Senate
17 April 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

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

page 1545

PETITIONS

Moscow Olympic Games

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 2 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That we the undersigned oppose the proposed boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow, and we therefore pray that the Government take no action to prevent Australian athletes from competing.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 140 citizens of Australia:

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over 10 percent by 1 990 and about 1 6 per cent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds arc important mobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

a ) Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to superannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.

Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.

Remove Life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.

Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 per cent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of$2,500

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pricing of Liquefied Petroleum Gas

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 3,453 citizens of Australia:

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

That the present Commonwealth Government policy of pricing LPG at world parity prices causes excessive hardship to all country gas consumers.

That the Commonwealth Government should reverse its policy of pricing indigenous LPG at world parity prices.

That LPG should be priced on the same basis as natural gas or electricity, neither of which is at world parity prices.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will reverse this policy on the pricing of LPG at world parity prices.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

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

Social Security Benefits

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed, the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index, by this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index including the fixed 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore 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 Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, Lewis and Missen.

Petitions received.

Life Insurance and Superannuation Contributions: Tax Deductibility

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

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proportion of pensionable people within our community is increasing at a significant rate. The number of people over 65 years old will rise from approximately 8.5 per cent of the population as it was in 1970 to over l0percentby 1990 and about 16 percent by the year 2020.

That technological change is accelerating the trend towards earlier retirement from the workforce.

That the above factors make incentives for self-provision in retirement years a matter of great urgency if future generations of Australians are to be spared the crippling taxation which would be necessary to fund such provisions from social welfare.

That Australia is in urgent need of locally raised investment capital for national development and that life insurance and superannuation funds are importantmobilisers of such capital.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government will forthwith take the steps necessary to:

  1. Remove contributions paid by the taxpayer to supperannuation funds from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income.
  2. Allow as such deduction amounts necessary to provide the individual with a reasonable retirement benefit as defined from time to time by the Commissioner of Taxation.
  3. Remove Life insurance premiums paid from the rebate system and make them a separate deduction from assessable income also.
  4. Allow such a deduction to take the form of a flat rebate of 20 percent of Life Insurance premiums up to a limit of $2500.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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 Women’s Advisory Council and increase Federal Government support for its activities.

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

Petition received.

page 1546

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1546

QUESTION

PROPOSED JOINT FISHING VENTURE: NEW ZEALAND AND SOVIET UNION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Special Trade Representations, and I ask: Is the Government aware of any negotiations currently under way between the New Zealand Government and Soviet authorities for the establishment of a joint fishing venture based in New Zealand? If such negotiations are under way, is the venture for the purpose of replacing the joint fishing venture that was proposed for Tasmania but suspended earlier this year?

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

– I do have some information that is relevant to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. I am aware that the New Zealand Prime Minister announced that, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, his Government would decline to approve an expansion of Soviet activity within the New Zealand 200-mile zone. The joint fishing venture between Soviet and New Zealand interests commenced in late 1 979. Whilst the New Zealand Government has not cancelled approval for these projects, it has reduced the allocation for Soviet vessels under government to government arrangements from 65,000 tonnes to 32,500 tonnes.Other steps the New Zealand Government has taken to show its disapproval of the Soviet action have been to confine Soviet licensed fishing operations to the southernmost and more difficult waters to fish, and to cancel a 12-months research project after only four months work. No doubt these steps are regarded by the New Zealand Government as effective objections to Russian action in Afghanistan.

So far as the Tasmania-Russia venture is concerned, as I understand it, there has been an undertaking that New Zealand will not seek to move in and take the place of the Tasmanian involvement. I understand that other countries are likely to be interested in taking the place, as it were, of the Russian involvement in the fishing industry in Tasmania and elsewhere. In summary, as I understand it, there is no evidence at this stage that New Zealand is seeking to or in fact is moving in to take the place of Tasmania or of any country in joint fishing ventures in that part of the world.

page 1547

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport follows a question asked by Senator Rocher yesterday. The Minister, in his reply to Senator Rocher, stated:

I expect that the Minister for Transport will in the reasonably near future announce more details in respect of that inquiry.

I ask: As air fares are something that Tasmanians are almost obliged to pay if they leave Tasmania, because most of them have to leave by air to get away from the southern island, will he ensure that at least one Tasmanian is on the committee of inquiry into air fare structures?

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

– I suspect that each of the different parts of Australia will feel that it has a special interest in the air fares inquiry. A number of people think of my State of Western Australia as a south-west island surrounded by desert. I think the point raised by the honourable senator is the sort of consideration that will be in the mind of the Minister for Transport when he is dealing with the matter. I will refer the point to him, but I am sure it is in his mind. I do not believe it would be possible to give any State in Australia a guarantee that it would be represented. I give the honourable senator the assurance that the sort of consideration he has raised will be in the Government’s mind.

page 1547

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. I refer to the announced reduction of $47 per tonne in the price of liquefied petroleum gas and ask: When announcing that reduction did the Minister say that the price would take effect from 9 April 1980? I also refer to the subsidy of $80 per tonne announced some three months ago. Are these reductions and subsidies actually operating in the market-place today? Have oil companies and distributors passed on these savings to consumers around Australia or has the public been snowed by a Government propaganda effort which is yet to operate in reality? In summary when, if ever, will the Government implement its promises on LPG pricing?

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

– My understanding is that in general terms the suppliers have taken the lower price into account. For example, 1 believe that at our suggestion the suppliers to the Launceston Gas Co. have backdated the lower price to give a benefit well beyond what would have been the dates we suggested. My understanding is that the subsidy has been taken into account within the States. The Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria has taken the subsidy into account. The Bill to implement the subsidy will be introduced in the House of Representatives today. Supplementary legislation will need to be passed by the States but it ought to be possible for the combined subsidy and price of $205 a tonne to take effect from the dates that have been indicated. We are working towards that end.

Senator TATE:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question in order to clarify the Minister’s answer. Did he say that the price reduction to $205 per tonne has not taken effect from 9 April 1 980 as he announced it would? In other words, have oil companies and distributors ignored the telexed direction which was tabled in this Parliament on Tuesday, despite the fact that that was the result of alleged agreements and discussions between them and the Government?

Senator CARRICK:

– On the contrary; my understanding is that the various distributors, including specifically the country gas companies, are working on the lower price. Not only have they not raised the price from its pre-January figure of $147 a tonne but also they now contemplate an even lower price of $ 1 25 a tonne. I believe that some of the refiners have decided to act immediately. Others sought Prices Justification Tribunal adjustments. Those adjustments have been absolutely minor. For instance, the Shell company sought a rise of 0.07c a litre. That being so, my understanding is that the policy is proceeding to be implemented through various outlets. If it turns out otherwise, I would be happy to have the information and we would proceed to see how we could rectify the situation.

page 1547

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION FEES

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. I refer to a statement made by Senator Carrick on 15 November last year when he was Minister for Education concerning the payment of Students’ Association fees at the Australian National University, to the effect that if a person should express a desire not to belong to such an organisation that fee ‘will not be payable’. He went on to say:

There can bc no attempt to compel payment of that fee for any indirect purpose or attempt to direct money through other channels to that end.

Is the Minister aware that the Australian National University has threatened a number of students with expulsion for not paying such a fee this year? Is he also aware that the amounts withheld by those students have now been paid anonymously, that is, money has been directed through other channels to pay the fees despite the expressed wish of the students that they not contribute an amount of money to the Students’ Association as a socio-political body? Is the Government’s position still as stated by the Minister last November? If so, what action will be taken to ensure that the Australian National University administration adheres to the spirit of that arrangement?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government’s position on the membership of students at the Australian National University of socio-political student organisations has not changed throughout the various negotiations. Our policy is that student membership of socio-political organisations should be voluntary and that those students who elect not to join such bodies should pay smaller fees than those who elect to join. This was the intention behind the amendments to the Australian National University Amendment Act approved by Parliament last year. Certain students have objected to the likelihood of the compulsory fee being used for purposes other than the provision of amenities and services. The difficulty arises because the University has not yet decided the classes of amenities and services which are to be financed within the provisions of the Act from the compulsory fee collected from all students.

