All he is trying to do is draw red herrings across the trail and mislead people into thinking that somehow we are subverting the industrial law. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are seeking to make sure that equity in the law is preserved in respect of small business. That demonstrates the clear difference between honourable senators on this side of the chamber and those who sit on the Opposition benches and who have no interest whatsoever in small business.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate has had an opportunity this day to discuss the problems associated with section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. Senator Messner has spoken twice on this matter. On each occasion, during the debate on the matter of public importance this afternoon and again in the debate this evening, he has orated in this place and said precisely nothing. He has done no more than regale the Senate with the platitudes and cliches for which this Government is notorious in relation to the way in which it seeks to defend its industrial policies. We have been subjected to a lot of political humbug and hypocrisy. What was said this afternoon in the debate on the matter of public importance is now being contradicted in the debate on the statement that the Senate is discussing this evening, several hours later. This afternoon Government senators were waving the big stick and berating the trade union movement. They were opposed to negotiation and a sense of compromise in industrial relations. This evening the same speakers are putting forward policies and principles that suggest that that is the motivation of this Government.

If we examine the facts objectively we know that this Government has been involved in a policy of confrontation ever since it came to power illegally in 1 975 as a result of a coup planned by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the then Governor-General. When the Government brought in the amendments to the Trade Practices Act in respect of section 45 d, it was warned by the Opposition and the trade union movement that it would provoke the very sort of situation that the Parliament has been considering in the last few hours. We warned that attempts to use the common law provisions, special sections of the Trade Practices Act, in contradiction of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act would not work. We warned that small businessmen would not be protected by the provisions of section 45 d. That precisely was the motivation of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Lionel Bowen) in the House of Representatives yesterday. He sought to show that if we want to have industrial peace and proper industrial relations in this country we will not achieve that by enforcing penalties against the workers who are seeking wage justice.

What has been the attitude of the Government? Year after year, every time the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has concerned itself with wages and salaries and after matters have been arbitrated before the appropriate judicial authority, this Government has seen fit to criticise the Commission, its Chairman and all those associated with it. It has criticised Sir John Moore and Mr Justice Staples. The Government has failed to understand and comprehend the complexities of industrial relations in a modern industrial society. It has sought to shift the blame for its own inadequacies and deficiencies to somebody else. That has been the cornerstone of this Government’s policies since it came to power illegally in 1975. Government members have blamed everybody but themselves because their policies have not worked. Honourable senators should look at the reports of inquiries set up by this Government. I refer the Senate to the report of the Prices Justification Tribunal on the food industry and the report of the Trade Practices Consultative Committee on small business and the Trade Practices Act. What does the evidence of those inquiries show? It shows that small businesses per se are being affected day by day as a result of the activities of the corporate sector. The big business sector is making a mockery of competition and the rights of small business. In no way is there any equity in the way in which small businesses operate in the modern Australian economy.

Let us look at the dispute we are concerned about now. Almost a fortnight ago when the dispute began what did the Australian Government do? What steps did it take to try to resolve the dispute which began as a result of its provocative actions when it introduced section 45 D of the Trade Practices Act? It did precisely nothing. It left the resolution of the dispute to the operations of the industrial courts. It left it to the trade unions, the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Industrial Court to sit in conference and resolve to the best of their capacity the matters that were in dispute. We can take the broad view, as the Opposition does, that the rights of the union concerned, the rights of the transport workers whether as members of a union or as members of the work force, the rights of Mr Laidely and the rights of the consumer ought to be protected. That, of course, was the reason Sir John Moore took the steps that he took to resolve the conflict in pursuance of his obligations under the Commonwealth industrial legislation. It is true that the conflict was resolved at the expense of Mr Laidely but Mr Laidely took a provocative action as a result of the provocative action taken by this Government when it introduced section 45D.

Senator Puplick:

– He acted to defend his rights.

Senator GIETZELT:

– It is all right for Senator Puplick to interject in the way he has. If he reads the reports of his own Government’s inquiries and the submissions of the Motor Traders Association of New South Wales Incorporated, the service station proprietors and all who have given evidence before those inquiries he will find that steps have been taken recently not only to make section 45D of the Act inoperative but also to place section 47 and section 49 in jeopardy as a result of the way in which this Government accepts the operation of the so-called free market forces. Not a word has been said by Government members. No action flows from the reports of the Government’s own inquiries as a result of submissions made by the small business section of our community, the very group that this Government claims to represent. Senator Messner says that his Government is concerned about the small business sector. All the empirical evidence shows that the market forces and the way in which market share is being fought for by the big companies in this country operate against the interests of the small businessman and the consumer every single day in the market place. Senator Messner has the audacity to get up in this place and suggest that the Opposition is not interested in the rights of the small businessman, yet we have seen vast increases in the percentage of bankruptcies during the period since this Government came to office in 1975. We have evidence of the way in which the small businessman has been forced out of the market place as the monopolisation to which these reports refer takes place in the petrol, retail and manufacturing industries, in every aspect of the tertiary industry and in every other aspect of our economy.

Government senators suggest that we are recreant to our responsibilities and that they are the protectors of the small business sector. Who represents the interest of the big business sector? Surely the Government has not got the gall to suggest that the Australian Labor Party operates in favour of the multinationals or the big business sector. That is the Government’s part of the problem. The Government stands for them. It represents them and it is financed by them in its campaigns for re-election. The government is the protector of the big business sector day by day. The former members of this Government who are now part of the lobbyists who operate in this Parliament all operate in the interests of the big business sector. It is absurd to suggest that the Government represents the small business sector. What poppycock, what hypocrisy and what humbug we get from this Government.

Let us look at the statement that we are now discussing. What has happened to the last paragraph on both pages one and two? They have been taken out as late as this afternoon. The statement has been changed because this Government does not know how to handle itself in respect of industrial relations matters. It does not know how to handle itself but it seeks to perpetuate the myth that it stands for the small business sector. If it does, where are its comments about small business and the Trade Practices Act in the statement which is before us. This is a matter that ought to concern the Government as a result of the submissions by the organisations that represent the small businessmen in this country. There is not a word from the Government. Mr Fraser, who seeks headlines and confrontation, endeavours on every occasion to place the blame on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Mr Hawke, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, unionists, communists and everybody else by saying that they are in the wrong.

This lousy, parasitical Government claims to represent all the people in this country. Can any honourable senators opposite tell me when one of his colleagues has ever got up in this place or the other place and defended the decisions taken by workers in relation to the protection of their living standards? On the contrary, as these reports indicate, the Government’s policy and the way in which the market forces operate are designed to increase the corporate income at the expense of the wages and living conditions of the Australian people. Of course, we are dealing with issues that are related not to the cause but to the effect. The Government is trying to say that it is dealing with the effect. It cannot deal with the effect of its policy when it is not prepared to deal with the cause.

As has been pointed out in this debate, the conflict has been hastened by the introduction by certain groups within our community of a contract system in respect of the transportation of petroleum products. Those who have been beguiled and persuaded to become contractors in the distribution of our petroleum products have done so in the belief that they can emancipate themselves from the problems within the economic system and they have forgotten about the question of wages, conditions and salaries. Of course, that is what is concerning the Transport Workers Union. Where is the Government’s professed concern about governing for all the people in respect of the issues that brought this matter to a head? Where is its concern about the fact that many storemen and packers who work in the wool industry take home approximately $140 a week to their wives and children for their existence. Honourable senators opposite well know they can go off to a sumptuous meal in an evening and spend that amongst four of five of them. Yet a worker’s family is supposed to exist upon that measly subsistence. For example, the wool growers are sharing in the prosperity of the wool industry mainly as a result of the introduction by the Whitlam Administration of the legislation that established the floor price plan for the wool industry. That brought about a degree of stability and prosperity and an improvement in the living standards of the people on the land who are involved in the wool industry.

If the Government is there to govern for all the people, the people involved in the wool industry- storemen and packers are involved in the industry- are entitled to some share of that prosperity. But no, the moment those workers seek some wage justice and they get an award, having established through the judicial processes of the arbitration system an award entitlement, what does the wool industry do? It comes in and appeals against the award and then it wonders why there is a reaction to that. The grazier from Nareen, who has not only his massive income as a member of this Parliament but also his income as a grazier, being born with a silver spoon in his mouth, then starts to use the big stick to try to whip them into line. That line was taken by Senator Messner this afternoon. Both he and Senator Puplick were out to establish the fact that they are the bosses, that they are the ones who are going to call the tune. This evening we have been presented with a document that talks about conciliation and arbitration and about getting everyone around a table. Why did the Government not take that step a fortnight ago when the petrol dispute began. Why was it left to Mr Wran to take steps to resolve the dispute? Why was it left to the unions and the other people in the dispute to take the matter to the top man in the industrial field, Sir John Moore, in order to settle it? This man has been traduced by this Government because he dared to settle an industrial dispute. He had no avenue open to him other than to take the steps that he did. If anyone is recreant to his responsibilities it is this Government for its failure to take the steps that could have been taken a fortnight ago.

We know that the Prime Minister is more concerned about his globe-trotting exercises and his Olympic Games boycott, not that he has ever played a game that was above board. This person, who is more concerned to get us involved in some international dispute, certainly was not expressing concern a fortnight ago about getting involved in a national dispute which was his responsibility. We have seen Mr Street make one statement and we have seen the Prime Minister make another. We now know that Mr Fraser wants the backing of his party and his Cabinet for a full scale confrontation with the trade union movement. But the steps that he is taking tonight are different from the steps that he took this morning when he was at the Cabinet meeting and wanted to go full speed ahead. Having spoken to the employers and to some of those who have been able to persuade him, he has decided to take a softer line. But it is a softer line that he should have taken a fortnight ago if he was really concerned about the interests of the Australian people.

The statement says that the Government is concerned that the action that was taken deprives a person of his rights and that this is totally unacceptable to the Government. What about the rights of the workers who have been displaced as a result of the use of the contract system in the transport industry? Has Mr Laidely some rights which are more important than other people’s rights? What attention has this Government given to the rights of ordinary people? What rights has the Government considered in that respect when these people were fighting for their jobs and were fighting for their opportunity to be part of the work force in the petroleum industry? But all of a sudden this Government has become interested in the plight of small businessmen.

Heavens above, something like 40 to 50 per cent of those in some sections of the retail industry have been forced out in the last half a dozen years as a result of the market forces that this Government claims are the sole motivating forces that should operate in a free economy. When the Opposition seeks to draw to the attention of the Government and to take out of the Trade Practices Act a section which is provocative, which does not lead to competition and which in fact militates against the proper operation of the Trade Practices Act- after all, it surely has to be conceded by the Government that it has weakened the provisions of the Trade Practices Act since it came back into power in 1 975 and that it has taken steps to render it less effective than it was before- the Government takes no steps to defend section 49. The Government’s own persuasion is to reduce the effectiveness of section 49. The Government has not taken any action in respect of section 47 and it suddenly says that section 47D has to be evaluated to become the major principle.

The Opposition finds this contrary to logic and contrary to proper practices in respect of the rights of all people in the community. The Opposition believes that the rights of people have to be recognised. To that extent we believe that the conference which is now contemplated will involve all of the principals in this dispute. But there has to be a realisation in the mind of the Government that the objective will be to resolve this conflict in the whole petroleum industry. That means give and take. It means not bringing out the big stick but appreciating the interests of all those people involved. That is entirely different from what was involved in the debate this afternoon when honourable senators were asked to consider the need to give adequate protection to the rights of small businessmen.

When we were going to debate that matter, Senator Messner moved the gag that stopped us debating the matter even further, despite the fact that the appropriate two hours debating time had not expired. Obviously the honourable senator had received word that the Government’s line of this afternoon was going to be changed to the Government’s line this evening. That is borne out in this document. If one looks at the last paragraphs on pages one and two, one will see that they have been altered since the original statement was prepared this afternoon, which of course indicates the Government’s refusal to recognise fact, its unbelievable faith in its own illogics and its refusal to recognise what are the logics in industrial relations. It is because of the Government’s failure to realise the logics in industrial relations that we are in this period with industrial relations at one of the lowest ebbs in the history of this country. The Government does not understand what industrial relations are about; it has no concept of what they are about. The Government is prepared to associate itself with a lot of rhetoric, a lot of platitudes and a lot of nonsense, which only highlights its lack of understanding of the way in which industrial relations operate in this country.

I doubt the Government’s capacity ever to see the light and its capacity to understand the trade union movement. I doubt the Government’s capacity to understand that the rights of the people at the lower end of the tree are as important as the rights of the people at the top end of the tree. All the time the Government is concerned about the rights of the people at the top of the scale. It is not concerned about the rights of the people at the intermediate or the lower end of the scale. It has never shown in any debate that has ever taken place in the national Parliament, any more than the editorial writers of our newspapers have ever been prepared to acknowledge, that there has been any justice in industrial disputes. It is all right, as we have seen time and time again in this place, for doctors to withhold their services and to go on strike in respect of their salaries and conditions. It is all right for other people to withdraw their labour in the top echelons of our society. But when that happens in respect of an industrial dispute the Government takes the view of the employer time and time again. So one has to doubt, even though one is prepared- we as an Opposition are prepared- to give the Government some support in respect of a conference to discuss these issues in the belief that this is a step in the right direction. The Government must drop this stance of confrontation and start to understand the motivation of all the people it has appointed to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The great percentage of them are the Government’s appointees and they are the ones who make decisions about matters of industrial dispute.

They are the ones who the Government asks to make decisions about wages and salaries. They are the ones who the Government criticises. They are the Government’s appointments and they will not follow the Government’s guidelines, which it has put before them in an arbitrary fashion. The Government, having appointed them and given them the right to act within that jurisidiction, then takes the step, when they make a decision which the Government does not like, of blaming them and not itself for the results of its provocative actions. The Government is going to fail on the question of industrial relations. The Government is going to fail, as it has with respect to its attitudes to unemployment and inflation and all other promises that it made in 1975 and 1977. It is a Government of failures and it is going to fail on this unless it changes its attitudes and adopts a principle of conciliation in respect to the way in which industrial relations ought to operate in Australia. Honourable senators can only hope that this statement tonight does represent some progress, although I have considerable doubts that the Government is capable of making any progress with its ideology.

Motion (by Senator Sheil) put:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

AYES: 31

NOES: 25

Majority……. 6

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

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

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I raise some points on the motion that the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. I do not think the debate should be adjourned to the next day of sitting. If there is a desire to adjourn the matter, and obviously there is from the result of the division, it should be adjourned to a later hour of the day. No more important question comes before us than the question of industrial disputes. If honourable senators think other questions are more important then they do not realise the gravity of the position. The whole country is in turmoil over industrial disputes, and more disputes are threatening. Unless we discuss the question, we will be in a sorry mess in the future. Rather than referring the matter to Mr Justice Moore for the purpose of hearing one man, we should try to get down to the basics of finding a solution to the problem.

Senator Chipp:

– Do you think that arguments by politicians will help to resolve the dispute?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will take Senator Chipp ‘s cue and not argue the question. If we treat the matter as being of some urgency, as Senator Puplick did this afternoon, and get down to a discussion of it- it is probably more important than any other question- then we may achieve something which will benefit the Australian community. On the point Senator Chipp made in his interjection, if the debate is adjourned to a later hour this day or to the next day of sitting, it will be put on the Notice Paper and it is possible that it will never come up again. I do not want to impose unnecessarily on the Senate’s time, but 1 want to correct the statement Senator Gietzelt made this evening that the Government gagged the debate on the matter of public importance introduced today by Senator Puplick. In fact it did not do that. Gagging a debate involves moving a motion that the question be now put. As we have just seen, Senator Sheil has some professional knowledge of that. It was his first speech this session and its brevity justifies some commendation. However, the basis of the speech probably deserves condemnation.

The matter debated this afternoon was a matter of public importance. It referred to the need to secure adequate protection for the rights of small businessmen against boycotts and threats by companies or trade unions. Senator Puplick, who introduced the matter, and others spoke in support of it, but Senator Button, while not opposing it, was concerned about the trade unions. He showed how the threat was from the Government rather than from the trade union movement. Because Senator Messner had enough political knowledge to see, after Senator Button dealt with the matter of public importance, that it would have been defeated he did not move that the question be put. That would have submitted the matter to the vote of the Senate. He moved that the Senate proceed with the next item of business to avoid a vote on the vital question of the need to secure adequate protection of the rights of individuals. It was the Government’s fear of putting the matter to a vote that prompted the motion to be moved by Senator Messner. I congratulate the honourable senator on his capability in seeing the difficulty the Government was in at that time and rescuing it from possible danger. However, the importance of the matter justifies a discussion on it as soon as possible, not on some future occasion.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I should like to comment briefly on the same grounds, and under the Standing Orders, on which Senator Cavanagh spoke. I believe that this matter is of such importance that if it were at all possible for the Senate to resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider the matter, it would be best so to do. Obviously that is a matter for the Government. Failing that, I believe that we should consider the establishment of a special Senate select committee to consider the operation of section 45D, in particular as it relates to industrial disputes. If that were done, we could invite Sir John Moore, Government departments, unions, employers and people such as Mr Laidely to give evidence before the committee. I believe that all of us are interested in industrial peace with justice. I feel that if the discussions cannot reasonably be held at this point of time- as it is a most important issue- I invite the Senate to consider the establishment of a Senate select committee to do what I have proposed.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order before the Chair. Honourable senators are speaking to the motion proposed by Senator Durack that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

-I should like to speak to the motion that the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. It seems to me that what Senator Cavanagh and Senator Harradine have said makes good sense. A very critical position has been presented to the Australian community and to the Parliament. The question of whether section 45 d of the Trade Practices Act applies to secondary boycotts or to industrial relations is one of major importance. It seems to me to be important enough for the Senate to consider whether that section should apply in respect of the disputes we are now considering. In that respect, of course, we ought to deliberate upon whether industrial relations are more important than secondary boycotts. I support Senator Cavanagh and Senator Harradine in arguing that the matter should not be adjourned but should be argued at present in the Senate to make sure that we agree with what the Government is saying. The final paragraph of the statement of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) reads:

Accordingly, the Government has initiated an urgent and full review of section 45D to determine whether amendments are required to ensure the effectiveness of the section.