The matter cannot be resolved until the University has produced a statute setting out its intentions. My colleague, the Minister for Education, has been in discussion with the Vice-Chancellor and discussions are proceeding about the terms of the statute. The Government is anxious to see this matter settled promptly. The Minister has asked that, pending settlement of the statute, the University defer any disciplinary action against students who have declined to pay a part of the general services fee because of an objection to the use to which it might be put. As Senator Knight has indicated, the outstanding fees of the students in question were paid yesterday, I understand anonymously. Therefore, there should be no immediate question of penalising them.

Senator KNIGHT:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can it be taken from the Minister’s answer that when the statute to which he referred has been introduced there will be a refund of some amount to those students involved? Will he ensure that action is taken for such a refund to be made to those students who opted -

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. The question is not a supplementary one. It is entirely new. I would also like to point out to you, Mr President, that we have now witnessed further evidence of the use of the device of asking a question to allow the Minister to make a statement. For that reason -

Senator McLaren:

– He can put a statement down after Question Time.

Senator Georges:

– Yes, the statement should be put down after Question Time to allow the Opposition an opportunity to debate the matter. Mr President, I ask you to remind the honourable senator and the Minister of the Standing Orders which pertain to Question Time. I further ask you, Mr President, to ask the Minister to table the paper from which he read in answering that question.

Senator Knight:

- Mr President, I wish to speak to the point of order. There is a well known practice in this place of asking supplementary questions. My question arises directly from the answer of the Minister and relates directly to the point which was raised in that answer.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is quite right. I see no validity in the point of order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to speak to the point of order because I think this is an important matter. There is not a well known practice in this place of asking supplementary questions. It was introduced in the time of Sir Magnus Cormack when he was President and it has been abused ever since.

Senator Archer:

– By whom?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am not saying by whom. I think that it has been abused ever since by the majority who have asked supplementary questions. I think it is about time that the Senate discontinued this practice of one man asking a number of questions by way of supplementary action. IC supplementary questions are to be asked, they should be designed to clarify something that the Minister has said which is unclear. To ask a completely different question on this occasion, on what happens to the scabs who have not paid their fees, I think -

Senator Carrick:

– May I raise a point of order? The very point that is being complained about, the allegation that a statement is being made, is now being breached, and the words I find objectionable. To take the opportunity to call people scabs by this device is indeed an abuse of the opportunity of a point of order, and certainly is making a statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There has been sufficient debate on the point of order which has been raised. I can see no validity in the point of order raised. I call Senator Knight.

Senator KNIGHT:

– In completing my supplementary question, I ask: What action will be taken to ensure that a refund is made to these students for the fee payment which has been effectively compelled by the ANU administration?

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I will ask the Minister for Education to reply specifically to that. He is, I understand, waiting for the draft statute to come to him from the Australian National University to see whether in fact the draft statute will bring that about. I am asked to table the document from which I have read, and 1 do so. It is part of my education brief and it is in fact a minute from the Secretary of the Department of Education to his Minister stating the words, and therefore objectively stating the words, that I read out. I am perfectly happy to table the minute.

Senator Georges:

– May I now raise a point of order before we get much further on this matter? I will not take up much time. Senator Cavanagh had the call, as I recall, and he is entitled to speak without the Leader of the Government in the Senate rising and interrupting him. I make that point of order because the Leader of the Government in the Senate interrupts consistently, and for that reason I suggest, Mr President, that he refrain from taking the call from the senator who happens to be on his feet at the time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! We will not debate this matter further. Senator Cavanagh was speaking to another matter in regard to supplementary questions. The point of order is not sustained. I call Senator Chipp.

page 1549

QUESTION

PROPOSED OLYMPIC GAMES BOYCOTT

Senator CHIPP:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning the proposed boycott of the Olympic Games. I refer to some Government pressure which has been applied to athletes and to their organisations not to attend the Moscow Olympic Games, stating that by attending they would be acting against national security. Because this could lead to an inference that if they decide to go and disobey the Government’s suggestion they will be acting against national security, and because this is a unilateral communication from the Cabinet without reference to the Parliament, will the Minister do two things: First, will he arrange for this Senate to debate the matter before the vote is taken; and secondly, will he arrange for the voting to be on a non-party basis and for a free conscience vote to be given to all Government senators?

Honourable senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! If honourable senators desire to ask questions at Question Time, they should be silent when the answers to the questions are given.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not think anyone would deny that it is the proper duty of a government to explain to all the people of its nation the views of that government regarding national security and the imperative nature of actions which could affect, either for good or for bad, the peace or peril of this world. Therefore, I see no difference between the Government’s approaching the people and the Labour leader in New Zealand calling upon the Government there to use all the pressure that it can to bring about an effective boycott- or, indeed, in Mr Trudeau’s approach to this matter. Where does the difference lie? This matter has been quite improperly put out of context. It is the bounden duty of a government to explain its views if it believes that the world is in a perilous situation, and few people doubt that. After all we have had the United Nations saying almost unanimously- 104 or 105 countries to 18- that the world is in desperate peril.

Opposition senators interjecting-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator CARRICK:

– That being so, in light of the fact that there is almost a unanimous world view that there is such a peril, the Government would be recreant in its duty if it did not do what it has done. There has been -

Senator Grimes:

– Why do you still take their money?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Grimes:

– Blood money.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I refer honourable senators to Standing Order 438, which I shall read to the Senate. It is about time an orderly situation obtained in this place. Standing Order 438 reads:

If any Senator-

persistently and wilfully refuses to conform to the Standing Orders . . . the President may report to the Senate that such Senator has committed an offence.

That is peremptory. It must be acted upon if there is not the decorum that there should be in this place. I am quite tired of the lack of decorum. The innuendoes about monetary considerations and so on which are persistently being made are not allowed in this place.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Chipp asked whether there can be a debate on this subject. I know of no subject upon which longer debate has been allowed and provided for than the subject of the invasion of Afghanistan and the Olympic Games boycott. Debate on that has occupied, I think, virtually two weeks of the Senate’s time. There was ample opportunity for honourable senators to express their views. Hansard has recorded the views of virtually all the honourable senators in this Parliament. I see no need for further debate. It is already there in Hansard.

Senator CHIPP:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I am sure that it complies with Senator Cavanagh ‘s restrictions.

The PRESIDENT:

– You may ask a supplementary question if it is relevant to the original question. You may seek further elucidation, but you may not do any more than that.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am not questioning the right of the Government to make a decision or a suggestion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Do not debate the matter. Put your question.

Senator CHIPP:

– I am not debating the matter, with great respect, Mr President. The Minister did not answer my question. What I am asking is: The Government has the right, but why has it not given the Parliament the right to vote on the matter? Secondly, when did the Parliament vote on this question on a non-party conscience basis? Can he give me the date?

Senator CARRICK:

-As far as this side of the Parliament is concerned, there is no caucus and no need for any member to be bound by a party decision. I cannot account for the totalitarian devices of the other side of the Parliament. Hansard will show that in the first two weeks of the autumn sitting every member of the Senate had the right to speak and to indicate his attitude according to conscience, as honourable senators do on all matters. So Senator Chipp simply has to look at Hansard and count the numbers.

page 1550

QUESTION

TAX CONCESSIONS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer give the Senate further details of the tax concessions to encourage water conservation which were announced by the Prime Minister on Monday?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Prime Minister announced a number of measures on Monday to assist the rural community in coping with the very dry period which it currently faces. In that statement it was announced that the Government would allow certain expenditures for the conversion of water bores, wells and dams and the conveyance of water on rural properties as taxation deductions. Expenditure on such items will be an allowable deduction for taxation purposes for the year in which the expenditure is incurred. At present non-plant capital expenditure on conserving or conveying water on rural properties may be written off over a period of 10 years. The cost of plant items such as pumps is deductible over the life of the asset. These measures represent a major initiative to assist primary producers to develop additional water storage and farm reticulation systems and to improve their ability to withstand drought. Because of the importance of these measures legislation will be introduced as a matter of urgency. The legislation will be made effective from the date of the Prime Minister’s announcement, namely last Monday.

page 1550

QUESTION

WOOL PRODUCERS: BOYCOTT ON SALES TO SOVIET UNION

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question which is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy flows from the answer he gave to Senator Chipp in which he referred to the perilous state of affairs in the world and the Government’s view that the position is perilous as a result of actions taken by the Soviet Government. In view of that statement and in view of this Government’s continued pressuring of Australian athletes to boycott the Olympic Games, I ask the Minister whether he will ask the Prime Minister, and any of his ministerial colleagues who are wool producers, to similarly boycott the sale to the Soviet Union of wool which is produced on their properties; that is, make it a condition of sale to any agent that the wool is not to be exported to the Soviet Union.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I said that the Government’s view that the world is in a perilous state is shared by an overwhelming number of members of the United Nations.

Senator McLaren:

– Answer the question.

Senator CARRICK:

– That is the answer to the first part of Senator Wriedt ‘s question. The Government has made it clear that it has responded to the terms of the trade agreement of the Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries, which is universally accepted as the code of boycotts in terms of defence and defensive measures in the world. It has abided by that agreement and, in terms of ordinary produce, that has been so. There has been a significant belief by a cross section of all communities that one should not proceed with a boycott where two things happen: Where one could be physically hurting people by denying, substantially, food and food products -

Senator Wriedt:

– Like the Red Army in Afghanistan.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am bound to say that the Labor Party objected when we cut off such supplies to the Vietnamese Army for its use. It is important that we should not have double standards. When our argument was given for acting in that way towards Vietnam, the Labor Party said that we were wrong. It cannot have double standards. The reason for the Government’s boycott has been made perfectly clear. I will pass on the question to the Prime Minister as it is for him to decide whether he will answer.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, I have a supplementary question. Are we to assume, from the answer given by Senator Carrick, that it is justified to expect other people to impose a boycott, in whatever area, but it is not justified where the Prime Minister and possibly colleagues of his receive moneys from sales of their products to the Soviet Union? If that is not a double standard, what is?

Senator Grimes:

– Blood money.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! For the third time, Senator Grimes, I note the innuendoes in respect of money when the Minister is replying to a question. Now I am warning you. Do not persist with innuendoes which are not conducive in this place to a reasonable atmosphere of co-operation and ability to make this place work. 1 am warning you.

Senator Grimes- With respect, Mr President, you have warned me and named me and said that I was interjecting and making innuendoes. The question Senator Wriedt asked was about the receipt of moneys by wool producers who may be in the Government. My interjection was that this is blood money. There was no implication that Senator Carrick, who we know is not a wool producer, was accepting blood money. Surely we are permitted to ask in this place where the Prime Minister and others get their money from and whether they get it from Russia or other communist sources. I will persist in asking those questions. I am not defying your ruling,

Mr President, but by the same token as a senator in this place I will not be silenced.

The PRESIDENT:

-The honourable senator can do so, as long as he makes no personal imputations.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Wriedt asked whether double standards were involved in asking athletes not to go to Moscow and in not imposing a total trade boycott on Russia. If we ban wool we should, of course, move into every form of trade. There is no argument on wool.

Senator Wriedt:

– Why shouldn’t you?

Senator CARRICK:

-I take it that the interjection by Senator Wriedt means that the Labor Party is advocating a total trade boycott of the Soviet Union. If that is not the case, why is the interjection made? Let me reveal that double standards are not involved. The great aim of at least 50 nations is to try to get a message to the Russian people as distinct from a message to the Kremlin. The nations believe that the Kremlin itself will deny passing messages on to the people of Russia if only trade is involved. The best way that we can get a message across is for the Russian people who have believed that the Olympic Games are being held in Russia because of Russia ‘s ideological views -

Senator Keeffe:

– I raise a point of order. Mr President, you have continually ruled in the past- I suppose we have continually objected to the practice- on the Minister’s taking the opportunity at Question Time to make very lengthy speeches in reply to questions.

Senator McLaren:

– It has nothing to do with the question.

Senator Keeffe:

– No, it has not. The regular Thursday morning aberrations of the Minister are getting terrible to bear. I suggest that you, Mr President, again remind him of your previous rulings in relation to the shortening of answers.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister may answer in his own way but there shall be no debate in the answer.

Senator Carrick:

-If I may speak to the point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– I have ruled on the point of order.

Senator Carrick:

– I say simply that if honourable senators were to peruse questions and answers given to the Senate in recent days they would find that the answers have been very short indeed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order. What right has the Leader of the Government in the Senate to canvass your ruling, Mr President? You have ruled on the point of order. It appears that we are to have a debate to rehash whether your ruling was right or wrong. We have finished with the matter; let us get on with the business.

The PRESIDENT:

– My rulings may never be canvassed. I did not detect that the ruling was being canvassed.

Senator CARRICK:

– I was not canvassing your ruling, Mr President. I was asked whether there were double standards. I said no. At least 50 nations believe that an effective Olympic boycott would get the message through to the people of Russia. They do not believe that a trade boycott would do so because the Kremlin would get its supplies from other countries. That answer is quite clear, quite pertinent and short.

page 1552

QUESTION

AUTISTIC CHILDREN’S ASSOCIATIONS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to recent comments in South Australia by Mr Craig Spiel, the President of the Autistic Children’s Association of South Australia, wherein he pointed to the discrimination which exists in departmental treatment of this disadvantaged section in our community on a State to State basis? Can the Minister explain why there is such a variation in subsidies afforded by her Department to autistic associations in the various States? Why, for example, does the Autistic Children’s Association of New South Wales receive a subsidy of 100 per cent for transport and 50 per cent for administrative staff while the South Australian association receives only 50 per cent for transport in respect of bus drivers and a 50 per cent subsidy for teachers, administration and ancillary staff? Has the Government considered establishing a uniform scale of treatment for those bodies? If not, will the Minister give favourable consideration to standardising departmental policy in this area to ensure that the same adequate assistance is given to those associations in all States?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI will give consideration to the matter raised by Senator Jessop with regard to standardising payments made to associations and organisations. In response to the more particular matter raised by him, I am not aware of the specific comments made by Mr Craig Spiel. But I draw attention to the fact that within my Department two sources of funding for services for handicapped children are provided. One source is the arrangements made under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act; the other is payments made through the children’s services program. The Handicapped Persons Assistance Act is standardised -if that is the term to be used- with regard to conditions under which subsidies are made available to eligible organisations throughout Australia. The Act provides for a general rate of salary subsidy of 50 per cent but allows payment of up to 100 per cent in the first two years of operation of an approved service. This is a discretionary provision designed to assist organisations to establish and to build on a new service.

I am advised that my Department provides a 50 per cent salary subsidy for bus drivers employed by the New South Wales association. However, State governments provide varying levels of assistance to the associations. As an example, in New South Wales the Department of Education provides a conveying allowance for the transport of children. In December last year I announced an extension to the handicapped persons welfare program and some $33m will be provided for new services over the next three years. As part of that program I have already approved seven projects involving the provision of new services for autistic children. Included in those is a grant for extensions to a training centre at Myrtle Bank in South Australia. Under the children’s services program we also have given priority to many projects for handicapped children. If any association wishes to apply for specific grants if funds are available, an application could be considered in the light of the children’s services program, taking into account the priority which should be given to the different applications. I do take note of Senator Jessop ‘s comments with regard to a uniform scale of treatment. As I said, under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act that is achieved.

page 1552

QUESTION

CASUAL WORKERS AT DARWIN WHARF

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact that two Queen’s Counsel are being briefed to handle the prosecution of seven persons accused of undertaking casual work on the Darwin wharf while in receipt of the unemployment benefit? Is it a fact that these expensive arrangements were made only after the defendants had secured the legal aid which previously had been denied them because they refused to plead guilty?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am not aware of the details relating to the matter raised by Senator Robertson. I will take up the matter immediately with the Crown Solicitor and endeavour to get an early answer for him.

page 1553

QUESTION

VISITORS TO PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator ARCHER:

- Mr President, I wish to ask you a question. Can members and senators be made more adequately aware of their responsibilities for their visitors to Parliament House, especially in order to facilitate the duties of the attendants? What restrictions are imposed on unaccompanied visitors roaming the passages of Parliament House, intent on waylaying senators for the purpose of pursuing their particular interests? What privileges do they enjoy enabling them to use Parliament House telephones to ring senators in their offices? Do casual visitors have the right to unrestricted, unaccompanied access? If not, what is the procedure which should be adopted and what is the remedy available to senators to avoid this type of intrusion when it so often interrupts the many other engagements to which senators are normally committed?