We are not so concerned about the effectiveness of section 45d. We are concerned as to whether section 45d should apply to industrial disputes. That is the issue in contention. The Opposition, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and Sir John Moore are saying that Sir John can deliberate upon a dispute and determine a settlement, irrespective of the secondary boycott issues. I think the Senate might well decide to consider that argument rather than to delay the debate.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want only to supplement what Senator Bishop has said. I do so perhaps on a different plane. We have more or less tried to congratulate ourselves on the effectiveness of Senate estimates committees. One of those committees on which Senator Bishop and other honourable senators have been members from time to time has had Mr Linehan and other people from the Industrial Relations Bureau before it for a number of hours. We were told that section 45 D would provide the solution for defusing industrial issues. All I say is that my views lie somewhere mid-way between what Senator Harradine said and what my illustrious South Australian colleagues, Senators Bishop and Cavanagh, have said. I cannot see any reason why the appropriate Estimates committee that deals with industrial relations could not be convened to take this statement on board and do what has been suggested- that is, have Sir John Moore and other people appear before it. It seems to me that what we are doing is an act of futility. I understand that we are beefing up the secretariat of the Estimates committees. This is a litmus test which we are failing to face up to. That is the suggestion I put to the Senate.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– The Australian Democrats support the contention advanced by previous speakers that this matter ought to be resolved soon and not put away in the drawer indefinitely. In doing so, we have to appreciate also the point- it may not be in our Standing Orders- that it is our duty in the Senate to tend to business which is important to the people who elected us to this place. I can assure all honourable senators that if they had been in Sydney last week, they would have seen that one of the most important things to that city was to make sure that its petroleum supplies were not disrupted permanently. Of course, that concern is behind this matter and what we are discussing at the moment.

I make the point that if 200,000 people in Sydney- that is only a relatively small number of people- sit in a petrol queue for an hour a day and if their time is valued at only $5 an hour, a million dollars worth of productivity will go down the drain on that single day. This is the sort of issue that is involved. I agree with previous speakers that it is not good enough for the Government to assume that it can merely adjourn or put away a matter which is of tremendous concern to the people of all our cities. It is not just a matter of academic concern but one which affects people’s lives and livelihoods.

I think that debate on this matter has been shamefully cut short today on two occasions. It has not been debated in the Senate as fully as it should have been. Some of the real implications of the issue, the real facts and the humane facts, have not been considered. I can assure honourable senators that there are people in our cities- I speak especially for the city of Sydney- who would not be at all pleased with the idea that people sit in this place and say quietly that certain other matters on the Notice Paper should displace this matter. We have to get this issue right. Therefore, the Australian Democrats support the view that has been expressed that this matter should at least come up for discussion within the next day or two.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- The suggestion made by Senator Mason is encompassed precisely in my motion that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. There is now one hour and 25 minutes left of today’s sitting. The motion for the adjournment of the Senate will be put at 1 1 o’clock. It is fairly unrealistic to propose that the debate ought to be adjourned to a later hour this day when I am sure that there is some other important business which the Senate wishes to debate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Will you guarantee that it will come on tomorrow?

Senator DURACK:

– If there is a great interest in continuing this debate, certainly that is a matter which will be considered. I say to Senator McClelland that when this matter came on for debate an hour or so ago there was not the same interest in it. It did not appear that many honourable senators were then anxious to debate it.

The next matter on the order of business is the resumption of the debate on the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs. A number of honourable senators have indicated that they wish to continue that debate. As a result, the Government moved earlier in the day that that matter be brought on for debate tody to enable honourable senators to continue that discussion. Senator Chipp, for instance, was speaking in that debate when it was adjourned. I understood that he and other honourable senators wished to continue that debate today. That is why the Government has made an opportunity available for it to be debated today, and why I have moved that we now adjourn this debate to enable the resumption of that debate to take place.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 24

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 825

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Debate resumed from 1 8 March, on motion by Senator Button:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

- Mr President, by way of explanation I think I ought to say that the reason I voted with the Government on the last occasion was not to get myself on air. If I may have the indulgence of the Senate for 30 seconds, I will explain. The reason was twofold. Firstly, if that question had been resolved in the negative, the effect would have been that that motion would have gone off the notice paper forever and it would never have been discussed in the Senate. If anybody on the opposite side had been smart -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You can always revive it.

Senator CHIPP:

-Senator Douglas McClelland has been a leader in this chamber and he should know that what I am saying is true. Secondly, the thought of politicians arguing and debating and shouting abuse at each other the night before a dispute is about to be settled is not something which I think would help settle the dispute in any way.

Some two and a half years ago a judge from Queensland was appointed to head a royal commission to look into the drug problem in Australia. This was a few months after Mr Neville Wran in Sydney appointed another judge to look into the drug problem in New South Wales in particular. Now, two and a half years, $2m and 1,700 pages, five volumes later we have before us a report from the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, known as the Williams report which I believe borders on disaster as far as a responsible document is concerned. To recapitulate quickly what I said yesterday, there are some things in the report to commend; for instance, the tightening up of control procedures, the intelligence gathering, the recommendations concerning medical practitioners prescribing drugs to known drug addicts, the tightening up on pharmacists and the Income Tax Assessment Act being invoked to discover people who have unnaturally and quickly earned wealth. The report is also savage on police corruption. It highlighted the point that in the last three years $4.5 billion worth of narcotics had been imported. For 1978 it estimated the figure at $1.6 billion, not million, but $1.6 billion. The importation of drugs has grown since then, so the conservative street value figure for this year one would estimate would be something like $2 billion to $2lh billion. That is the value of heroin being sold in Australia. That is about all that I can find in the report to commend it.

I mentioned last night some of the matters in the report that disturbed me. One was that the Williams report, with devastating cleverness, in one fell swoop, had destroyed the only efficient law enforcement agency in Australia dealing with narcotics, that is, the Federal Narcotics Bureau. On the question of cannabis I believe it showed so much cowardice and it lacked in so much courage that it ought to be condemned. There have been several royal commissions. There was the Woodward Commission -

Senator Tate:

– Just as bad.

Senator CHIPP:

– Yes, it was just as bad. There was the Commission conducted by the South Australian Government which I thought brought down one of the most responsible documents ever produced on cannabis in Australia. There was the magnificent report by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, chaired by Senator Peter Baume.

Senator Walters:

– It was divided in its recommendations.

Senator CHIPP:

– Yes, it was. I am not saying what its conclusions were. I am saying that it was a magnificent report from responsible senators who really went into the question at grass roots level, if I may use that pun, of cannabis sativa Senator Walters reminds me that that report was divided on the matter of cannabis. But at least she would concede that there were problems in the minds of every member of that Committee concerning the legislation, the decriminalisation or the very sale of cannabis itself and its connection with heroin. There were worries and deep concerns. But the Williams Committee report displays no such worries. It has no worries at all about cannabis sativa and its use. After going through chapter after chapter of what to me is meaningless discussion, it simply concludes on page DUO that it recommends no changes in the law relating to the use or possession or sale of cannabis sativa in all its forms for 10 years. In one fell swoop, in an act of rare gutlessness, this Government has said yes, we accept that, notwithstanding the years of painstaking research done by the Senate Committee, or the contents of the magnificent South Australian report which showed the various options.

What does this report do? On the one hand, the Williams Committee says that 90 per cent of Australians drink alcohol. We know that alcohol is the third largest killer of the human race, according to the World Health Organisation. The Williams report says that a quarter of a million Australians are alcoholics. But the report says, Let us do nothing about alcohol. Let us allow it to continue to be advertised’, and the Government endorses that view. But, in relation to cannabis, if some kid has one cannabis plant in his backyard and is dobbed in by a neighbour and then raided by the police, he is standing in line for a conviction or a gaol term that will disqualify him or her from becoming a teacher, public servant, member of parliament, accountant, lawyer, doctor or whatever.

Senator Tate:

– And from visiting overseas countries.

Senator CHIPP:

-I thank Senator Tate for that interjection. I did not know that they could not visit overseas countries. The mere cowardice of this report is illustrated on page D98. Having said that the law in relation to cannabis should not be changed at all for 10 years and that the young people who choose as their social lubricant cannabis in some form instead of alcohol, tobacco, analgesics or barbiturates, which almost all Australians use in some form, should be allowed to be subject to prosecution, the report goes on to say:

Training programs on the application of the criminal law to drug abusers should be developed and continually reviewed. They should encompass: a fresh emphasis on discretion when dealing with minor offenders and the relatives and friends of drug users.

To me, that is utter hypocrisy; the ultimate copout. It says that for 10 years- not one year- the law should not be changed, but suggests to people who train policemen that a blind eye should be turned, that one eye should be closed if a policeman sees a kid growing one plant or if he just has a couple of joints on rum. To me, that is an incredible recommendation for a judgeremembering that this man is a judge- to make. He is virtually saying to the police that in certain cases they should use their discretion in minor offences, although he does not define what is a minor offence. As Senator Tate kindly reminded me last evening, that opens the door to massive corruption.

I find virtually nothing innovative in this report, which cost something like $2m. In regard to heroin the report simply discards in one hit any idea of experimentation with the British concept of having pilot schemes where heroin addicts can be diagnosed as such and then prescribed heroin in diminishing doses under the national health scheme so that they can be controlled and given some sort of medical, psychiatric and social treatment. I have been advocating this proposition since I was overseas as Minister for Customs and Excise in 1972, when I studied this proposal at work in several countries. I know that it is not a perfect solution and I know that there are dangers. I am not advocating that it be applied nationwide in one hit, as was the case in Britain. I am advocating the establishment of a few controlled centres in the capital cities so that it can be given a try.

At least in theory, this would do two things. Firstly, it would provide a fighting chance of curing a child of physiological or psychological addiction. Out on the street where children are buying filthy doses, underdoses and overdoses, there is no hope. There is only one winner and one loser- the child is the loser and the winner is the drug pusher or the drug syndicate. At least in the controlled atmosphere of a doctor’s surgery or a clinic there is a fighting chance of rehabilitating a human being. The other way leads only to disaster. Secondly, to some extent the ground is cut automatically from underneath the pedlar. Why should someone who genuinely wants rehabilitation take the risk of buying dirty stuff on the street if he can have drugs of a suitable quality administered clinically. I am suggesting that they should be administered in diminishing doses so that gradually the patient might be cured.

Nothing like that is suggested in this report. There is nothing innovative in it. There is only an obsession- that is all I can call it- about cutting off the supply. It is like a fairyland. One would have thought that a judge who had sat for two years and who had every possible facility at his command would not have been so trite. He virtually says that the problem of drug addiction is the availability of supply. I had to read this section twice before I could believe that what I was reading was from a fullblown judge, not a 14- year-old high school student. He stated:

There is no doubt in the Commission’s view that the incidence of drug taking is substantially influenced by the availability of drugs.

One feels like saying: ‘Go on! ‘. It is like saying that one of the reasons for the incidence of alcoholism, and alcohol taking, is that breweries and hotels exist. That is almost an analogous statement. I would have thought that he could have done a lot better than that. In my overseas visit in 1972, to which I referred earlier, I visited several countries and met with the narcotics bureaus of all those countries, including the Scotland Yard drug squad and the narcotics bureau in Washington. In every place the message came through with crystal clarity that no matter how big a law enforcement agency is or how efficient or incorruptible it is, and no matter how tough the penalties are, only 10 per cent, or at the most 20 per cent, of heroin will be stopped from hitting the market.

I could write a book and enumerate from my own experience as Minister for Customs and Excise on at least 1,000 ways in which heroin can be imported into this country, virtually with impunity. Time does not permit me to go into those.

However, an example is a case where there is a container ship carrying thousands of tonnes of all sorts of freight coming from, say, Asia or the Middle East to Australia. In one of the containers there might be 100 crates of tea and in each of those crates there might be 100 tins. If my arithmetic is correct, that means there would be 10,000 tins marked ‘tea’. In one of those 10,000 tins, in one of those 100 crates, the tea cleverly has been removed, somewhere on the other side of the equator, and has been substituted with heroin that would bring something like $500,000 on the Australian market. How in the name of God can any Customs or law enforcement officer know which of those 10,000 tins, weighing only a few tonnes on a container ship that has hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cargo, contains heroin? That is one of a thousand ways.

If we are really to look at this drug problem, by all means let us tighten up law enforcement and make penalties real, let us shuffle along the courts to administer those penalties, and let us give our law enforcement people the best equipment, but, for God ‘s sake, do not let us con the people. To me, this report is not only ineffective but also dangerous because it puts a false sense of security into the minds of parents that Mr Justice Williams has found the answer- that we should tighten up our police force and get rid of the narcotics bureau and put an honest group in its place; let us do this and that, and the problem will be solved. As I have said for years and as Senator Baume ‘s committee has said- I am sure even Senator Walters will agree- it is a problem of the community and it should not be left just to big brother, the police, the government or whatever.

It starts in the family, in the community. Anybody who lulls the community into a false sense of security, as this report does, I believe does the community a massive disservice. Yet even with the recommendation to tighten up security, not one word appears in the statement of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) to the effect that extra revenue will be hypothecated to supply extra Customs officers, to supply extra equipment, including coastal surveillance equipment. All we find in the Minister’s statement are the well worn words, ‘with utmost vigour’.

I believe that the only way to make any impression on Australia’s heroin and narcotics problem is to tackle it in three ways. We have to accept the concept that we cannot and never will be able to cut off supply. If we take that as a basic starting point we must go to the other end of the spectrum and ask: ‘How can we allay the demand for it from within?’.

Senator Peter Baume:

– You would attack both of those?

Senator CHIPP:

– Of course, but I would do so knowing that by attacking the other end, supply, I would never have 100 per cent or even 50 per cent success. From my experience, the most that one could get would be 10 or 20 per cent success. Massive doses of these drugs are coming into the country, producing incredible profits- from my estimates something like $500m each year.

Obviously education is necessary. I looked to the chapter on education in the Williams Committee report hoping to be able to say: ‘At least here is something to which we can look for an innovative approach’. I was desperately disappointed with that chapter as I was with the other chapters of the report. One of the things which I, in my three years as Minister for Customs, desperately sought and which in the eight years since I have been desperately seeking- I am sure that Senator Baume and his Committee are searching for it also- is an answer to the question: What is the proper theme of health education? What sort of theme should be running through a health or life education program? I only know what does not work. I know that fear does not work. Because of the perverse nature of human beings, they seem to react in a way which is entirely the opposite of what is expected.

Senator Walters:

– Have you got any proof of that?

Senator CHIPP:

– I have an article about a controlled experiment with bloody advertisements on road safety. Those advertisements seemed to have an effect which was the opposite of what was expected. Without wishing to offend Senator Walters, I do have proof of my claim. When I was Minister for the Navy in 1 967 sailors on one of Australia’s ships which visited Vietnam had a higher than normal incidence of venereal disease. The Americans came to our people and said: ‘We have a film that will fix the problem for ever. This film is so shocking, so horrific and so terrible, showing all sorts of ghastly and hideous instruments, that when your sailors next go to Vietnam they will not go within 100 yards of the nearest bar. They will be good boys ‘. We showed that film a couple of times on board that ship. On its return from each of two subsequent visits it was found that the incidence of that social disease had increased 30 per cent. I admit that that is not clinical proof but, with great respect to Senator Walters, I do believe that most health educationists have now discarded fear as a weapon in life education or health education.

I very firmly believe that Mr Justice Williams ought to have gone to those health educationists and learned a few fundamental truths. We cannot go to a human being aged 12, 13 or 14 years and say: ‘Look, out there is a thing called sex, there is a thing called alcohol and there are things called drugs. They are bad. Do not have anything to do with them ‘. The chances are that at that stage that child knows as much, if not more, about those subjects than the person giving the advice knows. We are told that health education and education for life should not be given even as late as the kindergarten, that it should be given right from the very beginning, particularly in the years from nought to three. All the latest health education and general education treatises that I have read indicate that those first three years are the formative years when ambitions, character, fears, hopes and community attitudes are formed. Yet we have maniac groups in the community which, as soon as drug education and sex education in schools are mentioned, act with the ferocity and cohesion of their sister groups, the Right to Life Association and the Festival of Light.

As a diversion I pay tribute to a Queensland member of parliament, Mr Mike Ahern, who was featured in this morning’s Australian and who supported this view. He belongs to the National Party and is chairman of a select committee on education of that Parliament. He exposed these kinds of groups as advocating a cult of ignorance among Queensland schoolchildren. I commend Mr Ahern for his outspoken exposure of such groups. But the same thing happens as soon as a person tries to get this at its basic roots and says to parents: ‘It is your responsibility. Let us join with you to educate your child in a sensible life style ‘. These kinds of maniacs get up and say: ‘You are not going to teach and dirty my dear little baby’s mind with sex, drugs and alcohol. We will teach him at home ‘. They may well do it at home because, for all their faults, they could well be loving, caring, decent parents. But they judge everybody by their own high standards and thereby make a mistake.

Mr Justice Williams makes that mistake because in his report he stated that this sort of thing ought to happen at home, as much as to say: ‘All homes are those kinds of homes where there is a loving father or loving mother in a reasonably affluent family’. Lately I have talked to many teachers in Sydney and Melbourne. Some of them tell me that in their classes or forms between 80 and 90 per cent of their children come from single parent homes where the conventional loving mother and father do not exist. I believe that there ought to be a massive education program, not only for children but also for parents to enable them to communicate with their children and to try to get through to parents in the most sensitive and sensible way why their children go on to drugs, why there is the apparent insanity of well brought up, well loved, reasonably intelligent young human beings of 16 or 1 7 years- that is almost a portrait of a heroin addict- experimenting with heroin and becoming addicted to it. That sort of question is never even asked by parents. When I address a great number of drug users and parent associations they almost invariably ask the question: ‘Why did my child become a heroin addict? He had everything. I never knew until it was too late ‘.