The PRESIDENT:

– I believe that the questions you have asked, Senator Archer, are important ones. I should like to bring down a statement in response to them when we assemble next Monday.

page 1553

QUESTION

PETROLEUM FREIGHT SUBSIDY SCHEME

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct a question to Senator Durack in his capacity as AttorneyGeneral and, as such, Australia’s chief law officer, and as the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Why has the Government advertised in media throughout Australia recent extensions to the petroleum freight subsidy scheme- incidentally, the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs estimates the cost at $17,000- for every locality in which it is paid with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory? Is that because the subsidy has been paid illegally in the Australian Capital Territory? When does the Attorney-General propose to legalise the payment of the subsidy in the Australian Capital Territory by a separate Australian Capital Territory ordinance, as he undertook to do in his letter to Senator Walsh on 1 7 December last year?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The matter raised by Senator McLaren in substance is one for the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, although some legal matters may relate to it. I will refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs in the first place and discuss the matter with him.

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that no ordinance has been introduced to cover the payment of the subsidy in the Australian Capital Territory, will the Attorney-General seek the following information and supply it to the Senate: What appropriate authority is being used to allow this payment?

Senator DURACK:

page 1553

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Health to a report in the Age of 10 April regarding a study conducted at the University of California which revealed that people who work alongside cigarette smokers may be suffering damage to their lungs. Above the noise of coughing in the chamber, I ask the Minister whether she is aware that the study revealed that the condition of the small airways of the lungs of non-smoking males working in polluted offices was 85 per cent of the figure expected for their age and height? In these circumstances, does the Minister agree that this study is further evidence of the need to restrict smoking in public places? If so, will she assure the Senate that consideration will be given by the Government to introducing legislation within its powers aimed at preventing smoking in public places so as to help to minimise the health risk posed to non-smokers who live or work in a smoky environment?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I am not aware of the report mentioned by Senator Missen, but I will draw the question to the attention of the Minister for Health to see what response he is able to make. I draw attention to the Government’s response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare which dealt with some relevant matters. I am sure that Senator Missen is aware of the Government’s response to the recommendations on these matters. If I obtain further information from the Minister for Health, I will see that the Senate is advised of it.

page 1553

QUESTION

MOTOR SPIRIT CONSUMPTION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I draw the attention of the Minister for National Development and Energy to a question which I placed on the Notice Paper on 2 1 February and which he answered yesterday. He pointed out in his answer that in 1972 the consumption of motor spirit per head of population was 845 litres, and that it increased to 1,010 litres in 1977, 1,025 litres in 1978 and 1,033 litres in 1979. Notwithstanding the constantly increasing price of motor spirit, has the Minister noted from the answer supplied by his Department that there has been a constantly increasing consumption of motor spirit per head? Do the facts set out in the Minister’s answer, as supplied by his Department, tend to refute the Government’s theory that the dearer the price of motor spirit the lower its consumption is likely to be and, therefore, the greater the conservation will be?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the figures referred to by Senator McClelland. In fact, they prove the reverse of what he said. The rate of increase each year is dropping and has dropped significantly between 1978 and 1979. One would have expected an increase of something like 3.9 per cent in the consumption of gasolene in 1979. The increase was below 2 per cent. So there has been a considerable fall-off in that regard. If Senator McClelland were to look at figures for the purchase of motor vehicles he would know that the community itself has turned very strongly to the purchase of more fuel efficient and smaller vehicles. Those two pieces of evidence clearly indicate that the Government’s policy is working.

I think it is fair to say that every country that is a member of the International Energy Agency believes that the petrol pricing policy which we are now carrying out will bring about significant conservation of energy in the course of the years ahead. In fact, it is doing so. It is not only doing that with petrol but also it is a fact that the price of oil is leading to the use of alternative fuels. Something like two million barrels of oil were saved last year in Sydney alone by conversion to other fuels. We see daily that increased exploration is being announced. This year there will be very substantial exploration and development. Finally, announcements in regard to synthetics can be made, as the venturers into synthetics say, only because of import parity pricing. Without it there would be no Rundle.

page 1554

QUESTION

FREIGHT COSTS TO REMOTE AREAS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. A major escalation in the cost of consumer and household commodities has occurred in the remote areas of the north and north-west of Australia because of huge freight cost increases directly related to higher fuel costs. In any future review of taxation will the Government consider recognition of this and other extreme disadvantages experienced by residents of these remote areas by, firstly, alleviating or eliminating the effect of sales tax levied quite inequitably on the freight component of costs of goods and, secondly, by reviewing substantially for the first time in decades the level of zone allowance rebates for taxpayers in remote areas of

Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Cost increases, and particularly rising oil and fuel prices, have affected all Australians, not just those living in the more remote areas. For example, transport costs between and within metropolitan areas are incorporated in the price of goods sold in the cities, just as the cost of freight is incorporated in the price of goods sent to non-metropolitan areas. On an overall basis, a government must strive to see that its total economic policy produces a level of inflation which is lower than the rates of the countries with whom we trade and which allows us to trade outwards in the world. Our living standards depend on this.

It should be realised that Australia has not been able to isolate itself from world increases in fuel prices. To reduce overall fuel prices would serve to subsidise consumption of fuels, which is contrary to this Government’s policy. We have sought a differential for fuel prices in cities and more remote areas. The Government has introduced the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme and now the gap is no more than 2c a litre. This is very generous; it costs about $123m a year. The freight component of the cost of goods should be eliminated from the base on which the sales tax is levied. The present sales tax is levied at the point of wholesale transaction and consequently the cost of freight to the wholesale distributor would be included in the base on which the sales tax is levied. Nevertheless, I will bring the substance of the question to the attention of the Treasurer.

page 1554

QUESTION

PENSIONERS’ BANK ACCOUNTS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-The Minister for Social Security will recall that on Tuesday she answered questions from Senator Melzer in relation to the withdrawal of money from pensioners’ bank accounts. I refer to a Mr and Mrs Colledge, whose case has been widely reported in the Brisbane media. I ask the Minister whether the Department of Social Security withdrew $330 from the Colledges’ account. Were the Colledges advised of the Department’s action in accordance with section 135w (5) of the Social Services Act? Were all other procedures correctly followed in this case and what action has been taken in Brisbane to ensure that the provisions of section 135w(5) and the related departmental instructions will be followed in the future?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI am not aware of the facts in regard to the Brisbane media and the case that has been mentioned by Senator Colston. I did refer to this matter in relation to statements made by Senator Melzer last week, and the matter was discussed also in Senate Estimates Committee C. I will need to check the statements that were made with regard to the Queensland pensioners. I assure the Senate that officers of my Department are aware of the section in the Act and its requirements. I tabled in this place the manual of instructions for the administration of that section, and I stated that I would want to know if there was any departure from those arrangements.

If as a result of the inquiries I will make following this statement from Senator Colston I find that there has been a departure from the provisions of the Act and the requirements of our administrative instructions, I will see that appropriate action is taken. I assure the Senate that steps have been taken in the Department to acquaint all officers of the requirements of that section and of our administrative arrangements. 1 hope that no officer in the Department would ignore those instructions. If any misunderstanding arises in the Department, I would expect senior officers to ensure that all arrangements are adhered to, as the administrative manual requires.

page 1555

QUESTION

NAMIBIA

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to Press reports which indicate that, following the electoral victory of Mr Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the Government of South Africa has now reassessed its commitment to and support for a negotiated settlement in Namibia, which would also involve free, supervised black majority elections, on the basis that those elections might not be won by the moderate multi-racial Democratic Turnhalle Alliance but rather by the South West African People’s Organisation? Are these reports about a change of attitude by the South African Government correct? If so, have any steps been taken by the Australian Government to try to get the proposals for the Namibian settlement back on the rails?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen certain Press reports on this matter but they do not equip me to give an objective comment. I will get a more detailed brief and let Senator Puplick have it.

page 1555

QUESTION

AGENT ORANGE

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. The Minister may be aware of publicity given in the Australian of 3 March and, I believe, in the television program 60 Minutes to research at Hanoi University which indicates a doubling in the rate of deformed children born to Vietnamese soldiers said to have been sprayed with agent orange, even though the mothers had not been exposed to it. Is it a fact that this research indicates that contact with agent orange can have a mutagenic effect? That is, if a man is affected, children born subsequently to his wife, who has not been exposed to agent orange, may still show a rate of deformity above average. In view of the concern of Australian Vietnam veterans about this mutagenic effect, will the Government consider sending a medical team to Hanoi urgently to check on this research and report back, and then apply the results of those findings?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I am not aware of the program or the statements made on it. I think it is understood that the Minister for Health and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs have been very concerned about these matters. I will need to refer the question to both those Ministers to obtain a response for Senator Mason.

page 1555

QUESTION

COAL DISCOVERY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. Is he aware of the recent discovery of coal at Kingston, in the south-east of South Australia, which is reported as being a very promising find? Will the Government take the development of this coal deposit into consideration in any discussions or planning that may take place on the establishment of a national electricity grid in the south-east region of Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am aware that a significant discovery is asserted to have been made in that area of south-east South Australia. I am doubly aware of its significance because South Australia now needs virtually one ingredient, electric power, to give it the full development that has been held back in the past decade. The exciting prospects of Roxby Downs and the Redcliff type of development are before South Australia now. Of course, the study of the electricity grid improves the prospects for South Australia. Equally the development of the liquids from the Cooper Basin and its resultant effect means that South Australia has an exciting future. I will get the experts to look at this matter. I will also direct the attention of those who are making a study of the grid to the enhanced possiblity of South Australia contributing more substantially to the generation of electric power in Australia.

page 1556

QUESTION

IRAN: PROPOSED AMERICAN BOYCOTT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, refers to the publicity given this morning by an important national daily about an alleged statement by President Carter that if the hostage situation is not cleared up by 15 May the United States will mine the ports of Iran. It also reports that the American Government has told its allies, including Australia, that they must be firmer with respect to the proposed economic boycotts. Is that a true representation of the position as Australia understands its conversations with the United States? Were these matters discussed in any way at the time of the formulation of the code of boycotts that he mentioned this morning or have they been put only recently as important issues which Australia must support? If he does not know the answers to these questions, because of their importance will he report to the Senate on this matter at an early date?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will seek specific answers to these questions because I think they need to be up-to-date answers. Subject to further investigation, I believe that there has been no suggestion in any direct or indirect way by America to us that it would take the quite severe step of denying, by blockade, the ingress to or egress from the ports of Iran. I know nothing of that, but I want to check that statement in case information is available that has not come to me. I accept the seriousness of any such action, as will the whole world.

Senator Wriedt:

– ‘Perilous ‘is the word.

Senator CARRICK:

– I agree that it is perilous. I simply say that the world could be in the most enormous peril if anything happens to those hostages. Any action carried out by terrorists or by misadventure could plunge the world into great peril in a dozen different ways. I would not want to take other than a completely bipartisan view of that situation. There is no doubt that, from whichever way we look at the situation, Iran is beset with grave perils. On that basis I take the question on notice and I will supply a more expert answer.

page 1556

QUESTION

EDUCATION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, is in two parts. Firstly, can the Minister say what procedures are used to disseminate the findings of research projects funded by the national Education Research and Development Committee? Secondly is the Education Research and Development Committee responsible for making decisions about the implementation of the research findings?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I would have been able to respond specifically to this question some four months ago. In case some changes have occurred in the specific details, I suggest that I take the question on notice and get the up-to-date answers.

page 1556

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen Press reports in the Melbourne Age of a speech by Mr Rupert Murdoch to the Victorian Institute of Directors earlier this week? In the course of expressing his strong opposition to those people who, as he said, were trying to tie up development in the north and north west by pushing Aboriginal land claims, he went on to refer specifically to one project that was being frustrated by the sudden rediscovery of the importance of land linked to an Aboriginal legend about a pregnant barramundi. I ask the Minister whether he regards contemptuous expressions of this kind as calculated to advance sympathetic understanding for Aboriginal culture and traditions in this country. If not, will the Minister undertake to write to Mr Murdoch expressing his concern on this matter?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I saw the report referred to by the honourable senator which, I think, appeared on the front page of the Age newspaper. I share the concern which he expressed. I agree that as the article appeared in the Age it did seem contemptuous and the sort of thing which is likely to reduce public regard for other people’s serious spiritual beliefs. I asked for a copy of the speech to be obtained and it has been obtained. I have not yet looked at it but my advice is that, in fact, the reference on the front page of the Age is not contained in the speech. Where it came from I do not know. I am not in a position personally to verify that bit of information. My advice is that it is not contained in the text of the speech. Of course, it may have come from questions asked following the speech. I do not know, but I am following the matter up. I certainly am happy to make plain my view that

I think that sort of reference- yes, I think the right word is ‘contemptuous’- is unhelpful and the sort of thing which we should all be very anxious to discourage.

page 1557

QUESTION

CONSERVATION

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment to an article appearing in today’s Courier-Mail in which the wellknown conservationist, Mr Harry Butler, is alleged to have said when addressing the Australian Coal Conference held at Surfers Paradise that government developments and the use of technology relating to conservation normally ran about a decade behind private company works. Does the Minister agree with this statement from such a highly recognised authority in this field? If so, what measures has the Government taken to update its technology in this most vital area?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have not seen the article to which the honourable senator refers in his question. However, accepting his version of what has been printed, I say that of course I have heard of Mr Harry Butler along with, I guess, almost every other Australian. He is a recognised authority in this field and he may indeed be Australia’s most popular and well-known conservationist. I understand that he is- and I speak not from any departmental information but from my own background understanding- a consultant to a number of projects and that he is actively engaged in the field to which those comments referred. I am not in a position to agree with the statement as it has been reported. I simply do not have the information which would permit me to agree or to disagree. In relation to the level of generalisation, however, I would say that this Government would take the view that we have great faith in the system of private enterprise to produce effective and innovative developments in all fields. It would not be surprising if it makes great contributions to the technology of conservation. However, the Government would take the view that it has a key role in ensuring that appropriately high standards are required for people who are undertaking development.

I suppose all honourable senators have been involved in discussion, debate and consideration of matters such as the Ranger agreement, which has laid down standards which private companies are required to meet. I think there would probably be unanimity in the chamber that government has a very important role to play in providing the standards that are required. Private enterprise, for its part, probably has a very important role to play in ensuring that those standards are met in the best possible way. I am reminded by the words which I think appear in the Ranger agreement saying that the companies should use the best available technology. That is obviously a matter which will call for questions of judgment and also questions which will tax the ingenuity and skill of all of the participants.

page 1557

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have about six responses to questions. Mr President, with your indulgence, I will read the shorter ones and I will indicate the longer ones which might be incorporated.

On 1 April Senator Rocher asked me:

When will regulations be gazetted pursuant to Parliament, late last year, passing the Australian National University Amendment Act?

The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: It is assumed that the honourable senator is referring to the statute which the University is required to make under the Australian National University Amendment Act 1 979 indicating the appropriate amenities and services on which compulsory fees may be expended. I understand that the Council of the University will consider a draft statute at its meeting on 9 May. I anticipate that the statute will then be referred to the Minister for Education in connection with the required Executive Council approval.

page 1557

QUESTION

IRAN AIRWAYS: STAFF TRAINING

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Wheeldon asked me a question about reports of possible pilot training for Iranians in Western Australia. I understand that an approach had been made by Iran Airways to a training institution in Perth. No approach has been made to the Government requesting entry of the proposed Iranian trainees. In present circumstances, the provision of training for Iranian pilots would not be consistent with government policy.

page 1557

QUESTION

URANIUM SALES TO FRANCE

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have a long answer to a question from Senator Rocher concerning uranium sales to France. I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The answer read as follows-

I am advised that France has agreed to supply an initial charge of highly enriched uranium fuel for the research reactor which France is at present installing in Iraq.

France, although not a party to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT), stated that it will behave as if it were a party to the Treaty and to abide by its provisions as they relate to nuclear weapons states, namely not to assist any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. In addition. France accepts the Guidelines for the Export of Nuclear Material, Equipment or Technology drawn up by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. These provide for the supply of items or technology on an agreed list only when covered by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Iraq, for its part, is a party to the NPT and all its nuclear facilities are subject to inspection by the IAEA under the terms of the Iraq/IAEA Safeguards Agreement.