I believe that we have to adopt a more responsible attitude towards cannabis. I do not believe there is any pharmacological connection between cannabis and heroin. I discard entirely the view that once a person has smoked marihuana or used grass that gives that person a craving or a disposition to go on to heroin. I discard that idea. There is no shred of evidence to back that up. Some people say that most people who smoke heroin today started on marihuana. That is probably true. But that is as statistically sound as saying that most people who use heroin today once were weaned from mother’s milk. It is a statistical absurdity to say that. One could argue the other way. I think that a proportion of something like 99.9 per cent of people who smoke mari.huana would not even contemplate using heroin. But there is another sort of connection. In the scene where marihuana is smoked heroin is also peddled. In many cases the heroin is sold by the same syndicates which sell marihuana, quite often because heroin is so much more profitable than marihuana- it is less bulky and brings many times the profits. That same syndicate can cut a city off from supplies of grass or cannabis; it can dry a city out of those drugs. Time and again as soon as that happens we see evidence of silly young people turning on to something else. If someone happens to be offering a cap of heroin, out of frustration, out of getting back at society, or out of being angry at the fuzz who have just dried out their city the young people experiment with harder drugs. Most of the kids I have talked to on the drug scene have told me that that phenomenon is quite regular and they believe quite deliberate.

Some innovations in terms of treatment and a pilot scheme concerning heroin ought to be tried. I believe that we have not enough information yet. Ministers and even back bench members of the Parliament seem to labour under the illusion that if we want to find out the facts on something or find out what is wrong in the community we should appoint a judge. I have had enough of judges investigating social problems. I think that judges are the worst kind of people to be telling us about what the scene is like in Fitzroy Street, St Kilda, even if they walk along it. Have they the social mechanisms to be able to absorb the misery, the anger, the frustrations and the loneliness of the potential drug addict? Let me refer to the question of police corruption and to the reports of Mr Justice Woodward and Mr Justice Williams. One report found virtually no police corruption and the other found massive police corruption. One would think that the judges were reporting on the drug scenes in two different countries.

We will never get anywhere with this drug problem and it will get worse unless we can have a bipartisanship in this Parliament between the political parties. Let us criticise each other’s points of view. Let Senator Walters, who I believe will follow me in this debate, criticise anything I have said if she disagrees with the logic of it. But for God ‘s sake, let us keep party politics out of it. I was very disappointed with Mr Hayden ‘s response yesterday to the statement of the Minister for Health, Mr MacKellar. It was purely party political point scoring. Des Corcoran, a good man, did not even look at the report on drugs that was commissioned in South Australia because he was frightened that his political opponents would score political points off him. That was a great tragedy. If we as politicians cannot sink our political differences on this one thing which is killing thousands of Australians each year and putting hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of monsters, we are not worth our salt and God help us all !

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I could not agree more with Senator Chipp ‘s remark that we should keep party politics out of this issue. I think that statement was underlined in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Senator Chipp will recall that members of that Committee were equally divided on the cannabis issue. On one side there was a Liberal member and two Labor members and on the other side there was one Labor member, one National Country Party member and one Liberal Party member. There was certainly no party politics involved in the decision of that

Senate Committee. I agree that the drug problems which Australia faces certainly should not be worsened by any party politics.

The main concern of the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs is the implementation of a national strategy. The Commission believes that the national strategy will not be able to work properly unless State and Commonwealth governments unite. The Commission has pressed very firmly for national antidrug legislation that should be directed at the drug traffickers- the criminal element of the drug problem. The Commission urged that all governments, State and Commonwealth, pass identical laws to combat drug traffickers. The report of the Royal Commission states that if governments generally cannot co-operate to produce speedily a national code against drug trafficking there is little hope that any worthwhile co-operation will be achieved elsewhere in.this country. The Commission stated that a nationally uniform drug trafficking Act would focus police efforts(Quorum formed). I was saying that a national uniform drug trafficking Act would focus police efforts against the criminal element rather than the user population.

In 1976 the State Ministers for Health reached agreement to implement harsher legislation to punish drug traffickers. All the States which agreed to this proposal, except Tasmania, brought in legislation. Tasmania certainly agreed to the proposal but since 1 976 it has not introduced harsher legislation. Perhaps I could go through the legislation which has been introduced by the States. New South Wales agreed that it would go along with the general agreement and increased its penalties for the trafficking of hard drugs to $50,000 or 1 5 years imprisonment or both. Victoria increased its penalties to $100,000 or 15 years imprisonment or both; Queensland to $100,000 or life imprisonment or both; South Australia to $ 100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both; and Western Australia to $100,000 or 25 years imprisonment or both. In Tasmania the penalty is $4,000 or 10 years imprisonment or both. Tasmania is the only State that has not abided by the agreement reached by the Ministers for Health in 1976. All the other States have acted on the agreement. I urge the Tasmanian Labor Government to fall into line and to agree -

Senator Grimes:

– With whom?

Senator WALTERS:

– The present Premier, Mr Lowe, was the Minister for Health at the time those State Ministers met. He agreed that Tasmania would increase its penalties by 1977. It is now 1980 and Tasmania has not increased its penalties for drug trafficking. However, last week the Acting Premier, Mr Batt, decided that he had better introduce some petrol rationing legislation just in case it was needed. I ask honourable senators to guess what the penalties are for abusing that legislation. They are a fine of $10,000 or two years loss of licence. A person is up for a fine of $10,000 or two years loss of licence if he abuses the petrol rationing legislation which the Acting Premier considered so important that he had to rush it through the Parliament. But when it comes to hard drug trafficking the penalty is still a fine of $4,000 or 10 years imprisonment or both. I point out that the priorities of the Tasmanian Government need looking at. (Quorum formed).

Senator Townley:

- Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. When the quorum was called three Labor senators were in the chamber.

Senator McLaren:

– What is your point of order?

Senator Townley:

– I will get to it in a moment. My point of order is that Labor Party senators get paid exactly the same as Government senators. They do not attend the chamber the way they should.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order.

Senator Townley:

- Senator Grimes cannot take a point of order when I am taking one. He should know that. Why does he not read the Standing Orders? My point of order is this: Standing Order 438 states:

If any senator- (a) persistently and wilfully obstructs the business of the Senate . . .

That is what Senator McLaren is doing. He is calling quorums continually and obstructing the business of the Senate. I feel that he should be stopped from doing that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Maunsell)- There is no point of order.

Senator Grimes:

- Mr Deputy President, on the point of order-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have ruled against Senator Townley ‘s point of order.

Senator O’Byrne:

- Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. I would like a ruling from you as to whether the business of the Senate can be conducted without a quorum present.

Senator McLaren:

- Mr Deputy President, I also take a point of order. I have been accused of obstructing the business of the Senate. The Standing Orders clearly state that there shall be 22 senators present in the chamber to form a quorum. When I first called a quorum tonight there were three Labor senators and three Government senators in the chamber. Immediately the quorum was formed the Government senators left the chamber. That is why I again called for a quorum.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have already ruled that there is no point of order.

Senator WALTERS:

– Please, can I now get on with my speech? I was delighted to see that the Federal Royal Commission brought down recommendations on the education side of the drug problem which were very similar to those brought down. by the Senate Standing Committee. The Standing Committee, of which I was a member, was very concerned about the efforts the Government had already made in relation to drug education in this country. We have spent a tremendous amount of money in this area. The education has not had the results we had hoped for. I will read the national aims of the drug education program because they are terribly important. They are to reduce ignorance, modify behaviour and to uphold the mores of society. If we are sincere in those aims we have to do something about drug education. Tonight Senator Chipp called those people who were against drug education in schools all sorts of odd names. He said that people had said: ‘You will not dirty my dear little girl ‘s mind with drug education ‘. Perhaps Senator Chipp should do a little research in this area. The Federal Royal Commission realises not only that the education is not doing what it is meant to do but also that it is doing considerable harm. I have considerable information on the evaluation of drug education by countries overseas. Richard B. Stuart from the University of Michigan states: . . a research project which was sponsored by the Office of Drug Abuse and Alcoholism, State of Michigan - . . points out that . . . there has been a widespread increase in reliance upon drug education as a preventative measure. However, drug education may not impede the use of drugs and may actually exacerbate drug use . . . the risks of negative effects of drug education is suggested by evidence that shows that a relatively high level of knowledge about drugs is associated with higher levels of drug use.

Mr Lane cites a study in the United Kingdom by the National Association of Youth Clubs which indicates that information given in present education lessons incites many people to want to try drugs who may not otherwise do so. Other research has argued that there is overwhelming evidence that the net changes in attitudes or opinions as a result of persuasive material are likely to be small. The material is more likely to affect individuals’ attitudes. Thus friends, opinion leaders and so on are more likely to influence the interpretation of the material. Dr De Lone, the Assistant Commissioner for Education and Training in New York City’s Addiction Services Agency offers the following comments on drug education. He states:

Why drug education may influence drug use and recent studies have indicated this is a . . . difficult question to answer. Perhaps instruction stimulates rebellion, or simply raises curiosity.

George Birdwood ‘s comment that only education enjoys the dubious privilege of having the power to make matters worse is not just a smart quip but the plain truth. If it is well done most of the drug education in our schools can be mildly and marginally beneficial, but at the worst it is positively harmful. I could go on and on. So many overseas evaluations of drug education prove that it just does not work. Before this Government spends more money in this field we should evaluate some of the programs that have already been carried out. The Federal Royal Commission points this out.

I was delighted to see that the Government has accepted the recommendation that the Senate Standing Committee put forward that the community be made fully aware of the objectives of the national drug education program, that all drug education programs be evaluated against the stated aims of the national drug education program and that funds be withdrawn from drug education programs which are found to be ineffective. The Government’s response today indicates that it has accepted the recommendation. The report of the Royal Commission states that education is perhaps the most difficult area in which to arrive at a meaningful conclusion. The situation is complicated because individual value judgments continue to pay an important role in the assessment. I believe that this is one of the crucial factors. It depends on the value judgments of the person who does the educating. Whilst Senator Chipp backs education to the full, as he obviously did in his speech tonight, I would advise the Government to be cautious about the programs it implements. It should implement the programs of people whose value judgments are acceptable to the community and then evaluate the results.

Let us have proper evaluation, not the sort of evaluation which was done in my State and upon which I have commented. I said that evaluation was not carried out of certain social programs in the education field. I was told that I did not know what I was talking about and that it had been evaluated. The students were asked: ‘Was it beneficial?’ They said ‘Yes, wonderful’. The parents were asked: ‘Did the children know more when they came home from school following the program?’. The parents said, ‘Yes, of course, they did know more’. That is not evaluation; that is asking the students whether they enjoyed the lesson. It is not evaluating whether the behaviour of those students had altered or whether they accepted the education in the proper way. It is certainly not the son of evaluation that is recommended by the Committee and the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission pointed out that there are those who are all too ready to regard education as a universal panacea to solve society’s drug problems. Drug education in isolation will solve little; indeed, it may be counter-productive. Education based solely on the distribution of drug information is inadequate and on occasions dangerous. Information does not necessarily change attitudes. Not only must the recipient of the information be equipped to appreciate the implications of that information, but also he must be in a position to make a balanced choice when faced with alternatives. What child in primary school is in a position to make a balanced choice? We have to understand that there are people who can never be equipped in that fashion.

The Royal Commission also touched on the role of the media and pointed out that most people get their information on drugs from the media. It quoted a survey conducted in Manly which showed that the media was the most frequently mentioned source of information on drugs and evidently over 60 per cent of the people surveyed used the media for information on cigarettes, marihuana and heroin. Fifty per cent used it for information on alcohol. I know that evidence brought before our Committee, particularly by police from various States, pointed out that whenever there was a detailed description of either glue sniffing or hallucinogenic mushroom use there would be a spate of those problems within a State. It seems to me that the media should show considerable responsibility in this area. If it is pointed out to the media it should be very careful how it reports these problems.

I shall move on to the subject of cannabis. Tonight Senator Chipp was very critical of the Royal Commission- I think he called the judge concerned a coward- about its recommendation on the cannabis issue. The Commission rejected arguments that if drug possession in the area of cannabis was decriminalised there would be no role for criminal syndicates to play in importing and distributing drugs. It concluded that drug abuse was already too great a problem in the Australian community to contemplate removing prohibitions against illegal drugs and that the increase in drug abuse that would inevitably follow such a move would constitute a national disaster. Senator Chipp pointed out that there is a tremendous amount of controversy over this matter. I know that Senator Tate, who will be speaking later in this debate, agrees entirely with Senator Chipp that cannabis should be legalised. Senator Tate and I have debated this subject many times. I have pointed out on many occasions, and I would like to point out again- it is the subject of a recommendation in our report- that we cannot talk about allowing people to grow their own cannabis or marihuana because if we allowed them to do that the method of counting how many plants one person should have would be just too hard to police.

Senator Tate:

– I never recommended that. I said it should be sold through chemist shops.

Senator WALTERS:

-Senator Tate says that it should be sold through chemist shops. What does he mean by ‘it’? Cannabis comes in so many different forms. It has a variety of THCtetrahydrocannabinol content, yet Senator Tate says that ‘it’ should come through chemist shops. That sounds a very simplistic way to legalise the use of cannabis. The dried cannabis plant and specifically the flowering tops from the female plant may contain up to 14 per cent THC. Most samples of good quality cannabis contain 0.2 to 1 per cent, whilst a very superior type can reach 2 per cent THC. However Buddha grass or Thai sticks contain 4 per cent to 1 4 per cent THC. If we allowed the plant to be grown, as has been suggested by some of the members of the Committee, we would find that we must say to people: You can grow it, but you can use only the leaves. You must not use the whole plant ‘. Not only cannabis comes from the plant; hashish and hashish oil also come from it. One cannot simply say: You can just grow enough plants for your own use’ or ‘You can buy it in a chemist shop’. It would cover far more complicated areas than has been suggested. Possibly Senator Chipp did not investigate this area very thoroughly as he was so critical of the Royal Commissioner. Senator Chipp was critical of him for saying that the law should not be altered for at least 10 years. As a member of our Committee- I am sure Senator Grimes, who is also a member of it, would agree with me- I say that we do not know enough about the substance to be able to say: ‘Okay, legalise it. Open it up’. Senator Grimes agreed with the report and the recommendations of our Committee that cannabis should not be legalised. We do not know enough about it. The developed world does not know enough about it. Surveys have not shown us all the information we desire. We do not know enough about the effect of its use on other drugs or its effect on users of the roads. We did not have the information available; nor did the Royal Commission. I believe that the Royal Commission reacted very responsibly when it said that as the information was not available we should not introduce legislation decriminalising in any way this additional drug and in 10 years when perhaps more information is available we should take another look at it.

It is all very well for Senator Chipp to say that the Commission sat for two years and had all the expertise and information available to enable it to come up with a decision on this matter, but as the information is not available worldwide, and it is not, then the Commission was acting responsibly in saying what it did. I do not think any Australian could be critical of this responsible attitude taken by the Royal Commission. It may sound inconsequential that the Government supports a national strategy. Senator Cavanagh this afternoon was rather scathing of the fact that we as a Committee were fairly happy with that particular support from the Government. However, if we bear in mind that for the first time a Government has admitted that tobacco in any quantity is detrimental to health, and that the Government is committed to the overall lowering of the consumption of alcohol, we will see that this is quite a step forward. The Government is committed to the lowering of the consumption of alcohol, and has stated officially that it is aware that tobacco is detrimental, in any quantity, to the health of the nation and has said that it will be taking action in this regard. I for one am very happy and congratulate the Government for taking this initiative alone.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– Before debating for a short time this report by the Commission led by Mr Justice Williams, I would like to quote from the first page of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, ‘Drug Problems in Australia- An Intoxicated Society’, a report which was brought out by Senator Walters, you, Madam Acting Deputy President, myself and other members of the Committee. We make a plea in the first page of this report that the drug debate should be rational, that we should avoid extremist views, that we should avoid biased arguments that cannot be justified, that we should avoid as much as possible emotional arguments. We said:

A re-orientation is needed, away from the protection of entrenched moral positions toward a constructive debate which has as its aim the diminution of the problems drugs present to our society. Attachment to this goal, rather than emotional attachments to favoured solutions will aid the search for more reasonable and more efficacious strategies . . . drug use arises within a society of which we are all pan. All people use drugs, and blanket moral protestations of their evil are largely hypocritical. It is society itself that creates the conditions which lead to licit and illicit taking of drugs to excess, for drug use is derived from the basic mores of our society: the use of drugs is not just a problem of deviance.

I believe that Senator Chipp in his speech in this debate tried to introduce an element of reasonableness in his call for a bipartisan attitude and for a less emotional attitude to this problem. He asked that we sit down as responsible legislators and look at the problem and the possible solutions and come to sensible answers. Senator Walters, when she rose, said that she could not agree with him more and said that she wanted to take part in this debate, that this was the sort of thing that she wanted to do. In the very next breath she did what she does in almost every one of her speeches in this Parliament; she decided to take a swipe at the State Labor Government in Tasmania and immediately introduced a party political element into this debate. To me it is disappointing that she did it under the guise that she did.

I agree with some parts of this Royal Commission’s report. There are many things I disagree with- and I took part in writing the Senate Standing Committee’s report on drug problems. There were pleas in both reports that we must break down this biased attitude. We must break down this nonsensical Commonwealth-State rivalry, this inter-service rivalry, this lack of cooperation between the State and the Commonwealth police forces that has existed in the past and which existed between the Narcotics Bureau, when it was operating, and the State police forces. This sort of plea has gone on for a long time, and much of it is not new. That we have not had a national strategy has been a disgrace. That we have not had uniform drug legislation is of course a disgrace, if we look at the national problems. We do not have uniform drug legislation. The State Ministers at the time said that they would introduce uniform drug legislation for traffickers and then went away and, as Senator Walters quite clearly demonstrated, introduced widely differing penalties in each State for drug trafficking and for possession of drugs. One needs to look only at the difference between Queensland and the other States in this regard.

We have no uniform State laws. The Tasmanian Government, which does not have the severe problem of trafficking of, say, New South Wales and Victoria, made its judgment and introduced the penalties that it has and yet it is condemned by Senator Walters.

Senator Walters:

– You ask the appropriate people in Tasmania whether they have problems.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am not saying there is no problem, Senator Walters. I have never suggested there was no problem. You peristently and consistently in this place choose to misrepresent people’s attitudes as you did when you spoke about the majority report on cannabis in the Senate Select Committee’s report. Certainly, Senator Baume, Senator Brown and I at the time did not come out in favour of the legalisation of the use of cannabis in this country. I agree that we did not come out with that finding primarily for the reason that we thought that there should be more knowledge about the subject. We thought that we should not encourage the use of the drug, but particularly we thought that in the absence of a cheap, quick, accurate and easy method of measuring the level of tetrahydrocannabinol in the blood, there would be a problem on the roads.