The Government’s policy on nuclear safeguards, announced on 24 May 1977, requires that bilateral agreements with uranium importing countries include undertakings that nuclear materials supplied by Australia for peaceful purposes or nuclear material derived from its use will not be diverted to military or explosive purposes, and that the IAEA safeguards will apply to verify compliance with this undertaking.

In addition, the agreements provide for the prior consent of the Australian Government to any retransfer of supplied material to a third party. These conditions apply in the case of the supply of Australian origin nuclear material to nuclear weapons states as well as to non-nuclear-weapon states.

On 25 August 1977 I made it clear that the Government vigilantly monitors developments and continues to work internationally with other major suppliers to improve the effectiveness of international controls and safeguards.

page 1558

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Yesterday I was asked a question concerning the use of liquefied petroleum gas as a feedstock in nitrogenous fertiliser production. The answer to that question is about a page in length. I seek to incorporate it in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Leave not granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– The answer reads:

Nitrogenous fertilizer is manufactured from gas and liquid feedstocks at four plants in Australia, Newcastle, Brisbane and two near Perth. The Brisbane plant takes natural gas from the Roma gas fields to manufacture urea, the Newcastle plant takes naphtha as feedstock to manufacture ammonia and ammonium nitrate, whileKwinana Nitrogen uses approximately 40-50,000 tonnes per annum of refinery gas as feedstock, also to manufacture ammonia and ammonium nitrate. The other producer in Western Australia is Western Mining which produces ammonia from natural gas.

These operations are not affected by the LPG decision.

The only plant which could be affected by the LPG decision is thus that of Kwinana Nitrogen using refinery gas. Refinery gas is a mixed gas stream containing all the hydrocarbons from methane through to butane; depending upon gas balance in the refinery the feedstock may be supplemented by additional butane.

SinceKwinana Nitrogen is a subsidiary of BP Australia the cost of the additional butane into the nitrogen facility is essentially a bookkeeping transaction and is a matter for negotiation between Kwinana Nitrogen and BP. In summary, this is really a non-issue since the only manufacturer affected is closely linked with the refinery at Kwinana and would only be affected in relation to the small additional quantities of butane. It is a matter for the associated companies to determine their internal price arrangements.

page 1558

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Walsh asked me a question about the basis for the subsidy scheme on liquefied petroleum gas.I have details which amount, in staccato form, to a page and a bit on the basis for the subsidy scheme. I suggest that the answer be incorporated in Hansard. I am happy to read it, but in fact it will be a matter for response by honourable senators by way of questions if they wish to examine it.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted for the incorporation of the answer in Hansard ?

Leave not granted.

Senator CARRICK:

– The answer reads:

  1. . Subsidy to apply to all sales of LPG in cylinders of46 kg or less, excluding fork-lift truck cylinders. (It is estimated that less than 5 per cent of gas supplied in cylinders, other than for fork-lifts, is used for industrial/commercial purposes).

  2. The basis of subsidy payment to:

    1. Suppliers of Reticulated Gas- will be calculated on the quantity of LPG and Naphtha feedstock used in gas production, in the same proportion as quantity of subsidisable (household) sales bears to total sales. This ratio is to be revised at the end of each billing period, which varies between utilities. (This method of calculation will mean that the subsidy will also apply, based on the ratio, to the normal losses incurred in the manufacture and reticulation of gas).
    2. Bulk Deliverers and Resellers of Bottled LPG-to the retailer of the gas based on the quantity of actual sales for household use excluding resellers who have already obtained subsidy in terms of Section 1 above.

  3. The subsidy to be claimed:

    1. For reticulated systems- by the company or authority reticulating the gas.
    2. For bulk systems:
    1. by the distributor making the sale to the domestic user; and

    2. by the independent reseller who obtains his supplies from a distributor for sale to domestic users.

    3. For cylinder systems- by the distributor responsible for filling cylinders of 46 kg or less from a bulk supply.

Such claimants to be registered with BACA for the purpose ofclaimingSubsidy.

  1. Household accounts to be carefully defined to include bona fide domestic usage, e.g., caravan dwellers, old peoples homes, non-profit residential type institutions and schools.
  2. In the case of dual usage (e.g., fish and chip shop with attached residence) the predominant use will determine whether or not subsidy is applicable. If domestic use is the minor component subsidy can only be applied if separate metering or storage is provided.
  3. Failure by subsidy claimants to pass on the subsidy benefits or the claiming of subsidy on ineligible sales will render them liable to penalties.

page 1559

QUESTION

SOVIET ACTROCITIES IN AFGHANISTAN

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– A week or more ago. before the Easter recess, I was asked two questions in the Senate, namely, whether I could provide further information concerning the nature and size of the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan and supply support for allegations of Soviet atrocities. I was also asked whether I could get that information from its source. I have a document nine pages long. I am happy to read it.

Senator Wriedt:

– I do not want it read. It was my question. I do not have a copy of it.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Wriedt:

– I am trying to assist the Minister.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am perfectly happy to read it. It is an oversight on my part that I did not let the honourable senator have a copy.

Senator Wriedt:

– It can be incorporated as far as I am concerned.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– No. I would like to take note of that particular statement and put it on the Notice Paper.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will put the question again. Is leave granted for the incorporation of this statement?

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

In answer to questions in the Senate on 26 and 27 March 1980, 1 undertook to obtain and provide further information concerning allegations of Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan and also on the nature and size of the Soviet military presence in that country. The information has been provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, based on its own sources of information and from intelligence sources available to it.

According to the latest reliable information available to the Government there are now estimated to be between 80,000 and 90,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan, backed up by some 30-40,000 stationed in the Soviet Union close to the border with Afghanistan. The forces held in reserve inside the Soviet Union could be rapidly deployed in Afghanistan if the Soviet leadership so decided. The equipment at the disposal of these troops include 1,000 tanks, over 2,000 armed personnel carriers, 80 fixed wing aircraft and over 100 helicopters mostly of the gunship variety. Soviet combatants are well equipped and in many cases have the most modern Soviet weapons supported by aircraft and artillery. Close air support has been provided mainly by helicopters, although a number of fighter/bombers are operating in the country. Soviet ground force operations initially concentrated on securing the main cities, towns, transport routes, airfields and other key points in Afghanistan. Since then Soviet forces have become increasingly involved in counter-insurgency operations in outlying areas. The main areas of these operations are in the north-east and eastern provinces of Afghanistan, but there have been clashes between insurgents and Afghan/Soviet units in other areas. The tribal insurgents are no match for the occupying Soviet army. Their military training is rudimentary; their weapons are often antiquated: they lack artillery and airpower support: they have no overall military strategy or command. Fighting has for them been a way of life, from time immemorial, and the only resource they have in abundance is courage. Many have been killed and wounded, and many have been forced to seek temporary refuge in Pakistan.

The fighting in Afghanistan is currently a war between the Russian troops and local insurgents. In such circumstances it is difficult to single out for special condemnation any individual acts of violence and brutality from amongst the many. There can be no doubt that the Soviet high command has been caught unawares by the strength and determination of the Afghan resistance and that the resolve of the insurgents has been greatly strengthened by the wholesale commitment of the Soviet forces to eliminate them. During the last month in particular there is evidence of a growing ruthlessness in counter-insurgent operations. Soviet combat aircraft have bombed villages in several areas of Afghanistan especially those adjacent to major roads. Many civilians have been reported killed. During the Kunar Valley operation in the first three weeks of March 1980 Soviet and Afghan combat aircraft and artillery units provided heavy firepower support, as armoured and infantry forces progressed northwards up the valley. There were heavy casualties among the local population with large numbers fleeing to the mountains and some crossing the border into Pakistan.

The Afghan insurgents draw much of their support from regional villages and towns and often fight from within the protection of built-up areas. As a result, during the course of operations many civilian buildings are destroyed and many innocent Afghans are being killed and wounded. There have also been reports of the use of helicopter gunships to put down peaceful rallies which were held in Kabul in the second half of February as part of a nationwide general strike in protest against the policies of the Babrak Karmal regime and the presence of Soviet troops. Reports indicate that about 800-1,000 people were killed and over 2,000 wounded. Many others were arrested and thrown into prison. Administrators and shopkeepers were threatened in an effort to make them open their shops and go back to work, whilst others simply disappeared.

In these conditions, it is difficult to draw a distinction between military actions involving innocent civilians and violent acts of retribution or intimidation directed against the Afghan people. There has in fact been continuous bloodshed in Afghanistan since the Afghan communists first came to power in April 1978 under President Taraki. Afghans have not hesistated to kill each other mercilessly since that time, with or without Soviet support. One instance, for which there is substantial evidence, is a major massacre of civilians in Herat, in Western Afghanistan, in March 1979. On this occasion Afghan Government forces, accompanied by some Soviet advisers, fired into crowds killing a large number of Afghan civilians. A number of Soviet soldiers were also killed in the incident and atrocities were subsequently committed against Soviet civilians.

In the case of the village of Kerala, located in Kunar Province, there was fierce fighting in the area last year, around the time of the reported Kerala massacre. The first attested reference to the massacre appeared in a Pakistani newspaper “Jang”, on 29 April, 1979, only nine days after the incident occurred. According to the “Jang” account, 1,300 residents of a village in Kunar Province were massacred by Afghan troops and Soviet advisers after the villagers had refused to support the regime of then President Taraki. That article was based on the testimony of refugees who had fled into Pakistan. Subsequent press coverage of the Kerala massacre has stemmed from interviews of refugees who claim they lost relatives in that incident. The consistency of these reports lends credence to claims of a massacre in Kerala in April last year.

Very great suffering in Afghanistan has undoubtedly been inflicted on the innocent men, women and children who have been forced to flee their homes and livelihoods to seek sanctuary in Pakistan and Iran. Even before the Soviet invasion in December last year there were already about 400,000 Afghan refugees located inside Pakistan. That figure, according to the Pakistan Advisor on Foreign Affairs, Mr Agha Shahi, has now reached 700,000 with the real prospect, as fighting increases, of going over the million mark. It is our assessment that the USSR is intent on eradicating by any means at its disposal and whatever the cost all internal opposition to the Babrak Karmal regime. While its efforts may have been hampered by the winter, now coming to an end, it is unlikely to hesitate to use the full weight of its overwhelming military strength to crush the insurgent resistance when it is better able to deploy and manoeuvre its forces. Until internal security and political stability in Afghanistan is assured on lines favourable to the Soviet-installed regime, there seems little prospect that the USSR will withdraw its forces.

This sombre conclusion should in no way lessen our own commitment to make the Soviet Union feel the full impact of international outrage and condemnation of its military action in Afghanistan and pay a high price for its blatant aggression. The most telling indictment of its policies was made in February this year by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which, in one of the strongest resolutions ever adopted by the international community, expressed the following motions:

Condemns the Soviet military aggression against the Afghan people, denounces and deplores it as a flagrant violation of international laws, covenants, and norms, primarily the Charter of the United Nations, and calls upon all peoples and governments throughout the world to persist in condemning this aggression and denouncing it as an aggression against human rights and a violation of the freedom of peoples;

Demands the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Soviet troops stationed on Afghan territories;

Reiterates that Soviet troops should refrain from acts of oppression and tyranny against the Afghan people until the complete withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghan territory;

Calls upon all member states to refrain from providing assistance to the present imposed regime of Afghanistan;

Urges all States and people throughout the world to provide generous assistance and succour to the refugees from Afghanistan who have been driven away from their homes;

Recommends to all member states to affirm their solidarity with the Afghan people in their just struggle to safeguard their faith, national independence and territorial integrity and to recover their right to determine their destiny and to provide all possible assistance to them for this purpose;

Solemnly declares its complete solidarity with the countries neighbouring Afghanistan against any threat to their security and well being and calls upon all states resolutely to support and extend all possible cooperation to these countries in their efforts fully to safeguard their sovereignty, national independence and territorial integrity.

The Australian Government fully supports this resolution and will continue to act decisively and vigorously to implement its recommendations.

The Paris-based International Human Rights Federation, a responsible organisation which operates independently of any Government and is recognised by the Council of Europe, has reported on Soviet behaviour. This Federation sent an observer to investigate allegations of atrocities in Afghanistan. His interviews with a large number of refugees indicate that oppression in Afghanistan had been consistent since the communist takeover from the monarchy in 1 978 and has involved Soviet participation all along.

Evidence collected by this observer indicates that there are already 600,000 refugees in UN-run camps in Pakistan, and numerous other refugees not in camps. The figure could reach 1 million and exceed the Kampuchean exodus of 800,000 to 900,000 refugees since June 1979. The same observer also found evidence that brutality existed at the Poletcharkhi prison in Kabul, under a commandant whose oftenstated doctrine was that the Afghanistan Government needed to reduce Afghanistan’s population to around 1 million to achieve a ‘communist’ society. Purges of intellectuals and religious leaders have taken place. Allegations of torture under Soviet supervision dating from 1978 include accounts of: drowning and other abuses in latrine pits; public sexual abuses; mass drowning; night-time burying alive in some villages of the male population.

Evidence was obtained of a program in the Central Afghan region of Hazaradjar of submission by starvation and in the north of unremitting elimination of village political and religious leadership. Political figures, ‘Mousa Sifiq ‘ and ‘Nour Ahmed E Temadi’ who were associated with neutrality proposals for Afghanistan were assassinated. Accounts were received of an incident on the outskirts of Kabul in which ISO members of the population were burnt alive and a further 1 SO buried alive. Further evidence was obtained of a large-scale Soviet operation against the Kunar Valley in early February 1980. As a result, of 160,000 inhabitants, 130,000 had to flee. The Soviets used napalm and poisonous gases, and injuries reported are consistent with this use. There were indiscriminate massacres. Reports indicate there is no-one left in the Valley which was once exceptionally ferule and is now defoliated.

I also present to the Senate the text of a telegram sent to the International Human Rights Federation by one of their observers, Mr Michael Berry, based on eye-witness accounts collected from Afghanistan refugees in the Peshawar Region of Pakistan between 24 February and 20 March 1980. ‘The Soviets have invaded towns in the Kunar region. 1 30,000 inhabitants have had to flee. Women and children have been massacred. Poison gases have been used. Confirmed categorically. Appeal to Kurt Waldheim’. In a telephone interview with a Paris newspaper on 6 March Mr Berry added: ‘I am absolutely certain that the Soviets are using napalm and poison gases in Afghanistan’. Referring to his interviews in the local languages with refugees ‘ from all over Afghanistan, who did not know each other and who describe what they saw in ways which make it clear that their descriptions were not learned’, he said, ‘many of them speak of the ‘flamethrowing bomb’, which by their account burns everything it touches, trees, houses, animals and people . . . others described a bomb that gives off fumes that hang about in heavy clouds over low-lying areas that causes a bitter taste in the mouth then violent headaches, burning the eyes and lower limbs and causing vomiting, then death . . . ‘

The Traditional Chief of the Kunar Valley had given Mr Berry an account of the Soviet offensive: ‘The Soviets really crushed the villages with all the means they had available . . . and they massacred indiscriminately. When they saw their husbands and sons massacred, many women committed suicide by drowning themselves in the Kunar River’. Mr Berry continued, ‘the only thing that is in doubt is the number of victims and survivors. Only a few hundred people have managed to cross the border so far. The Soviet troops have apparently reached the frontier and are blocking it. The Pakistanis are confronting the Russian troops and it is very difficult to go to the border at the moment given the very severe tension . . .’ Mr Berry estimated that there had been 160,000 inhabitants in the Kunar Valley and said that according to accounts by refugees 130,000 had left. ‘One thing is certain: that there is no-one left in the Valley’. He added: ‘I am speaking only of what I am reasonably sure of, after cross-checking ‘.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, again I merely seek leave to move that the Senate take note of this paper.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, you cannot do that.

page 1561

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY

The PRESIDENT:

– On Tuesday, 15 April 1980, Senator Evans addressed a number of questions to me. The questions asked by him and the answers are as follows:

Question No. 1 : With reference to the material that was tabled earlier today-

That was 15 April- what were the policy impediments to Mr Dunn’s being granted leave without pay while occupying his present position, as distinct from being transferred to the specially created new position?