What we did come out with and what we did impress on people, and what has been impressed on people in this community and in other communities over the years, though we may not agree completely with the legalisation- I agree with Senator Baume in this case- is largely this lack of ability to measure it and therefore properly to police its use on the roads. We came out very strongly saying that the possession and the use of marihuana were certainly not reasons to gaol people, to ruin their careers, to turn them into criminals, to sack them from the Public Service at any level, as is done in Queensland, and certainly not reasons to treat them like drug addicts in the community. As Senator Baume pointed out this afternoon, to treat marihuana users the same as narcotic users and to have marihuana in the same schedules as the narcotic drugs is absolutely ludicrous. We are not the only ones who say this; the Senate Select Committee said it in 1971.

Every drug authority in the country says this, and yet Senator Walters and the Government say that we should continue to gaol people, to sack people, to throw them out of the Public Service and, what is more, we should treat them differently in every State, as we do now. One knows that the chances of severe penalties for marihuana offences inside the Australian Capital Territory are not very high. One knows that in

Queensland to be caught with a relatively small amount can result in career-ruining penalties. What we do know more than anything else about the use of cannabis is that despite quite horrific penalties- life imprisonment for possession in some States in the United States of America and severe penalties in this country in the form of gaoling, shaming, the ruination of careers- the social use of marihuana has immeasurably increased. This penal approach, this destructive approach, has done nothing. It has failed. We must find alternatives. We must recognise that a large percentage of our young people, and not only our young people, are put in a ridiculous situation of being made criminals because of this archaic law which treats people for possession in this way.

Whether we advocate legalisation, as Senator Tate does and perhaps now Senator Chipp, or whether we merely advocate a form of decriminalisation, as Senator Puplick, Senator Baume and I do, although I realise that that word does not necessarily apply very well under out legal system, we have to change the approach we have had in the past. We have created more social problems by our treatment and our penalties than are created by the use of the drug. We have plenty of evidence of the effects of the drug. We have reports that go back to the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission in 1894, the New York mayor’s report in 1 944, the Wootton report in the United Kingdom in 1 968. Report after report, and they are listed in the Senate Committee’s report, has said that hard, careful evidence has been taken as to the harmful effects of the use of marihuana, yet no evidence has been found to be worth having. Senator Walters knows that our Committee asked doctor after doctor and expert after expert: What is the treatment for someone who smokes marihuana? The answer was always that there is no treatment because in fact there is nothing to treat.

Let us not misrepresent the views of those of us who were members of the Committee. I believe that Senator Walters falls into a trap into which a lot of people in the community fall. It is a trap to believe that the answer to the drug problem of our society- and it is the problem of our society, as the report points out- lies in harsh penalties, gaoling and, particularly, very heavy fines. Mr Justice Williams does not say that, and no one who is an expert in the field says it. The answer to the problem of hard drugs, and particularly trafficking, rather than being harsh penalties is the near certainty of detection. On page 237 of Volume B of his report Mr Justice Williams states:

A high detection rate is a far greater deterrent to drug trafficking than the occasional detection and conviction of a drug trafficker to whom a severe sentence may be given.

He goes on to say:

In recommending that police have wider powers, it is the Commission ‘s hope that the certainty of detection will become the real deterrent to the drug trafficker.

Over and over again, harsh penalties have had the effect in what is a market situation of driving up the price of drugs, driving up the cost, increasing the corruption, and increasing the rewards of those who can always avoid detection. The only people who are in almost certain risk of detection of, say, marihuana smoking, which unfortunately is what the police concentrate on in this country, are the young, the long-haired, the unemployed, the student. The middle-aged, middle class, wealthy smoker of cannabis in the suburbs is not detected. The laws are not applied equally. The person who pushes heroin in a big way in general is not detected. This is the problem in our society. It is the problem over and over again. We have been concentrating on head counts, on detecting those who use marihuana, even occasionally treating them harshly and fiercely and, because it is easier, too often ignoring and not detecting the users and pushers of heroin, who in the long term will be the real problem.

All the time we have been doing this, all the time we have been indulging in the rhetoric and the nonsense that is going on in the Press, as Senator Baume, Senator Chipp and others have said, we have been ignoring the really big drug problems in the country- alcohol and tobacco. We have been ignoring these problems, I believe, not only because of the vested interests behind them but also because of the revenue they give to the Government. If we are to increase the certainty of detection, if we are to increase the powers of the police in this area, at the same time we must be careful of how we go about it. We must be careful of the sorts of powers we give to the police and of the abuse to which those powers are likely to be subject. We could easily take the Saudi Arabian solution to alcohol and start chopping off people’s heads or hands, but I do not think anyone in this community wants to do that. We could easily follow the solution of other totalitarian countries, where there are no civil liberties, where bugging is routine, where search without warrant is routine. We could easily do those things, but that is not the sort of solution that we need in this country and it is not the sort of solution which will stop drug addiction and drug peddling.

I think it is worth while looking at a couple of things in the Commission ‘s report. It has recommended widening considerably the powers of the police to tap and to enter, in all cases with the need for a court order. But we have found in this community that court orders can be got around. The Commission very correctly says that, while we have the system we have, enforcement against pedlars and traffickers will remain largely the problem of the State police area, where there has been an increasing incursion of real criminals, where there has been an increasing propensity to violence and a great increase in drug-related crime. Yet in recommending these increased powers for the police, in Volume B, page 230, the report points out that the State police in many cases have been found wanting. In relation to corruption, it states. this has occurred when police have actually engaged in drug trafficking or have accepted bribes. . . .

They have been found wanting in that some of them have concocted cases against offenders by planting drugs on people whom the police strongly suspected but cannot otherwise prove are involved in drugs. The police have been guilty of unnecessary roughness in dealing with people, of destroying and damaging property without repairing damage that has occurred in the course of executing searches of premises. There has been a failure to deal promptly and properly with complaints against the police. There has been lax security and stealing of money from suspects.

When the Commission on one page of the report suggests that that sort of thing has been going on, on another page suggests a great widening of the powers of the police, and then on a further page suggests that we should deal with police corruption and police problems by internal police investigations and only look at and investigate in the future the possibility of independent inquiries into charges against police of corruption, of violence, laxity of security or stealing, then I think we as a Parliament have to be very careful. It has been disappointing to me to read that the main concern of the Press about the recommendations for increased powers for the police has been with the recommendation of Mr Justice Williams- with which I and others agree- that the police should have the power to get at taxation records, after obtaining court approval. I think it is an interesting reflection on the values of our society that none of the newspapers, none of the editorials, seem to be concerned about an increase in the ability to tap phones and to enter premises which are under suspicion. They all seem to be concerned about the ability of the police to get at taxation records. I think that is a very interesting reflection on the values of our society and the values of those editorialists and journalists in our society. We must be sure that we do not fall into the trap of getting our priorities mixed up. I urge the Senate, before it enters into widening the powers of the police, which I believe must be widened to look carefully at the civil liberties aspect of this issue.

Debate interrupted.

page 836

ADJOURNMENT

Hansard’ Index-Aboriginal Land Rights

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I shall speak for a few moments in the adjournment debate tonight. I wish to congratulate members of the Hansard staff and the Government Printer for the new format of the Daily Hansard. I was pleasantly surprised today to find that at the back of the Hansard we now have an index of speeches and subjects which I understand will be updated at the end of each period of weekly sittings during the session. I think that this is a wonderful innovation. It will be of great benefit to members of both Houses. We will be able to refer quickly to any speeches made by members of Parliament. (Quorum formed). I am pleased that honourable senators on the Government side of the Senate have come into the chamber because what I was saying is well worth mentioning in this Parliament. Before the quorum was called I was congratulating the Hansard staff and the Government Printer on the initiative they have shown in placing an index of the speeches and subjects at the back of the Daily Hansard. I was saying that I was very pleased and pleasantly surprised when I found indexes in my copies of the Senate Hansard and the House of Representatives Hansard this morning. I think the people responsible have done a very great service not only to members of Parliament but also to the people in the Public Service and other people who read Hansard. We are now able to see at a quick glance where the subjects in which we might be interested are contained in the Hansard. We now do not have to wait until the bound volumes for the session are printed, which does not usually happen until well into the next year, to obtain an index.

It is not my intention to take up the time of the Senate any longer except to ask you, Mr President, whether you would be good enough to convey the Senate’s appreciation to the members of the Hansard staff who are responsible for the inclusion of this index and to the Government Printer as I understand that he has also put an amount of work into it. It is my understanding that this index will be updated at the end of each sitting- whether it be a three-week or a fortnight sitting- when we have a week’s break so that when we resume sitting we will have a complete updating of the index. As I said, that will be of great benefit to all people who are interested in reading Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

– I appreciate very much Senator McLaren’s reference to the betterment that the Hansard gentlemen and ladies have brought. The Principal Parliamentary Reporter, Mr Kerr, this morning advised me of the change. I intended to make an announcement on the matter. Senator McLaren has already referred to it. What he has said indicates the present situation and the intentions for the future. His reference to the matter is timely. I am proud of the Hansard staff and the printing folk for what they have done in this matter.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not want to detain the Senate for any great time. I am disturbed, as I am sure many Australians are disturbed, about what has happened in the Noonkanbah dispute over the last few months, but particularly over the last few days. I forwarded a telegram yesterday to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) couched in these words:

Advice from reliable source that Amax moving in to Noonkanbah this morning. Can you confirm and advise urgently of what action your Department is taking.

More than 24 hours later I have received no reply to the telegram. Today the Leader of the Opposition in the Western Australian Parliament, Mr Ron Davies, called on the Premier, Sir Charles Court, to resign. Mr Davies claimed that the Premier had misled the people of Western Australia over the Noonkanbah situation. I think that that is precisely what has happened. I shall refer to a number of documents. The movement of Amax Exploration (Australia) Inc. on to the Noonkanbah area is summed up very briefly in these few paragraphs:

Leitch, West Australia Commissioner of Police, has confirmed that 35 police were on Noonkanbah yesterday although only 1 1 were at the scene of the conversation.

He was referring to a discussion which took place with the Aborigines. This document continues:

Police in Derby. Port Hedland, and Penh were also standing by.

Sir Charles Court had hand delivered to the Noonkanbah community on Sunday an assurance-

This is only two days ago- that nothing further would happen about Amax entering the area until there had been discussions between the community and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Community Welfare, and the Museums Board. (Presumably the half hour of consultations yesterday before Amax formally entered the site without consultation).

Noonkanbah community people say that . . .

An official of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs- told them yesterday that they had to make a choice immediately about whether number one or number two drilling site were to be used.

Both of the sites are on sacred areas. On 17 March- I hope this has no significance as it was St Patrick’s Day- a statement was issued by Dr Doug Everingham, Clyde Holding, John Dawkins, Senator Cavanagh, Gordon Bryant and me in these terms:

Senator Chaney must now take full control on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of the dispute at Noonkanbah Station, following Sir Charles Court’s rejection of Aboriginal rights there.

The pastoral lease at Noonkanbah was acquired with Commonwealth funds, because no Aboriginal reserve existed.

The land must now be acquired by the Commonwealth.

May I add to that that there is valuable and extensive evidence that the Commonwealth has the right to do this. But this Government, which has been pussyfooting around ever since its election on 13 December 1975, has declined to take up the challenge and to do this for Aborigines. Instead it would rather play footsies with Sir Charles Court and Mr Bjelke-Petersen who are the two worst offenders in this area if one excludes that other Everingham, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. These are the three people to whom this Government continually knuckles under. It is afraid of the political backlash from those three people, namely, the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and the Premiers of Western Australia and Queensland. I continue with the statement:

Sir Charles Court has deliberately aggravated the situation with his threats to withdraw exploration leases from mining companies which seek negotiations with Aboriginal communities.

That is a very bad threat. The statement continues:

He has also exacerbated the dispute with his threats regarding withdrawal of pastoral leases for Aboriginal communities in the future. Although Senator Chaney did not regard the Noonkanbah dispute as important enough to justify his presence at a meeting in Perth last Friday with the Noonkanbah people and the Western Australian Ministers for Mines, Cultural Affairs and Community Welfare, he (Senator Chaney) is well aware of the Commonwealth’s constitutional powers. The 1967 Referendum granted the Commonwealth plenary powers, both to make laws for Aboriginal people and to acquire property on their behalf. The Commonwealth’s powers under sections 51 (26) and 51 (31) of the Constitution were extensively examined and endorsed by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.

May I again add to that? This is included in the report brought down in relation to Aurukun and Mornington Island by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I think the evidence included in that report is quite clear cut. The Commonwealth has the power but neither the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs nor the Government are prepared to exercise it. I return to the statement issued by the joint group which continues:

Although the Committee ‘s report was tabled in the Senate in November 1 978, (Parliamentary Paper No. 330 of 1 978 ), the Government has not responded to it. We call on the Federal Government to draft legislation, as a matter of urgency, to bring Noonkanbah Station, and the Aboriginal community there, firmly under Federal control.

I issue that challenge now to the Minister. I have no doubt that it will not be acceded to by either the Minister or this Government. We have tried to raise the land rights issue in the other place. In a Press statement issued on 18 March 1980 by my colleague in another place, Mr Clyde Holding, he said this:

For the second time in two consecutive sitting weeks the Government has gagged debate on land rights of the Pitjantjatjara peoples of South Australia.

The Government’s priorities are obviously to uphold State Liberal Governments, totally ignore the rights of Aboriginal people over land they have traditionally owned and to prevent any discussion of any Aboriginal issues in the Parliament.

Aboriginal people throughout Australia should be aware that the Prime Minister’s ‘hatchet man’ was the member for Leichhardt, David Thomson, Minister for Science and Environment.

Mr Thomson wanders around his electorate telling his constituents how well he serves them, but in Canberra he becomes Fraser’s executioner in issues absolutely vital to all Aboriginal people in Australia.

This afternoon a telegram has been sent to quite a number of Aboriginal leaders in the electorate of Leichhardt pointing out the fact that the man who states that he is their champion in the area in Canberra sells them out. That applies also to the Federal member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) who in Canberra sells out the black constituents in his area. May I read also a statement made by Mr Jimmy Bieundurry, who is Chairman of the Kimberley Land Council, member of the Western Australian State Lands Trust and the National Aboriginal Conference representative for West

Kimberley? His words are straightforward. He states:

Charles Court has lied in saying that AMAX went on to Noonkanbah with the Aboriginal community’s consent. The company forced its way on with police support and the connivance ofthe Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

That is a very tough accusation. I hope the Minister has a reply to it. The statement continues:

A police force of 11 men with four cars and a ‘paddy wagon ‘ reinforced AMAX’s move to the Pea Hill sacred site. The company and Mines Department officials had then given the community an ultimatum that they would drill on the Pea Hill site unless directed by the community to an alternative drilling area which is also a sacred site.

Police stood by with the ‘paddy wagon’ to arrest Aboriginal people if they refused to consent. This is what Sir Charles Court calls negotiation and agreement.

Let us just refer to this. It is very much like the original negotiations that took place at Aurukun. It is like the negotiations that took place at Old Mapoon where police with guns were able to force the original owners of the land to consent. I am amazed, shocked, surprised and disgusted that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs allows this to go on when he is supposed to be protecting the Aboriginal people from this sort of brutality.

I refer further to Jimmy Bieundurry’s statement. He says:

The Noonkanbah community has told me and the Regional Director of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Long, only the day before, that they were hoping for a cooling off period during which the WA Museum would do a complete survey of all sites on the station. It is only two days ago since the Premier assured them that there would be no drilling without prior negotiation between the Company and the community, and no drilling whatsoever on sacred sites.

Again Sir Charles Court has openly lied to the Aboriginal people.

Aboriginal people have been threatened with an ultimatum or the alternative of arrest for protecting their religious beliefs.

The police, the Company and the Government had deliberately set out to catch the Community off guard while they awaited the Premier’s promised negotiations with AMAX and the arrival of Museum personnel.

I challenge the Regional Director of DAA, Mr Long, as Senator Chaney ‘s representative at Noonkanbah yesterday, to provide his account of the events and to declare whether the community’s consent was given freely or under duress. There was no doubt that the most extreme duress was used.

I am concerned at the role played by Mr Long, who apparently had several days notice of the Company’s intention to move on to Noonkanbah. Despite scheduled appointments in Perth Mr Long had chosen to remain for the past few days in Derby to participate in yesterday’s events. Despite this prior knowledge Mr Long failed to communicate anything of what was impending to the community or the Aboriginal Legal Service.

Consequently, the community had no warning and no recourse to legal advice.

I would also doubt the proposed Federal investigation of yesterday’s events, given that Senator Chaney ‘s most senior officer in WA, Mr Long, was- under the terms of the 1974 Commonwealth-State Agreement on Aboriginal Affairsalso under the direct control of the WA Minister for Police and Community Welfare.

Aboriginal people have lost their wishes and their religious beliefs have been violated by the combined action of AMAX, the police forces, the Mines Department and the Ministers for Community Welfare and Aboriginal Affairs in such circumstances.

Against such forces Aboriginal people have no hope of justice or means to gain and maintain dignity and respect.

That accusation against the Western Australian Government, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and a number of officials has been made by a prominent Aboriginal. The West Australian of Wednesday, 19 March 1980 carries a fairly extensive report of the matter. I wish to refer to only a small portion of it. It incorporates a comprehensive map. I wish Hansard had the facilities to publish this sort of diagram and map. The headline says ‘ Aborigines ‘ cites cover all drilling ‘ and the article reads:

The whole area proposed for exploratory drilling on Noonkanbah station falls under the influence of Aboriginal special sites, according to the WA museum report on the area.

This report has been suppressed and hidden, so that people have been denied access to it. The article continues:

The report told the State Government that the site complex in which drilling was proposed was significant in a religious context.

Mythological connections were authentic and ancient and were intimately linked to the economic present, the report said.

The Aboriginal community considered that any use of the drill zone- particularly the sub-stratas- by the company would be harmful to the site complex.

The report said that the special sites had been pointed out by Aborigines of the clan descent group for the area.

Sacred sites identified in the Noonkanbah area had spheres of influence that went beyond the sites.

The State Government has refused to release the report.

A copy of the report, which was used as an exhibit in a legal action last year to try to keep miners off Noonkanbah, was made available by the Aboriginal Legal Service yesterday. .

The copy had several small sections deleted on the advice of an anthropologist.

The deleted sections dealt with sacred objects and ceremonies that the Aboriginal community might not wish to see published.

The day before, Tuesday, 18 March 1980, an article by Professor R. M. Berndt, who is doubtless one of the most respected anthropologists in this country, was published. It said:

The Aborigines at Noonkanbah station had a telling case in demanding the protection of their sacred sites, the head of WA’s anthropology department, Professor R. M. Berndt, said yesterday.

Professor Berndt called for the release of the NVA Museum’s interim report on the sacred sites at the station.

He also suggested the establishment of a land rights council and tribunal to process Aboriginal claims for land ownership. He said that land rights were the major issue facing Aborigines.

A summarised version of the museum’s report should exclude details which the Aborigines did not want released about the actual sites.

That is the area to which I referred a couple of moments ago. The article continues:

Professor Berndt is a member of the museum’s material culture committee which mounted the anthropological study on which the report is based.

He said the report had concluded that the whole area within which any drill hole could be located was under the influence of traditional and sacred sites.

It had found that the areas was a complex of sites, all of which were important to Aborigines and significant in religious and economic terms.

The Noonkanbah community in June last year had said that interference with the sites would harm the land.

The State Government last year rejected the recommendations in the report and directed the museum trustees to approve Amax’s proposed mining operations.

Professor Berndt said that the release of the report would clear the way for negotiations to take place on a firm basis.

There we have a report which indicates certain responsibilities for governments at both the national and State levels. The State Government elected to direct alterations so that, in fact, the procedures of Amax could go ahead. There is a grave moral and political responsibility on the Mininster for Aboriginal Affairs, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Australian Government to interfere in the affairs of Western Australia on behalf of the Aborigines. I propose shortly to quote a number of paragraphs from another report which might indicate to the people of this country why this Government will not make a move. The people in the area which the mining companies want to exploit have a right to that land, but they have never been allowed that right. They have a right at least to some sort of moral protection but both the Australian Government and the Western Australian Government are standing by while the mining company is taking over, with the aid of the police of the State. Unfortunately the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs slipped a little last night, on 18 March, when he was addressing a senior management program in local government at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. I refer to page 3 of his statement where, under the heading of accountability, he states:

One of the greatest problems which has faced the administration of self-management policy-

This is in relation to Aborigines- has been the absence of legal accountability by Aboriginals in respect of government money received through grants-in-aid.

The basis of operations for receipt of grants has been within the framework of the limited company.

While in theory, this framework provided for accountability to my department for Commonwealth funds received and through relevant legislation, the supervision of Registrars and the responsibility of companies to their paid up members, in fact, this in too many cases, has not happened. The corporate structure is open to inefficiency, inequity and just plain fiddles.

That is a terrible accusation to make against the black people of this country. The Minister continues:

Also, in many cases, the bodies charged with enforcing the standards of companies are not equipped to closely supervise the thousands of corporate bodies under their jurisdiction.

In short, the way things are, if the Board of an Aboriginal housing company spends its government grant on fast cars and high living instead of houses, there is very little the Government can do to recoup the funds. When instances of misappropriation have occurred, we have invariably found the Aboriginal shareholders unwilling (or too frightened ) to initiate legal action.

Aboriginals are in fact, self-managing in a vacuum.

And here I get to the point of describing one model for the Government’s self-management policy. This is the local government structure.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs said that to a group of people who no doubt cheered him to the echo when he uttered words of that nature, because most of them hate blacks anyway. I believe we have a very serious situation when the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is prepared to opt out of his responsibility. He has opted out on this matter, and he has opted out on Aurukun, Mornington Island, Yarrabah and Kowanyama. He has opted out on the Northern Territory and in Alice Springs, where a group of racists were able to change the whole housing policy. The Prime Minister of this country bounces around the stages of the world telling everybody that there is no apartheid in Australia. We have a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who is prepared to continue the policy of apartheid- everything for the whites and nothing for the blacks. I hope that the Minister has a reply to the question of Noonkanbah. As far as Aborigines are concerned it is just one more peg in the Minister’s portfolio. The Aborigines of this country are disgusted. I would say that the majority of white people in this country are disgusted also at the way that this Government has handled Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– The conclusion of the speech made by Senator Keeffe was a good example of the sort of thing that is causing what is commonly called the white backlash in this country. It was an unreasonable and silly conclusion to a speech that directed itself to a matter that has been under consideration by me for a considerable period. My complaint about the end of the speech would best be summarised by pointing out that the document from which the honourable senator finally quoted was not a speech that I gave. It was, in fact, a speech prepared which I did not deliver but which was distributed to a meeting of local government officers. I made a quite separate speech. For the honourable senator to suggest that those local government officers were a bunch of racists, which is what he suggested, is an extremely silly statement indeed. I am sure that it will be greatly resented by those people if it comes to their attention,

The matter of Noonkanbah is not a new one. It has been proceeding for a considerable time. Indeed, the problems commenced early in 1979, if not before. My contact with the problem commenced in early 1979. The position is that Noonkanbah is a pastoral lease. It is not an Aboriginal reserve; it is not Aboriginal land in any other sense. It is a pastoral lease purchased by the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission using Commonwealth funds and vested in the Aboriginal Lands Trust of Western Australia, a State body which holds land on behalf of Aboriginals. The legal title is that of a pastoral lease. As such, it does not contain any special privilege against mining. Like any part of Western Australia held under pastoral lease, Noonkanbah is open to mining. The exception to that is that protection is given to certain sacred sites of significance under State legislation.

The general statutory framework that I have described is not new. It is a framework which applied during the period of the previous government and which it made no attempt to upset or change. I would remind the honourable senator that when the Labor Government introduced land rights legislation into this Parliament in 1975 that legislation applied only to the Northern Territory. At that time there was no suggestion that the Labor Government would legislate to provide land rights, to which Senator Keeffe has referred, anywhere in Australia other than in the Commonwealth territory of the Northern Territory. At that time there was no suggestion that the Commonwealth Government would legislate to provide protection for sacred sites. Senator Keeffe might like to suggest that the sorts of problems that he is addressing now are problems which have arisen only in the last 12 months. Of course, that would be nonsense. The fact is that we have a federal system of government in Australia in which the States have jurisdiction of land. That situation has applied for many years. It applied from 1972 to 1975 and it is a position which the Labor Government made no attempt to change.

This Government enacted legislation in 1976 which provided land rights in the Northern Territory and which has resulted in something like 30 per cent- if one takes the total of land granted or land under claim it is nearly 40 per cent- of land in the Northern Territory either being held as Aboriginal land or being claimed as Aboriginal land. These claims will be heard by the Aboriginal Land Commissioner. This Government has substantially enacted land rights in the Territory, for which we were directly constitutionally responsible. Since we came into government we have continued to purchase properties on behalf of Aboriginals through the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission.

What has been suggested by Senator Keeffe is that suddenly this is an area in which the Commonwealth should intervene. He has mounted that call on the basis of what has happened at Noonkanbah in the past few weeks. He referred to certain Press releases which had been issued by other people. I will comment on some of those points. First of all, Senator Keeffe referred to a Press statement which involved the Australian Labor Party demanding Federal control at Noonkanbah, in which he joined with, I think, five other Labor members. It referred to my claimed lack of regard for the Noonkanbah dispute, to my regarding it as not being important enough to justify my presence at a meeting in Perth last Friday. Of course, that was a meeting which occurred not in Perth but in Noonkanbah last Friday. It was a meeting which I had indicated earlier that I could not attend because I had commitments in the eastern States. But it was a meeting which I asked my regional director, Mr Long, to attend and which he did attend.

The other Press release referred to was one by Mr Jimmy Bieundurry. I will make a number of comments with respect to that. Firstly, the Press release contains suggestions which relate to Mr Long, the regional director of my Department, who was in Noonkanbah on Monday and Tuesday. He went there at my request. As I understand it, he was not present when Amax representatives went to the property; he arrived later in the day. I am still awaiting a detailed report from him. He returned from Noonkanbah to Derby only this evening and is on his way back to Perth. I have asked him to give me a detailed report on the situation at Noonkanbah as soon as possible. I certainly reject any suggestion that Mr Long has behaved in any way improperly. I sent him there because I wished to have a person on the site who would be able to report direct to me. That is precisely what Mr Long will do.

Also, certain allegations were made by the honourable senator with respect to members in the other place, namely, the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and Mr Thomson, the Minister for Science and the Environment. Senator Keeffe complained that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Holding, had been refused the opportunity to debate the matter of Pitjantjatjara land and Noonkanbah in the House of Representatives. I refer the honourable senator and the Senate generally to the comments made in the House of Representatives last night by the honourable member for Dundas, Mr Ruddock, during a debate on that subject on the motion for the adjournment of the House. Mr Ruddock pointed out that the program of the House had been affected by the Opposition’s having used the time available to it to bring forward a private member’s Bill, which was brought forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, Mr Lionel Bowen, and which related to section 45d of the Trade Practices Act. So, in fact, the Australian Labor Party preempted the time which might have been available to discuss that topic because obviously it regarded section 45 d as being a more important issue than the issue which the honourable senator has chosen to raise tonight on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate.

The honourable senator suggested that the Commonwealth and I are knuckling under to Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia in the field of Aboriginal affairs. I think it would be as plain as even the nose on my face or the nose on the honourable senator’s face that I do not follow the same course as he might follow were he in my position. The course which I follow with respect to all of the States is to endeavour to work with them in the field of Aboriginal affairs rather than entering into continuous disputation with them. The honourable senator ought to try to remember the period of 1 972 to 1 975 and the fact that, with the conflicts of policy which occurred, there were considerable difficulties in the administration of Aboriginal affairs as his Government might have wished. I believe that a great deal of time and effort and a great deal of money were wasted in disputation instead of getting on with the job of helping Aboriginal people. I have pursued and I will continue to pursue the course of seeking to engage in common enterprise with the States and the Northern Territory in improving the lot of Aboriginal people. I believe that that illustrates a fundamental difference between my approach to Aboriginal affairs and that of the honourable senator. It is an approach for which I do not make any apology.

Returning to the issue of Noonkanbah, my contact with Noonkanbah has been virtually continuous since about last May or June. I have visited the property twice; I have had discussions with the people; I have had extensive correspondence with them and with their legal advisers. Consistently since the middle of last year I have urged them, following the litigation in which they engaged and which bought them a considerable amount of time because, of course, drilling was postponed until after the wet season which is just concluding now in the Kimberleys, to take up with the company and with the State Government the two areas of concern. They are areas which certainly concern me greatly. The first is the question of the protection of sacred sites and the second is the question of the protection of the community itself.

The property was purchased for the Noonkanbah community for its social and economic advantage and advancement. I believe that that purchase has been successful. The Noonkanbah community socially is, I think, operating well as a community. The people have kept grog out of the community; they have preserved their social structure; they are running a community school; they are working on the economic side of the enterprise in a constructive way. I believe it is a very good example of the benefits which can be attained by Aboriginal communities through the purchase of properties. That is the policy which I hope to see continue, namely, the purchase of properties for groups and communities such as the community that is presently resident at Noonkanbah.

The success of the community is something that I applaud. That is why I have been concerned about the possible effects of mining. The protection of sacred sites is something which is properly the concern of the community and which the State government has indicated is its concern also. Over the last week there have been statements by Sir Charles Court, which I have publicly welcomed, to the effect that sacred sites will be respected in this whole exercise. Sir Charles Court has made statements, which I have welcomed, to the effect also that the community itself will be respected and that the mining company will be required to agree with the community on proper social controls- the control of alcohol and things of that sort. So on these important questions there has been unanimity of stated principle.

It appears to me that if there is a difficulty at Noonkanbah it is because there is a difference not in terms of the publicly stated principle but in the application of that principle to a precise set of facts. That is a matter on which I am still awaiting a more detailed report from my Department, as I indicated earlier. The question arises: If sacred sites are to be respected, how are those sacred sites to be identified? That is a matter about which I was asked a question in this Senate. I think, yesterday by Senator Mcintosh of Western Australia. I indicated to him in response to that question that the Premier of Western Australia had indicated to me that where there was a dispute, the view of the Western Australian Musuem would be relied upon. That was the information that I was given and which I relayed to the Senate.

I have seen the newspaper report which the honourable senator referred to which purports to quote a report from the Musuem and which indicates that a considerable area has been designated as a site of significance, or whatever the appropriate expression is under the Western Australian Act. That report is, in part, doctored because the legal service indicates, according to the newspaper, that there are sensitive parts of it which are not to be released. That is consistent with the view which the Western Australian Government has advanced-

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. The Minister has referred to the doctoring of a report. That is quite unfair because that report refers to sacred things.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order. If misrepresentation has been occasioned there will be an opportunity later on for the honourable senator to speak.

Senator CHANEY:

– I withdraw any suggestion that doctoring in any sinister sense has occurred. I certainly did not mean that if that is the view that the honourable senator took. I want to quote from a rather poor copy of this newspaper that I have. The report states- this makes the position clear:

The copy had several small sections deleted on the advice of an anthropologist. The deleted sections dealt with sacred objects and ceremonies that the Aboriginal community might not wish to see published.

The point I was trying to make was simply that that is consistent with the reasons advanced by the State Government as to why it was not prepared to publish reports issued by the Museum. My position at the moment- it is therefore the Government’s position- is that we have certain assurances from Sir Charles Court which relate to the respect which will be accorded to sites. We have now certain newspaper reports on which I am awaiting more specific information. I will consider the detailed report which I expect from my regional director when it is to hand.

I assure the Senate and in particular Senator Keeffe who has raised this matter that I regard the Noonkanbah issue as serious for a number of reasons, but perhaps the simplest reason is that the community- 1 have indicated this earlier- is, I think, getting its society together in a very positive way and achieving some very good results. I would not wish to see those good results dissipated or lost. The whole question is one in which the State has the basic constitutional responsibility. It is a matter in which, however, I have a close interest because the welfare of the Aboriginal community is involved. I will continue to remain in close consultation with the State Government and the community. I trust that the genuine interests of the people of Noonkanbah can be protected.

It appears to me on the information which I have at this stage on the Noonkanbah case that some questions have been raised about how one defines the sites which are to be protected. There is a genuine question here which needs to be approached in a way which is a little different from the way in which the whole subject was raised by Senator Keeffe tonight. I think that on a proper view of the Aboriginal relationship to land it could be said that all parts of Aboriginal land are sacred. The whole relationship of an Aboriginal Community or an Aboriginal as an individual to land relates not only to the particular outstanding sites which are perhaps the focus of the stories which relate to that land but also to the tracks which connect those sites. In discussions with anthropologists I have been assured that the view which I have developed from my reading on the subject, that one could regard all land as sacred from an Aboriginal view, is a view which is sustainable.

I do not believe that it is the objective of the protective legislation in any of the States or the Northern Territory for all areas to be protected just because there is an Aboriginal land component. The fact is that it is the special sacred sites which stand to be protected. The outstanding examples of that are places such as Uluru and Mount Brockman, which are known to everybody. There are many other sites of special, if lesser, significance than the two I have mentioned. The question becomes one of the dividing line between the sacred site, the special site which is deserving of protection, and the generality of Aboriginal land which has its legends, its stories and its religious significance. It seems to me that the fundamental question which arises at Noonkanbah is that distinction between these two sorts of land for which the Aboriginal significance is known. That is a matter to which I think I will have to address myself and on which I will have to confer with the State Governments. My interpretation of the information I have received from the State Government, that I have seen in the media and obtained from the other sources which I have is that that is where the real difficulty and difference of opinion lies if, indeed, there is a difference of opinion.

I assure the Senate that this matter will receive close and careful consideration. I assure the Aboriginal people of Australia that it will receive close and careful consideration. However, in some ways the close and careful consideration that I have sought has been hindered by some of the acts of the Aboriginals themselves and their advisers in this matter. It has not been helpful, I believe, to a sober consideration of the sacred site question that on a number of occasions the Noonkanbah community has sought to have the whole of Noonkanbah insulated from any mining activity. I think that that has clouded the issue of the sacred sites and led to some false arguments floating around in the media and elsewhere.

The other thing which has concerned me is that there has been a considerable delay available to the Aboriginal community since the injunction was obtained in, I think, July of last year. There has not been as good a follow up on having discussions with both the miners and the Government as I would have wished. I would like to place on record, since there are some allegations about my Department’s role in this matter, that I and my Department have done a number of things to try to facilitate the sort of exchange that we thought was necessary. For example, we arranged for a group from Noonkanbah to visit the Northern Territory to meet with people from Groote Eylandt who have had a lot of experience with mining and with agreements. We arranged for a group to visit Barrow Island because we thought it would be helpful to them in the unlikely event that an oil field would be found on Noonkanbah to see what an actual oil field was like. These steps were taken because we thought they would help the members of the community to deal with the difficult questions that faced them. It is a matter of some disappointment to me that the discussions which I urged and the consideration which I suggested to the community needed to be given on the sacred site question and on the protection of the community I think were not given as assiduous attention as would have been helpful in all the circumstances.

I am sure everyone would like me to close at this very late hour but I do not wish to close on that negative note. I draw attention again to the very positive achievements of the Noonkanbah community- positive achievements which this Government wishes to see maintained. I again assure the Senate that the matter will receive close and careful attention.

Senator KEEFFE (Queensland)-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented and I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave granted.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Owing to the lateness of the hour I refer in particular to the claim by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) that a report was doctored. It referred to matter of religious -

Senator Chaney:

– I have made it quite clear that I had no intention of imputing any false -

Senator KEEFFE:

-Every Aboriginal in Australia who reads that in the Press will be absolutely disgusted. I propose to continue this debate tomorrow night on the adjournment and to refer to all of the misrepresentations that have been made by the Minister and all of the evasive statements.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I raise a point of order. The honourable senator talked about misrepresentations by the Minister. I think he should be asked to withdraw that.

KEEFFE, James:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– You did not even get the words accurately. You are getting tired; you didn’t hear them.

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I heard him say ‘misrepresentation by the Minister’.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Keeffe, did you charge the Minister with being wrongful?

Senator Keeffe:

– I think it is a quite wrong interpretation by Senator Baume. He is tired. It is time we all went home. If he is offended by it, I withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator, you have claimed to have been misrepresented in something you have said.

Senator Keeffe:

– Yes, I did, I have been and I will say that again tomorrow night.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 844

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Defence Act- Determinations- 1 980-

No. 6- Field Allowance

No. 7- Married Trainees Allowance.

Defence Amendment Act- Interim DeterminationsStatutory Rules1 980 Nos 40, 4 1 , 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48.

Senate adjourned at 11.47 p.m.

page 845

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Marine Radio Licences (Question No. 1927)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 12 September 1979:

  1. 1 ) Why have marine radio and base station licence fees been increased when Citizen’s Band licence fees have not.
  2. What action has been taken by the Government supporting the use of safety equipment, particularly marine radios, by small vessels involved in offshore recreational fishing.
  3. Is the Government discouraging the use of marine radios as an important item of safety equipment by increasing the cost of marine radio licences.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. An amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy Regulations providing for the issue of a Citizen Band radio station licence for a fee of $25.00 came into effect on 1 March 1979. New procedures instituted at that time provide for up to five transceivers to be operated under one licence. In view of the short time that had elapsed since the introduction of these arrangements, further adjustments to Citizen Band licence fees were considered to be inappropriate. Recent licence fee increases were particularly directed toward those categories which contain the majority of commercial users. It is recognised, however, that a number of voluntary service organisations and recreational boating clubs make use of marine radio services, and the Department is now working to achieve a fee schedule that more appropriately reflects the use made of the radio spectrum by particular services.
  2. and (3) The Department has recently arranged, in consultation with representatives of yacht clubs and marine safety organisations, for additional frequencies to be made available for the 27 MHz Harbour Mobile Radio Service to improve the efficiency of the safety channel, and for the provision of increased Departmental monitoring and regulatory support. The criteria under which safety organisations may qualify for concessional licence fees have also been reviewed to provide a wider application of the concession than has been the case previously, with a view to encouraging the use of radio by marine safety organisations. I announced details of these arrangements late last year. These new arrangements result from the first stage of a comprehensive review of licence fees paid by users of radiocommunications services.

Foreign Investment in Australian Hospitals (Question No. 202S)

Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 9 October 1979:

Have any foreign companies applied for investment in Australian private hospitals, but had their applications rejected, if so, what were the reasons for the rejection of the applications in each case.

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

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

No applications for investment in Australian private hospitals by foreign companies have been rejected by the Commonwealth Government.

Electoral: Broadcasting and Televising of Election Speeches (Question No. 2140)

Senator Bishop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 24 October 1979:

  1. 1 ) How much time was made available to private interest groups to broadcast election speeches or political advertisements on each radio broadcasting station and television station in connection with the 1979 South Australian State Election.
  2. What was the time purchased by private interest groups on: (a) metropolitan; and (b) country commercial; (i) broadcasting; and (ii) television stations, as a percentage of the total time made available to parties, candidates, other organisations and persons.
  3. What were the costs charged to private interest groups for this time, and what percentage of the total costs to parties, candidates, other organisations and persons do these represent.
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 Senator Elstob’s Question on Notice No. 2023 (Weekly Senate Hansard, 23 November 1 979, pages 2985-9).

Commonwealth Payments to New South Wales (Question No. 2204)

Senator Wriedt:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 3 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the money amounts of the payments to New South Wales by the Commonwealth Government for: (a) general purpose capital funds; and (b) specific purpose payments- capital purposes, for each year since 1972-73.
  2. What is the value of the payments to New South Wales in real terms, using 1 972-73 as the base year.
  3. What is the amount of money payments for capital purposes to New South Wales, at current value, estimated to be equivalent in real terms to the payments to New South Wales in 1975-76.
Senator Carrick:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. I ) Funds provided to New South Wales from the Commonwealth budget for general and specific capital purposes by way of Commonwealth payments and State Government borrowings under Loan Council arrangements from 1 972-73 to 1979-80 (estimated) are as follows:
  1. and (3) Measures of price movements which would enable the capital funds for New South Wales indicated under ( I ) to be expressed in real terms are not available. Although the implicit price deflators derived from estimates of public gross fixed capital expenditure in current and constant prices published in Australian Bureau of Statistics national income and expenditure publications could be used to derive approximate figures, they cannot be regarded as a strictly appropriate measure for the purpose. This is because they relate to the public sector as a whole and are on an Australia-wide basis only. There are significant differences in the composition of capital expenditure by the three levels of government in Australia: in addition, expenditure patterns between States could vary.

In considering the funds available to New South Wales for capital purposes, regard should also be had to borrowings by State authorities under Loan Council arrangements. In this connection it should be noted that Loan Council programs for larger authorities in New South Wales for 1978-79 and 1 979-80 include significant additional amount for infrastructure financing. Particulars of borrowings by semigovernment authorities and local authorities in New South Wales from 1 972-73 are given in the following table:

Commonwealth Payments to Queensland (Question No. 2205)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 3 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the money amounts of the payments to Queensland by the Commonwealth Government for: (a) general purpose capital funds; and (b) specific purpose payments- capital purposes, for each year since 1972-73.
  2. What is the value of the payments to Queensland in real terms, using 1 972-73 as the base year.
  3. What is the amount of money payments for capital purposes to Queensland, at current value, estimated to be equivalent in real terms to the payments to Queensland in 1975-76.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. I ) Funds provided to Queensland from the Commonwealth budget for general and specific capital purposes by way of Commonwealth payments and State Government borrowings under Loan Council arrangements from 1972-73 to 1 979-80 (estimated) are as follows:
  1. and (3) Measures of price movements which would enable the capital funds for Queensland indicated under ( I ) to be expressed in real terms are not available. Although the implicit price deflators derived from estimates of public gross fixed capital expenditure in current and constant prices published in Australian Bureau of Statistics national income and expenditure publications could be used to derive approximate figures, they cannot be regarded as a strictly appropriate measure for the purpose. This is because they relate to the public sector as a whole and are on an Australia-wide basis only. There are significant differences in the composition of capital expenditure by the three levels of government in Australia; in addition, expenditure patterns between States could vary.

In considering the funds available to Queensland for capital purposes, regard should also be had to borrowings by State authorities under Loan Council arrangements. In this connection it should be noted that the Loan Council program for larger authorities in Queensland for 1979-80, includes a significant additional amount for infrastructure financing. Particulars of borrowings by semi-government authorities and local authorities in Queensland from 1 972-73 are given in the following table:

Commonwealth Payments to South Australia (Question No. 2206)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the money amounts of the payments to South Australia by the Commonwealth Government for: (a) general purpose capital funds; and (b) specific purpose payments- capital purposes, for each year since 1 972-73.
  2. What is the value of the payments to South Australia in real terms, using 1972-73 as the base year.
  3. What is the amount of money payments for capital purposes to South Australia, at current value, estimated to be equivalent in real terms to the payments to South Australia in 1975-76.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Funds provided to South Australia from the Commonwealth budget for general and specific capital purposes by way of Commonwealth payments and State Government borrowings under Loan Council arrangements from 1 972-73 to 1 979-80 (estimated ) are as follows:
  1. and (3) Measures of price movements which would enable the capital funds for South Australia indicated under ( 1 ) to be expressed in real terms are not available. Although the implicit price deflators derived from estimates of public gross fixed capital expenditure in current and constant prices published in Australian Bureau of Statistics national income expenditure publications could be used to derive approximate figures, they cannot be regarded as a strictly appropriate measure for the purpose. This is because they related to the public sector as a whole and are on an Australian-wide basis. There are significant differences in the composition of capital expenditure by the three levels of government in

Australia; in addition, expenditure patterns between States could vary.

In consideraing the funds available to South Australia for capital purposes, regard should also be had to borrowings by State authorities under Loan Council arrangements. In this connection it should be noted that the Loan Council program for larger authorities in South Australia for 1 979-80 includes a significant additional amount for infrastructure financing. Particulars of borrowings by semi-government authorities and local authorities in South Australia from 1 972-73 are given in the following table:

Commonwealth Payments to Tasmania (Question No. 2207)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the money amounts of the payments to Tasmania by the Commonwealth Government for: (a) general purpose capital funds: and (b) specific purpose payments- capital purposes, for each year since 1 972-73.
  2. What is the value of the payments to Tasmania in real terms, using 1 972-73 as the base year.
  3. What is the amount of money payments for capital purposes to Tasmania, at current value, estimated to be equivalent in real terms to the payments to Tasmania in 1975-76.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Funds provided to Tasmania from the Commonwealth Budget for general and specific capital purposes byway of Commonwealth payments and State Government borrowings under Loan Council arrangements from 1972-73 to 1979-80 (estimated) are as follows:
  1. and (3) Measures of price movements which would enable the capital funds for Tasmania indicated under ( 1 ) to be expressed in real terms are not available. Although the implicit price deflators derived from estimates of publicgross fixed capital expenditure in current and constant prices published in Australian Bureau of Statistics national income and expenditure publications could be used to derive approximate figures, they cannot be regarded as a strictly appropriate measure for the purpose. This is because they relate to the public sector as a whole and are on an Australia-wide basis only. There are significant differences in the composition of capital expenditure by the three levels of government in Australia; in addition, expenditure patterns between States could vary. .

In considering the funds available to Tasmania for capital purposes, regard should also be had to borrowings by State authorities under Loan Council arrangements. In this connection it should be noted that the Loan Council programs for larger authorities in Tasmania for 1978-79 and 1979-80 include significant additional amounts for infrastructure financing. Particulars of borrowings by semi-government authorities and local authorities in Tasmania from 1972-73 are given in the following table:

Commonwealth Payments to Victoria (Question No. 2208)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the money amounts of the payments to Victoria by the Commonwealth Government for: (a) general purpose capital funds; and (b) specific purpose paymentscapital purposes, for each year since 1 972-73.
  2. What is the value of the payments to Victoria in real terms, using 1 972-73 as the base year.
  3. What is the amount of money payments for capital purposes to Victoria, at current value, estimated to be equivalent in real terms to the payments to Victoria in 1975-76.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Funds provided to Victoria from the Commonwealth budget for general and specific capital purposes by way of Commonwealth payments and State Government borrowings under Loan Council arrangements from 1972-73 to 1979-80 (estimated) are as follows:
  1. and (3) Measures of price movements which would enable the capital funds for Victoria indicated under ( 1 ) to be expressed in real terms are not available. Although the implicit price deflators derived from estimates of public gross fixed capital expenditure in current and constant prices published in Australian Bureau of Statistics national income and expenditure publications could be used to derive approximate figures, they cannot be regarded as a strictly appropriate measure for the purpose. This is because they relate to the public sector as a whole and are on an Australia-wide basis only. There are significant differences in the composition of capital expenditure by the three levels of government in Australia; in addition, expenditure patterns between States could vary.

In considering the funds available to Victoria for capital purposes, regard should also be had to borrowings by State authorities under Loan Council arrangements. In this connection it should be noted that the Loan Council program for larger authorities in Victoria for 1978-79 and 1979-80, include significant additional amounts for infrastructure financing. Particulars of borrowings by semi-government authorities and local authorities in Victoria from1972-73 are given in the following table:

Commonwealth Payments to Western Australia (Question No. 2209)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 13 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What were the money amounts of the payments to Western Australia by the Commonwealth Government for:

    1. general purpose capital funds; and (b) specific purpose payments- capital purposes, for each year since 1 972-73.
  2. What is the value of the payments to Western Australia in real terms, using 1972-73 as the base year.
  3. What is the amount of money payments for capital purposes to Western Australia, at current value, estimated to be equivalent in real terms to the payments to Western Australia in 1975-76.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Funds provided to Western Australia from the Commonwealth Budget for general and specific capital purposes by way of Commonwealth payments and State Government borrowings under Loan Council arrangements from 1 972-73 to 1979-80 (estimated) are as follows:
  1. and (3) Measures of price movements which would enable the capital funds for Western Australia indicated under ( 1 ) to be expressed in real terms are not available. Although the implicit price deflators derived from estimates of public gross fixed capital expenditure in current and constant prices published in Australian Bureau of Statistics national income and expenditure publications could be used to derive approximate figures, they cannot be regarded as a strictly appropriate measure for the purpose. This is because they relate to the public sector as a whole and are on an Australia-wide basis only. There are significant differences in the composition of capital expenditure by the three levels of government in Australia; in addition, expenditure patterns between States could vary.

In considering the funds available to Western Australia for capital purposes, regard should also be had to borrowings by State authorities under Loan Council arrangements. In this connection it should be noted that the Loan Council program for larger authorities in Western Australia for 1978-79 and 1979-80 includes significant additional amounts for infrastructure financing. Particulars of borrowings by semi-government authorities and local authorities in Western Australia from 1972-73 are given in the following table:

Income Tax Deductions for Dependent Spouses (Question No. 2223)

Senator Hamer:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 15 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the cost to revenue of the current income tax deduction (as at 1 5 November 1 979 ) for dependent spouses.
  2. What is the estimated tax credit for a dependent spouse if the deduction is eliminated and the sum so saved is equally distributed as tax credits for dependent spouses.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The present income tax concession for a dependent spouse is given in the form of a rebate (not a deduction) which enables all taxpayers to obtain the same tax-saving ($597) where the separate net income of the spouse is less than $207. The rebate is reduced by $ 1 for every $4 by which the spouse ‘s separate net income exceeds $203.

The cost to revenue of the spouse rebate is estimated to be about $650m in respect of the 1979-80 income year; the average rebate for a dependent spouse for that year is about $500.

  1. It follows from the answer to (1) that if the $650m were to be distributed equally as tax credits for dependent spouses (i.e. to taxpayers allowed any rebate at all for dependent spouses), the level of benefit would be $500. In that event a taxpayer whose spouse was in receipt of $2,590 separate net income would receive the same credit as a taxpayer whose spouse had no income (it is assumed that where the spouse ‘s separate net income was $2,59 1 or more the spouse rebate would be nil, as at present).

Aeronautical Mobile (R) Service: Ratification of Final Act (Question No. 2231)

Senator Knight:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the Final Act of the World Administrative Radio Conference on the Aeronautical Mobile ( R) Service.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The administrative arrangements leading to Australia’s ratification of the Final Acts of these conferences are proceeding and should be completed during this year.

Broadcasting Satellite Service: Ratification of Final Acts (Question No. 2232)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Why has Australia signed, but not yet ratified, the Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio Conference for the Planning of the Broadcasting Satellite Service.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The administrative arrangements leading to Australia’s ratification of the Final Acts of these conferences are proceeding and should be completed during this year.

Complaints against Doctors and Hospitals (Question No. 2250)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has there been any investigation of complaints against doctors and public and private hospitals for such practices as: (a) over-charging: (b) varying fees according to the level and type of health insurance cover held by the patient; (c) charging for services and levels of hospital accommodation not provided; and (d) coercing patients to accept a more expensive type of hospital accommodation than they desired.
  2. What is the estimated frequency and cost to the community of such practices.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. The possibility that single room accommodation charges ($75 per day) were being raised against patients’ accommodation in shared rooms ($50 per day) of recognised hospitals was brought to the notice of my Department in 1978 in respect of New South Wales. The situation was also brought to the attention of the New South Wales Health Commission which issued a circular to all New South Wales recognised hospitals re-stating the conditions to be satisfied before charges at single room rates were appropriate. The situation in New South Wales has recently been reviewed and, with some minor exceptions which were resolved by the health insurance fund concerned, the correct charges are apparently being made. The matter of charging practices by private hospitals is not within the control of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth pays a $16 day bed subsidy towards the daily charges raised by private hospitals and adequate provision exists for this subsidy to be audited and substantiated. If there are specific instances in relation to these matters the honourable senator is asked to provide them.

So far as medical fees are concerned, any complaint regarding charging is investigated. If it appears to be a case of charges in excess of the Medical Benefits Schedule fees, the complainant is advised to take the matter up with the appropriate Medical Board or authority given the responsibility under State or Territory laws of looking at complaints on doctors ‘ fees. In this regard, the Commonwealth has no constitutional authority to take any action in respect of doctors’ charges in the States.

Investigations into cases of fraud which involve doctors charging for services not provided, or falsely described, have reached various stages between concluded prosecutions and recent complaints which may require formal investigation. Since July 1975, seventeen prosecutions have been successfully concluded. Penalties included terms of imprisonment, fines, bonds and court orders for restitution. Six prosecutions were not successful. There are currently some 595 active investigation files, undoubtedly some of these cases will lead to prosecution proceedings. Included in these statistics are several cases involving allegations about private hospitals raising charges for accommodation and services not provided.

  1. It is not possible to estimate the frequency nor the cost to the community of these practices.

Harbour Mobile Radio (Question No. 2261)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 November 1979:

Has the Postal and Telecommunications Department strengthened its staff in the area of licensing harbour mobile radios, as suggested in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1979, page 84; if so: (a) what additional staff has been employed; and (b) did the additional staff result in reductions of staff in other areas of the Department.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. During 1977-78 that Division of the Department responsible for the issue of licences received a comprehensive review. This resulted in the average staffing of the Division increasing by 35 in 1978-79 compared wilh 1977-78. In 1979, a further review was carried out in the Radio Frequency management Division and, as a result, the number of staff employed in that Division was again increased.

Harbour mobile radios, being one of the many classes of radiocommunication services licensed by the Department, received benefit from these additional staff resources. It is not possible, however, to calculate the proportion of the additional capacity that is devoted to any particular class of service.

  1. No.

Government Media Information Unit (Question No. 2330)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 22 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Has Mr Laurie Power, previously of Channel 0-10 network, been appointed to the Government Media Information Unit; if so: (a) when did the appointment take effect; (b) what are the salary and allowances payable; and (c) is Mr Power employed as a permanent officer of the public service.
  2. Will Mr Power be located in the Sydney Office of the Minister for National Development and Energy; if so, is this to be a permanent arrangement.
  3. What are the functions of the Sydney Office of the Government Media Information Unit.
  4. What are the names, salaries and locations of: (a) other officers appointed to the Government Media Information Unit; and (b) persons employed as press secretaries by the Prime Minister and other ministers.
  5. What is the difference in function of the present Government Media Information Unit to that appointed by the Labor Government.
  6. ) Are the officers of the Government Media Information Unit employed to fulfill any or all of the functions of press secretary.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. No, Mr Power has been appointed as State Coordination Officer for New South Wales.
  2. The State Co-ordination Officer in New South Wales is based in the office of the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick, who is responsible to the Prime Minister for Federal-State relations as they effect New South Wales. The arrangement is flexible.
  3. The Government Information Unit does not have a Sydney Office.
  4. (a) The names, salaries and location of Officers appointed to the Government Information Unit are:

Occupants of these positions are entitled also to Ministerial Staff Allowance of $5,040 per annum in lieu of overtime. t Occupants of these positions are entitled also to Ministerial Staff Allowance of $10,080 per annum in lieu of overtime.

  1. 5 ) There is no comparison between the present Government Information Unit and the organisations set up by the previous Labor Government.
  2. 6 ) As the Government has provision for only six ( 6 ) Press Secretaries compared with twenty seven (27) under the previous Government, the focus of the Government Information Unit is to provide a service to Ministers who do not have Press Secretaries in the exercise of their normal responsibilities for communication with the media.

Trade with United States (Question No. 233S)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 23 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) Is the United States Treasury considering that Australian Export Expansion Grants are export subsidies, and is it, as a result, considering countervailing duties.
  2. ) Was the specific intention of the relevant legislation to provide funding for additional costs involved with funding or extending markets, and in no way to provide a price cutting capacity.
  3. Has there been any discussion on this matter with the United States trade authorities; if so, what is the current state of the discussions (as at 23 November 1979).
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. In September 1979 the US Department of Treasury, acting on a petition from the Textile Manufacturers Institute Inc., initiated a countervailing investigation of imports of Australian wool tops. The petition was based on the grounds that payments to Australian exporters under the Export Expansion Grants Act of 1 978 constitute a bounty or grant.

A preliminary determination was made by the US Treasury on 28 December 1979 that exporters of Australian wool tops have received payments that constitute a bounty or grant under US law. However, the size of the payment was insignificant (less than 0.1% by value of exports) and would not therefore warrant imposition of additional duty. A final determination on the investigation should be made no later than 17 March 1980.

  1. The Export Expansion Grants Scheme takes the form of grants based on increases in exports of eligible goods achieved by an exporter in a grant year over the average of the preceding three years. At the dme of a particular export transaction, therefore, the exporter does not know whether he will be eligible to apply for a grant. It follows that the legislation does not, in itself, provide a mechanism by which firms can engage in price cutting.
  2. Australian officials have been in close contact with United States Treasury officials concerning the countervailing enquiry on wool tops and will continue to monitor developments. In addition, with regard to the United States general approach to countervailing duty policy, there have been official level discussions in the context of the Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Code negotiated in the MTN.

The Government now has under consideration the question of accession to this Code. In December, I announced that the Government would only accede to the Code if Australia’s export incentive arrangements could be safeguarded. Discussions are now being undertaken with the US on this aspect and the matter will be further considered in the light of these and further consultations with industry.

National Employment and Training Scheme; Acknowledgement of Correspondence (Question No. 2347)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 9 February 1 980:

Is an acknowledgement of correspondence relating to National Employment and Training Schemes (NEAT) benefits forwarded in those cases where there is a need for substantial investigations before a substantive reply can be given (see answer to question No. 2262, Senate Hansard, 23 November 1979, pages 3013-4).

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Regional Offices of the Department have been instructed that all correspondence received relating to training assistance under NEAT is to be acknowledged immediately unless it is possible to provide a definite reply within 2 weeks of the date of receipt.

Overseas Teachers: Earnings (Question No. 2349)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

What were the arrangements made to exempt from income tax the earnings of overseas teachers who taught in Queensland from January 1974 to December 1979.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that most of the overseas teachers who taught in Queensland during the period in question came from New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Canada or the United States. The Double Taxation Agreements between Australia and each of those countries exempt from Australian tax the remuneration for teaching in Australia of a teacher, normally resident in the other country, who visits Australia for a period not exceeding two years for the purpose of teaching at a university, college, school or other educational institution. In the case of visiting teachers from New Zealand or the United Kingdom the exemption is conditional upon the remuneration being subject to tax in the other country. The remuneration of any overseas teacher to whom, at any time in the period mentioned, these provisions did not apply would have been taxable in the ordinary way.

Use of Asbestos (Question No. 2362)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council inquiring into the use of asbestos in Australia.
  2. When does the Minister expect the sub-committee to complete its deliberations and report its findings.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The members of the National Health and Medical Research Council ad hoc Subcommittee on the Health Hazards of Asbestos are:

Chairman- Professor L. Davidson (Director, Commonwealth Institute of Health, Sydney)

Secretary/Convener- Dr N. M. Mitchell (Commonwealth Department of Health, Canberra)

Government

Mr G. Major (Physicist, Commonwealth Institute of Health, Sydney)

Dr J. C. McNulty (Commissioner of Public Health, Western Australian Department of Public Health, Perth ). (Alternative Dr A. G. Cumpston, Commonwealth Department of Health, Canberra)

Dr J. Milne (Division of Industrial Hygiene, Health Commission of Victoria, Melbourne)

Mr B. Virgona (Chairman, Workers’ Compensation and Dust Diseases Board, Sydney)

Employers

Construction- Mr E. Morris (Morris Building Company, Parramatta, New South Wales)

Industry/Manufacturers- Mr I. Crawford (Personnel Manager, Bendix Mintex (Melbourne), Ballarat, Victoria)

Manufacturers- Mr C. Russell (James Hardie and Co. Pty Ltd, Sydney)

Mining and Milling- Mr H. Robinson (Chairman and Managing Director, Woodsreef Mines Limited, Woodsreef, via Barraba, New South Wales)

Australian Council of Trade Unions

Mr C. T. Oliver (Australian Workers’ Union (New South Wales Branch), Sydney)

Mr C. J. Raper (Federal Miscellaneous Workers ‘ Union of Australia (New South Wales Branch ), Sydney)

Mr J. Sheather (Building Workers’ Industry Union of Australia, Sydney)

Mr H. Wilson (National Secretary, Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights’ Union, Sydney).

  1. The Subcommittee has prepared the following documents which were adopted by the National Health and Medical Research Council at its Eighty-Eighth Session on 25 and 26 October 1 979: ‘The Medical Aspects of the Effects of the Inhalation of Asbestos; Statement on Health Hazards Associated with the Use of Asbestos in the Construction Industry and Code for the Safe Removal of Asbestos-Based Thermal/Acoustic Insulating Materials. These documents have been distributed widely to industry, unions and government authorities and copies are in the Parliamentary Library for the information of honourable senators.

The Subcommittee is to meet again in late March. It is expected that a preliminary report on the Subcommittee’s findings, as a result of its consideration of submissions from interested persons or organisations, will become available in June, with a final report becoming available by December 1980.

Depreciation and Leasing Deductions on Luxury Cars (Question No. 2370)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister for Industry and Commerce or his Department make any recommendation to Cabinet on alterations to the 1979-80 Budget ceiling of $18,000 for depreciation and leasing deductions on luxury cars in view of its possible effects on the local motor vehicle industry; if so, what are the details of the recommendations.
  2. Was the Minister aware of the commercial interest of Mr Andrew Hay, his former private secretary, in this question when he made his recommendation.
  3. Did the Departmental recommendation differ in any way from the proposal submitted by Mr Andrew Hay.
  4. Did the Minister advocate to Cabinet the proposal submitted by Mr Hay in preference to the advice of his Department.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In accordance with usual practice I am not prepared to comment on the position taken by individual Ministers in Cabinet.

However, the Government examined many representations on the effects of the measure and decided that it should remain unchanged subject to one modification.

In this regard the Government announced on 16 October 1979 that there should be transitional arrangements to meet the situation of dealers and importers who, at Budget day, had luxury cars on hand or were irrevocably committed by firm orders placed on or before that date to buy such cars.

Accordingly it decided that the $18,000 limit would not apply in respect of motor vehicles whether new or secondhand that, as at 2 1 August 1 979, were owned as trading stock of a vendor and were either on hand at the vendor’s premises or were in the course of delivery there. Nor would the limit apply where an irrevocable order has been placed with a supplier or manufacturer as at 21 August 1979. The limit would apply, however, where a dealer or importer who had placed such an order and was permitted to withdraw from it subsequently renewed the order.

  1. Representations were received from many individuals and organisations on this issue.

I had no knowledge or indication of any commercial interest by a former member of my staff in the matter.

  1. and (4) No proposal was submitted by Mr Hay, or in his name, or in which his name was mentioned.

I have no personal knowledge of to what extent, if any, Mr Hay participated in the preparation of submissions emanating from and on behalf of others.

Low Altitude Flight by Defence Force Helicopter (Question No. 2375)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

Did a defence force helicopter fly at a low altitude over certain western suburbs of Brisbane in late January 1980; if so: (a) what was the minimum altitude at which it flew; and (b ) what was the reason for the low altitude flight.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Defence Force helicopters are operated by the three Services, and a significant number of them are located in southeast Queensland. These aircraft frequently operate over suburban areas of Brisbane at altitudes determined by the mission, weather and air traffic control requirements. If the honourable senator can provide more specific details of the date, time and place of sighting and any features of the helicopter which would facilitate its identification, I will inquire further.

Defence Aircraft: Use of Air Space (Question No. 2376)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Do defence force aircraft fly in air space used by pilots who are learning to fly or who have restricted licences in South East Queensland; if so, what are the details of these flights, including the areas in which such flying occurs and the precautions taken to ensure that collisions do not take place.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Defence Force aircraft do fly in areas used by civil pilots who are learning to fly, or who have restricted licences, in South East Queensland. The following paragraphs outline the conditions and precautions which apply to such flights throughout Australia.

Generally, flying training for civil pilots learning to fly is conducted in designated areas of airspace (known as ‘restricted ‘ or ‘danger’ areas) set aside by interdepartmental agreement for this purpose. Aircraft may operate in a ‘restricted’ area which is active, but only when cleared by the appropriate controlling authority.

Danger’ areas are separate from ‘restricted’ areas. They are created to warn all pilots in these areas to proceed with caution due to specified hazards (such as flying training activities)-they may be used or crossed by any aircraft (civil or military)-at any time without clearance. Pilots operating therein are responsible for keeping clear of other aircraft on a ‘see and be seen’ basis. Defence Force aircraft do not enter civil ‘restricted’ areas without the necessary clearance, and avoid operating in ‘danger’ areas as far as practicable.

All military jet aircraft on low level flights are required to avoid all civil ‘danger’ areas and any other known concentrations of light aircraft including all Government and licenced airfields and, at the request of owners, some private airfields.

Furthermore, all routine low-altitude training flights by Mirage, Fill and A4 aircraft are notified through the Low Jet Route system, which offers full details of such flights to other aircraft operators in the vicinity of the active Low Jet Route. Defence Force aircraft other than the foregoing conduct their operations in accordance with the regulations which govern all flying activity within Australia.

Sand Mining: Moreton Island (Question No. 2378)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

Have there been any applications for export licences for sand mining products taken from Moreton Island; if so, what are the details.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

No.

Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd (Question No. 2384)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Does the answer to Question No. 1664 that ‘Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd does not advise the Commissioner of Taxation of profits or losses made in Public Service Canteens to which his employees nave either sole or shared access’ (see Senate Hansard 8 June 1979, page 3017) mean that the Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd does not file any form of taxation return; if so, why is it exempt; if not, why was the above answer given.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The answer to Question No. 1 664 did not include any information available to the Commissioner of Taxation regarding the income tax affairs of Commonwealth Accommodation and Catering Services Ltd because specific provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act prohibit the disclosure of such information.

College of Advanced Education, Lismore (Question No. 2399)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) When is it anticipated that the construction of stage one of the College of Advanced Education in Lismore will be commenced.
  2. What is the anticipated completion date of the stage.
  3. 3 ) When will it be available for students.
  4. How many students will it accommodate.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) It is anticipated that construction of Stage 1 of the new facilities for the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education at Lismore will commence in July or August 1980.
  2. and (3) Until a tender is let it is not possible to be precise about the construction time for the project but it is anticipated that the first buildings on the new site will be available for use in the first semester of 1 982.
  3. The first stage contains facilities which will be used by most of the students at the College but until subsequent stages are available the College will operate on two campuses. Most students will be required to use facilities on both campuses.

Emergency Youth Accommodation (Question No. 2407)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) What organisations or groups have applied for funds under the grants to be distributed to organisations running emergency youth accommodation.
  2. What amount has each group requested and what amount will each group receive in 1 979-80.
  3. Does the Minister expect that the whole of the Commonwealth allocation for this purpose will be spent.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) As at the end of February 1980, 145 organisations have applied for grants under the joint Commonwealth/State Youth Services program as follows:

It would not be appropriate to provide the names of the organisations that have applied or the level of funds being sought. However, at the above date, 26 applications have been approved for funding during 1979-80. The balance is still under consideration.

A list of the approved organisations and the total level of combined Commonwealth and State funding approved for each organisation follows.

  1. I am not able to provide an indication of the anticipated expenditure in 1979-80 because the respective State Government departments have not yet advised my Department on the estimated level of funds each approved organisation would actually receive in 1979-80 and future approvals have not yet been determined.

Budget Increase in Prescription Charges (Question No. 2429)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by the Pharmacy Guild in the Daily Telegraph, 5 February 1980, that the Government is to blame for sick and needy people throwing doctors’ prescriptions in the garbage bin because they cannot afford to purchase the medicine.
  2. What has been the total revenue resulting from the 1979-80 Budget increase in prescription charges from $2.50 to $2.75.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes.
  2. The increase in the patient contribution from $2.50 to $2.75 is expected to reduce Government expenditure by $5. 1 m for the financial year 1979-80.

Beef (Question No. 2430)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that beef would be in short supply for three years.
  2. What has been the per capita consumption of beef in each year from 1972 to 1979.
  3. What has been the total percentage increase in the price of beef in each of these years.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 opened the 1 980 National Agricultural Outlook Conference held late in January, and am aware of the statements made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in the Meat Situation and Outlook. The Bureau’s short-term and medium-term forecasts for Australia’s meat industries are presented in the report which was published as a background document to the Conference. The Bureau expects producers to respond to the higher saleyard prices which have prevailed since 1978 by retaining cattle for herd expansion and, consequently, slaughterings in the next few years are forecast to decline. Further, the current depleted size of the Australian herd (27.1 million at 31 March 1979 compared with the peak level of 33.4 million at 31 March 1976) limits the productive capacity of the Australian beef industry. The Bureau has forecast that production of beef and veal will be comparatively low, at least until 1 983.
  2. ) Australia’s annual consumption of beef and veal per head from 1972 to 1979 is set out below. The figures in brackets indicate the percentage change in consumption from the previous year.
  1. Average annual saleyard and retail prices of beef in Australia from 1972 to 1979 are set out below. The percentage change in price from the previous year is shown in brackets.

Aboriginal Legal Aid: Use of Federal Funding in Elections (Question No. 2439)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

Do the rules that the Minister has laid down concerning the use of Federal funding in elections by Aboriginal Legal Aid, also apply to all those organisations in Australia which operate in the area of Aboriginal affairs and are funded by the Government: if so, what are the details; if not, why not.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

Yes. The rules governing grants-in-aid made by my Department to any organisation clearly prohibit the use of funds or assets purchased with grant money for electioneering purposes. The relevant parts of the financial rules read as follows: 2.1.1. Grants are to be used only for the purposes covered in the agreed budget. Prior approval, in writing, of the Minister or his delegate is necessary to vary those purposes. 2.1.4. Grant moneys, or equipment and premises purchased with grant moneys are not to be used for electioneering purposes; employees are not to engage in electioneering while on duty; the name of the organisation likewise is not to be used for electioneering purposes by its directors, employees or members.

International Drug Detector Dog Training Course (Question No. 2457)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 27 February 1 980:

What were the breeds of the dogs that participated in the recent international drug detector dog training course in Canberra.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The course commenced 4 February and continues until 2 1 March 1 980. The breeds of the dogs in use are: 1 6 German Shepherds 1 Golden Retriever 1 Labrador 1 German Shepherd/Airedale Cross 1 mixed breed thought to be German Shepherd/Bull Terrier Cross.

Unemployment Statistics (Question No. 2466)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1980:

What has been the average length of unemployment for

juniors: and (b) adults, in each of the Federal Electoral Divisions of:

Gwydir; (ii) St George; (iii) Banks: (iv) Barton; (v) Lyne; (vi) Hume; and (vii) New England.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The information is not available.

Sale of Dairy Products in Asia (Question No. 2447)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 February 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Has an Australian Government authority been accused of selling dairy products in Asia, knowing them to be a serious health risk to babies, and has it also been alleged that the Australian Dairy Corporation, through its subsidiaries and joint venture operations in South-East Asia was involved in the matter, as reported in Bulletin Today (Manila, Philippines), 3 February 1980.
  2. Is there any substance to these allegations; if so, what, if any, action has been taken to rectify the matter.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Recent articles in two Australian consumer journals have commented critically on the promotion of sweetened condensed milk in South East Asia as baby food. The articles, which prompted press comment in Australia and in some Asian countries, made references to the sale of products by the Australian Dairy Corporation (ADC) through its subsidiary Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Limited (ADI) and joint venture companies in South East Asia.
  2. The Minister for Primary Industry has conveyed to the ADC his views that if the claims made in the articles are substantiated then the Corporation should use its influence to ensure that sweetened condensed milk is not promoted as a suitable food for babies. The ADC and ADI are currently examining the claims made in the two articles with a view to determining action necessary by them.

Independently of this, steps have been taken to delete the reference to infant feeding on the brand marketed in Hong Kong and the manufacturer of sweetened condensed milk exported from Thailand has agreed to make similar changes.

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (Question No. 2484)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What stage has been reached in the drafting of legislation to implement the International Convention on Civil

Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, following the agreement reached at the last Premiers’ Conference, as described in the Minister’s answer to Question No. 2229 (see Senate Hansard, 23 November 1979, page 3010).

  1. When does the Government expect to be able to introduce the legislation to Parliament.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Government has approved the drafting of legislation to implement the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. The legislation is currently being drafted by Parliamentary Counsel.
  2. It is expected that the legislation will be available for introduction to Parliament during the Budget Session 1 980.

International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (Question No. 2485)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What stage has been reached in the drafting of legislation to implement the International Convention relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties. Following the agreement reached at the last Premier’s Conference, as described in the Minister’s answer to Question No. 2230 (see Senate Hansard, 23 November 1979, page 3010).
  2. When does the Government expect to be able to introduce the legislation to Parliament.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Government has approved 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. The legislation is currently being drafted by Parliamentary Counsel.
  2. It is expected that the legislation will be available for introduction to Parliament during the Budget Session 1 980.

Statistics of Domestic Butter and Margarine Consumption (Question No. 2491)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What were the total apparent domestic consumption tonnages of (a) butter, and (b) margarine, for the years: (i) 1976-77; (ii) 1977-78; and (iii) 1978-79.
  2. ) Do the figures for the butter tonnage include butteroil: if so, to what estimated extent.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

(D-

  1. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not publish separate figures for butteroil consumption. The Australian Dairy Corporation, however, estimates that domestic consumption of butteroil for the period in question was:

Beef Incentive Payments Scheme: Payments to Sinclair Pastoral Company Pty Ltd (Question No. 2492)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 4 March 1 980:

Did the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd or any of its directors receive any payments under the Beef Incentive Payments Scheme; if so: (a) on what dates were payments made; (b) what amounts were involved; and (c) to what person or persons were the payments made.

Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

No payment was made to the Sinclair Pastoral Co. Pty Ltd or any of its directors under the Beef Industry Incentive Payments Scheme.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Royal Australian Air Force: Purchase of new Fighter Aircraft (Question No. 2498)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 March 1980:

Is the report in the Herald on 21 February 1980 stating that a six-man defence mission is to fly to the United States to negotiate a deal for 75 new fighter aircraft for the Royal Australian Air Force, correct; if so: (a) what is the estimated total purchase price of the aircraft; and (b) does the Australian negotiating mission include a lawyer with experience in negotiating defence procurement contracts.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

A six-man defence mission lead by Mr D. H. Eltringham a Deputy Secretary of the Depanment of Defence is presently conducting an overseas visit in relation to the RAAF Tactical Fighter Project and is expected to return to Australia on 16 March 1980. The purpose of this mission is to establish, at policy level with the US Government agencies and the manufacturers of the F/A-18 and F-16 aircraft, the principal features of the agreements and contractual arrangements necessary for the acquisition of the 75 new tactical fighter aircraft.

The total cost of the aircraft cannot be determined until the final choice between the two contenders has been made and contracts have been negotiated. As the Minister for Defence announced in his statement to the House of Representatives on 24 October 1 978, the total project cost per aircraft and all that goes with it is estimated to be in excess of $20 million (1978 prices).

An Assistant Crown Solicitor from the Crown Solicitor’s Defence Sub Office has been included in the team.

Petroleum Products: Freight Subsidy Payments

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 19 September 1979 Senator Walsh asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the following question without notice:

Are petroleum products freight subsidy payments in the Australian Capital Territory made under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act or, as in the case in the Northern Territory, under a specific ordinance? If not, what is the legal basis for these payments?

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following information:

The subsidy situation in the Australian Capital Territory is as follows:

Petroleum freight subsidy payments in the Australian Capital Territory are not made under a specific ordinance as in the Northern Territory. Sales of eligible petroleum products in the ACT are included in NSW subsidy claims and paid by the NSW Government from funds made available by the Commonwealth under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act.

There is a long history of this arrangement which commenced under the former scheme in 1965. With the reintroduction of the subsidy scheme in 1978, the NSW government again agreed for the funding arrangement to continue until such time as the ACT introduced a separate subsidy ordinance. Such an ordinance is presently being drafted.

The ACT has traditionally been regarded by the oil industry as forming part of the NSW marketing area and the amalgamation of ACT and NSW subsidy sales means a significant administrative saving for both the Commonwealth and the industry. On the other hand, there has been no additional cost to the NSW Treasury in processing combined ACT/NSW claims lodged by the various oil companies.

The drafting of a separate ACT subsidy ordinance, while satisfying a legal situation, when completed, will achieve no other advantage. Accordingly it is hoped that the legislation will be framed to ensure that the present satisfactory administrative arrangements for payments to claimants will not be disturbed.

Introduction of Statistical Index in the United Kingdom

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 11 October 1979 (Hansard, page 1211) Senator Messner asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the introduction of a -new statistical index in the United Kingdom. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am aware of the introduction by the British Government of a new tax and price index.

The question of whether one index would be a more accurate measure of changes in prices of goods and services than another depends on the specific purpose for which the index is designed. A consumer (or retail) price index (CP1) on the one hand, and a tax and price index (TPI) such as that recently introduced in the United Kingdom on the other, are entirely different measures which might be appropriate for quite different purposes.

The CPI is designed to measure changes in prices paid by consumers for goods and services. It covers a wide range of goods and services commonly purchased by wage and salary earner households living in the metropolitan areas. Government-provided goods and services are included where quantities and standards of service can be clearly defined and for which there are identifiable prices. The Statisician has indicated that he considers the index appropriate for its stated purpose.

The CPI does not include income taxes, which cannot b e clearly associated with the purchase of a specific good or service.

As I understand it, the TPI introduced in the United Kingdom seeks to combine that country’s Retail Price Index with a tax index to obtain a measure of the combined impact on consumers of the prices they pay and their liability for income tax. It has been introduced to provide a means of deflating gross incomes; more specifically, to quote the United Kingdom Central Statistical Office, ‘the new index measures the change in gross pay which would maintain to take home pay in real terms. ‘

To date, the Government has not given detailed consideration to compiling a tax index for Australia and combining it with the CPI. At present the Government judges the need for such a statistic to be insufficient to justify the allocation of resources to a detailed study and, possibly, subsequent development. Such a measure would take considerable time and resources to develop and, as matters stand, could be attempted only by diverting effort away from other important development work, including work associated with the revision and re-weighting of the present CPI.

Jetset Tours (Aust) Pty Ltd

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 14 November 1979 Senator Walters asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the following question without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and relates to package tours being offered for the 1980 Olympiad to be held in Moscow. Is it a fact that Jetset Tours (Aust) Pty Ltd is the sole handler of travel to the Olympic Games? Who is Jetset Tours? ls it a fact that travel agents were informed that their clients must send $200 deposit without knowledge of the details of the package tour being allocated to them? Is it a fact that that $200 would be refunded only in the unlikely event that Jetset Tours could not offer any ticket selection whatsoever even if it were not in accord with the client’s wishes? In the event that a client may wish to wait until advised of details of the package tour allocated to him, is it a fact that his name would be removed from the registration listing of Jetset Tours? Finally, does this dictatorial attitude of Jetset Tours contravene the Trade Practices Act?

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer:

Australian participation in the 1980 Olympiad is a matter which is organised by the Australian National Olympic Committee, an independent body.

I understand that the Committee was required by the Organising Committee of the 1 980 Olympic Games in Moscow, an organisation set up by the Soviet Government, to nominate an organisation as National Sales Agent for Games tickets.

Jetset Tours Pty Ltd of Melbourne, a firm which had previous experience as National Sales Agent for the Montreal Olympiad, was nominated by the Australian National Olympic Committee for this purpose. I understand that appointment of the company and the advertised conditions of ticket sales were stipulated by the Organising Committee in Moscow.

The arrangements under which the tickets are made available to the Australian public are subject to conditions laid down by the host organisation. I am informed that the Trade Practices Commission is of the view that, provided all these conditions are bought to the attention of travellers before they subscribe for tickets, the arrangements are not likely to contravene the Trade Practices Act.

Shipping Containers

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 20 February 1980 Senator Townley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice as to whether any containers have been lost from ships going from port to port, particulary on the eastern seaboard of Australia.

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

My Department is not necessarily advised of losses of containers overboard from ships although it is understood that there have been isolated instances. Such records would normally be kept by the ship ‘s owners or agents.

However, when a container is lost overboard it is usually as a result of extremely heavy seas which would, without doubt cause damage to the container. As containers are designed to be weathertight rather than watertight any container lost overboard, particularly in a damaged condition, would most likely sink very quickly. It is therefore unlikely to be a hazard to shipping.

The contents of a container obviously affect its buoyancy and determine the rate at which it sinks. Taking into account the type of cargoes normally carried in containers, the expert advice is, that it is most unlikely that any container would remain afloat for any extended period.

Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme

Senator Chaney:
LP

-On 20 Februrary 1980 Senator Archer asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, a question without notice regarding the inclusion of King and Flinders Islands in the Review of the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme being undertaken this year.

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

The Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme was introduced in July 1976 to provide freight assistance on consignments of certain specified goods moving between Tasmania and the mainland. On the Scheme’s inception it was recognised that King and Flinders Islands were subject to similar freight cost disadvantages to those which affect the rest of Tasmania and were thus included in the Scheme.

The Scheme is under review this year to ensure that it continues to meet the Government’s objectives. The nature of the freight cost disabilities suffered by King and Flinders Islands will be covered during the review.

Cessnock Correction Centre (Question No. 2248)

Senator Colston:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 November 1979:

Has the Attorney-General ‘s Department implemented the three recommendations made following the Ombudsman’s investigation into the Cessnock Correction Centre, as set out in the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Second Annual Report 1979, page 82; if so, what has been done in relation to each of the recommendations.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

The portion of the Ombudsman’s Second Report referred to by the honourable senator related not to an investigation of the Cessnock Correction Centre but rather to action taken to release a prisoner from the Australian Capital Territory held at that Centre. My Department has informed me that, subsequent to the recommendation of the Ombudsman, the following action has been taken:

when the First Assistant Secretary ordinarily handling parole cases is absent or otherwise unavailable for this function, steps are taken to ensure that an alternative officer is available to carry out these duties;

the procedures and systems of the Section in the Department dealing with parole matters were reviewed in November 1979 by the Management Services Review Section of the Department with a view to ensuring that the most effective system is employed for dealing with parole matters; action has been taken to implement that report; and

the Chairman of the Public Service Board was informed on 15 May 1979 of the terms of the Ombudsman’s report.

International Labour Organisation: United States Membership (Question No. 2358)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) For what period or periods was the United States of America not a member of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
  2. Do member nations who leave the ILO have to pay membership fees for the period of non-membership when they again become full members.
  3. What is the annual cost of Australia’s membership of the ILO.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The United States of America, which first joined the International Labour Organisation in 1934, withdrew formally from the Organisation on 6 November 1977 and resumed membership on 18 February 1980.
  2. Member States which withdraw from the ILO and subsequently make a decision to rejoin are not required to make a contribution to the budget of the ILO for the period in which they were non-members.
  3. The contributions of member States to the budget of the ILO are assessed in accordance with a formula, adopted by the Governing Body of the ILO, which is based on nations’ resources. The actual amount that member States are required to contribute varies with the size of the budget adopted. For 1980, Australia’s assessed contribution is $US2,078,548.

Prime Minister’s Visit to the United States (Question No. 2366)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister Representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

Why was the Australian flag not flying in front of the White House during the Prime Minister’s recent visit to the United States of America as a tribute to a visiting Head of State?

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Australian flag was not flying in front of the White House during the Prime Minister’s visits because they were not formal state visits. The Prime Minister’s visits were regarded as working level visits, as was his previous trip to Washington in January 1979.

Consumer Price Index: Effect of Petrol Price Increases (Question No. 2425)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

What have been the increases in the Consumer Price Index directly attributable to petrol price increases in each quarter of each year from 1975 to 1979.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Increases in the Consumer Price Index directly attributable to petrol price increases in each quarter of each year from 1975 to 1979 are as follows:

Defence: Missile Systems (Question No. 2460)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 27 February:

  1. 1 ) Which make of missile systems did the Minister refer to when he stated ‘Should the need arise, missile systems are available which have been proven to be readily and quickly adaptable to patrol craft similar to the Fremantle Class’. In answer to question No. 1394 (see Senate Hansard, 3 April 1979, page 1264).
  2. Which similar craft have been adapted using these missile systems and what weapons systems makes were they adapted from.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 was not referring to any particular make of missile system when I made the observation quoted by the honourable senator. Space and weight margins are available in the Fremantle Class craft which make it feasible to consider various systems. However, since the rate of development of such systems is relatively rapid, and there is no evident need for missiles in envisaged roles, no specific system has been investigated in any detail.
  2. Although I have said that there are no specific missile systems contemplated for the Fremantle Class craft, an examination of standard reference works on fighting ships and weapons will readily show that several comparable sized craft have been fitted with anti-ship missiles, including the smaller 37.5 metre Brooke Marine boat from which the 42 metre Fremantle was developed. Development of lightweight anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems is continuing relatively rapidly and new generation weapons are likely to be even more readily adaptable.

Casey University (Question No. 2531)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has a confidential Department of Defence estimate put the cost of the new Casey University at $79.9m, as described in an article by Mr Paul Malone in the Financial Review of20 December 1979.
  2. Did the Minister for Defence state on 7 December 1979 when announcing the project, that the cost would be $65m.
  3. ) Was the Minister aware of the Defence Department ‘s estimate at that time; if so, on what grounds did he use the lower figure of $65m when announcing the project.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No.

Human Rights

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 19 February 1980 Senator Missen asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following question without notice:

Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs studied the recently published report of the Amnesty International mission to Singapore with its horrifying details of long detention of prisoners without trial and of torture, forced confessions and ill-treatment in clear breach of international covenants? Is the Minister prepared to use our good relationship with the Singapore Government by making urgent representations to the Government of Singapore, in accordance with the report’s recommendations, seeking the release of prisoners held without trial for up to 17 years and the repeal of the Internal Security Act and other legislation depriving citizens of basic human rights, and requesting the taking of effective steps to prohibit the continuance of preventive detention, torture and other brutal and inhumane practices?

I replied:

My attention has been drawn to the publication on, I think, 1 February this year of the report of an Amnesty International mission to Singapore from 30 November to 5 December 1978. The Australian Government accepts as a fundamental matter of principle that all detainees should be brought to public trial with as little delay as possible. This view has been communicated to the Singapore Government on a number of occasions. It is, however, difficult for a government to make effective representations on a government-to-government basis on behalf of individual persons detained without trial.

Like most governments, the Singapore Government maintains that its law and its administration of it are internal matters falling entirely within its own sovereignty. The Singapore Government rejects the view that other governments have any right to interfere with the administration of Singapore law.

Senator Missen may not be aware that Mr Lee Tse Tong, one of the longest serving detainees, whose case was referred to in the Amnesty International report, was released conditionally on 14 February. Because this is an important question I will refer it to my colleague in another place.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made the following reply:

I concur with the points made by Senator Carrick in response to Senator Missen ‘s question.

In addition, the honourable senator may be interested to know that the United States Congress requires an annual report on the observance of human rights in all countries with which the United States has diplomatic relations. The United States State Department report on Human Rights released in Washington DC on 5 February 1980 noted for the United States Congress the recent relaxation in the Singapore Government ‘s policy regarding political detainees. A copy of the United States State Department report on Human Rights relating to Singapore may bc obtained from the Parliamentary library.

Defence Expenditure

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 21 February 1980 Senator Harradine asked me a question without notice concerning the possible participation of Tasmania in the employment and economic activities associated with increased defence recruitment, procurement and deployment.

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

It is expected that Tasmanian industry will take every opportunity to avail itself of work that will result from increased procurement. While the full extent of possible future involvement by local industry is unclear, Tasmanian firms should bid for Defence work as it arises. The purchasing procedures of the Commonwealth do not discriminate against the industry of Tasmania, or any other State.

Similarly, the expansion of defence manpower will create additional employment opportunities for Tasmanians, as for the citizens of all other States. I hope that young Tasmanians will avail themselves of those opportunities.

The Prime Minister has announced increased Defence operations in the Indian Ocean, with an attendant expansion of facilities. No requirement has been identified for any further deployment of defence force elements to Tasmania.

Export of Australian Antiques

Senator Durack:
LP

– At question time on 28 February 1980 Senator Davidson asked me whether the Government had any plans to restrict the movement from Australia of coins, antique articles, and other cultural items. Senator Davidson’s question without notice was addressed to me, although he assumed it would also involve the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs.

In answering the question I undertook to refer the matter to the Minister for Home Affairs for proper investigation. The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following information:

The establishment of appropriate measures to protect Australian cultural material is one that my Department has been examining for some time. Last year my Department wrote to the major Australian museums seeking suggested criteria for the export of cultural material. At this stage initial replies are being received and correlated. When the survey has been completed 1 will take up this general question with my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

The Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations Second Schedule lists certain categories of goods which may be exported from Australia, only with the consent of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

The usual practice is for my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to seek my advice in respect of items subject to these Regulations which might have national historical importance. The Government must keep in mind the need to protect our national treasures from leaving the country. It must endeavour to do this without unfairly interfering with the rights of owners of property and auctioneers to deal commercially in valuable works.

The problems associated with the protection of Australia ‘s national treasures have recently been compounded by an increasing awareness, overseas, of the value of these items. I am aware that overseas buyers are agreeing to pay prices in excess of those Australian collectors feel disposed to offer.

I am also aware of recent Canadian legislation enacted to control the export of Canadian cultural property. In the context of the examination of the UNESCO Convention on the means of preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property, my Department is looking at the Canadian legislation, in consultation with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department, wilh a view to determining whether an acceptable legal framework could be developed which would provide for the control of the export of cultural property from Australia.

A related area is the protection of Aboriginal Folklore. A Working Party is examining, among other things, measures which might be taken to protect Aboriginal cultural material from misuse including the export of items which might result in the further destruction of traditional Aboriginal culture. I am hoping to receive a report on this before the end of the year.

I envisage the Interim Council of the Museum of Australia, once appointed, will assume the role of advising the Government what measures it should take to protect cultural property.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 March 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800319_senate_31_s84/>.