Answer: Under present staff ceilings it is difficult for Parliamentary departments to maintain professional standards in positions where experience in Parliamentary service as well as qualifications are important. When long absences on leave take place other officers must be used to discharge duties usually carried out by the absent officer. It would be unfair for another officer to be required to discharge senior duties in a research group for a year and then have no comparable position available when a substantive occupant wished to return to that job. The documents tabled on Tuesday make it clear that a vacancy at the same salary level as Mr Dunn’s would have enabled the Librarian to transfer him and them to grant leave without pay to him with consistency in the application of the leave without pay policy and with fairness to any other officer who might have been required to take over the duties of directing the foreign affairs group. The position to which Mr Dunn would have been transferred was not specially created.

Question No. 2: Was Mr Dunn told by Mr Weir that in his new position he would not be permitted to write on East Timor?

Answer: I understand from Mr Weir that Mr Dunn was so informed in a casual reference to the type of duties he would undertake. Mr Dunn had previously been given leave in which he said he was going to write in depth on the East Timor situation. So far as he can recall Mr Weir said something like ‘I do not want you to spend all your time writing on East Timor’.

Question No. 3: Was Mr Dunn told by Mr Weir that in his new position he would no longer have access to communications, even routine unclassified material, from the Foreign Affairs Department?

Answer: Yes. See the letter of 8 April from Mr Weir to Mr Dunn.

Question No. 4: Were the research responsibilities proposed for Mr Dunn in his new position such that he would no longer have contact with members of Parliament?

Answer: No.

Question No. 5: Was Mr Dunn to be prohibited in his new job from undertaking new duties, except with the concurrence of a senior research director?

Answer: That Mr Dunn would have been under the supervision of the Senior Research Director would have been no change, as it already applies to all group directors in the Research Service. Mr Weir’s letter of 8 April spelt out the duties involved.

Question No. 6: If the answer to any of those questions is yes, how was it possible for you to say. Mr President, as you did in your statement, that Mr Dunn was to be transferred to a position of equal level and status, and with the same subject specialties as his present job?

Answer: Mr Dunn is presently classified as a legislative research specialist grade 5- class 10, third division, in Public Service terms- and that is exactly the same level as the position mentioned in the proposed transfer. The designation Director’ is a local term and does not imply any status different from that of any other officer classified at the same level.

page 1561

REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL ON AN EFFICIENCY AUDIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES-AUSTRALIAN PROPERTY FUNCTION

The PRESIDENT:

– In accordance with the provisions of section 48f(8) of the Audit Act 1901 I present a report of the Auditor-General on an efficiency audit of the Department of Administrative Services- Australian Property Function.

page 1561

QUESTION

SOVIET ATROCITIES IN AFGHANISTAN

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Chipp, you may seek leave to make a statement.

Senator Chipp:

– I seek leave to make a statement and I will not detain the Senate more than 30 seconds.

Leave granted.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I absolutely agree with Senator Carrick and Senator Wriedt about the nine page statement on the size of Soviet forces in Afghanistan and the atrocities that it is alleged they have committed. It seems to me that we have just let slip into Hansard a most important document which surely this Senate ought to debate. We ought to expose the strength of the Soviet forces in Afghanistan and the atrocities to the world or, if these allegations are false or based on scanty evidence, we should question them. Can I ask Senator Carrick through you, Mr President, if there is some mechanism by which this matter could be listed under General Business so that it can be debated at the Senate’s convenience?

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

– by leave- Mr President, the information is incorporated in Hansard, to enable honourable senators to respond. Upon examination of the document, if they feel a response is necessary they have recourse to pursue it by questions. If, after that, there is some desire to pursue the matter further I would be interested in discussing an approach. I make no further commitment than that.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- It seems to me that in answer to a question, the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) prepared a statement- not so much an answer- on the matter. He should have presented it as a statement so that the Senate could have picked it up. But now it is incorporated in Hansard as an answer to a question. Possibly there are means by which it can be resurfaced by a variety of questions. It seems to me that Senator Chipp is correct in saying that we should have had an opportunity to pick up the paper now and to place it on the Notice Paper in such a way that we could debate it fully. This has got beyond the level of a question and an answer. It is virtually a statement on a very important matter and for that reason I would now give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Georges, you cannot move a motion at this stage. That would not be correct. You cannot move to take notice of a statement that is given in answer to a question.

Senator GEORGES:

– I will seek some advice on what I have indicated is my intention. I agree with Senator Chipp that the matter is important. I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) considers it to be important. The sooner we debate it the better. We have been receiving too much misinformation in this place. I have said before that I think the Leader of the Government in the Senate on many occasions has given information which he himself has not properly checked. I take it that the information he has given has been properly researched and that the Senate will receive information upon which it can state a point of view.

page 1562

REPORT: ‘EDUCATING FOR LEISURE

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled Educating for Leisure’.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

Although time does not afford a complete study of the report we should take time to read it and to debate it. Page 2 of the report talks, for example, about changes in society and changes in the classes that make up the economy. It makes references which I think are very pertinent to today’s economic picture. On page 2 it states:

The workers, the semi-skilled and unskilled union members face a rapidly decreasing demand for their time as automation takes control of industry within Australia and as labour intensive industries are transferred to other countries where labour is cheaper.

Further on it refers to the disadvantaged groups with include, of course, not only invalids but also the unemployed and states:

This disadvantaged group has grown rapidly within Australia and the unemployed among them have increased fivefold in the past four years, lt is becoming increasingly apparent that they will form a permanent and substantial sector of our society.

Whilst that position is true we also know that there is a shortage of skilled workers in the community. This week the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures looked over the information which was given to it by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs and found that a substantial amount of funds allocated for the various youth training programs was still available and that employers were not using the schemes. Mr Powell from the chamber said that he considered that the various schemes needed altering and modifying and that in fact we were not making the best use of the unemployed work force which might be available for training. Whilst that is not the main subject of the report which I am talking about it is certainly a most important and related one. Of course, the Government should ensure that if some funds will not be spent in this year some alterations should be made to programs so that the young people who cannot get jobs are able to fit into the schemes: Consideration should be given also the the subject of employers who have complained that they were not using the schemes because of bureaucratic interference by public servants.

Senator CHIPP:
Victoria

-As Senator Bishop said, we have very little time, something like an hour, in which to contemplate what appear to be important documents. I have read the introduction to the report ‘Educating for Leisure ‘ with great interest. The writer states:

Many people with an interest in education will be turned away from reading this report because of its title. For them, leisure implies free time, fun and games, entertainment and things of minor importance which seem unrelated to the issues and problems confronting education in this country.

For them academic and vocational training are the real substance of education and leisure lies outside or on the periphery of concern.

This report seeks to challenge these views.

I examined this report with high expectancy because it concerns something that I have personally advocated for may years. Although our education system, with some of its faults, ranks among the best in the world we disregard one area almost criminally. I refer to education for leisure. As inevitably a shorter working week comes upon Australia and as, equally inevitably, the retiring age drops lower and lower, Australians will find themselves with more and more leisure time and less and less education on how to cope with that leisure time. A great number of Australians in clubs and pubs on a Saturday afternoon would very vigorously challenge the claim that they cannot handle their leisure time, but it is a fact of life that every long weekend and during Christmas and Easter breaks the number of robberies, bashings, pack rapes, and family breakups soars out of all proportion.

This report is valid as far as it goes. It may have some beneficial effects if education authorities and schools are stimulated to follow the example set. But I question the value of such a bland, acute, almost cosy, optimistic report at this time. Apart from the introductory sections, the bulk of the report seems to describe some very commendable leisure activities, including sporting, artistic, musical and other recreational pursuits, which are being followed in certain sample schools. But one wonders whether the expense of such activities and time of the officers involved are justified when one notes the sample which has been taken. One of the five schools sampled is Geelong College. The report states, at great suprise to the readers, that the facilities there are excellent. I would not have thought that anyone would be terribly suprised to hear that a school such as Geelong College, access to which is limited financially to a very small minority of people, has excellent facilities for educating people for leisure.

The whole picture appears to be very rosy and reassuring. What I question is the relevance of this nice picture to reality at many schools in many depressed areas, lt is perfectly obvious that many school students are not being educated for leisure. I refer to those tragic schools in lower socio-economic circumstances in the western suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney, to name just two areas, in which one wonders what sort of niceties in educating for leisure are being practised. This is at a time when youth unemployment- one could get a new definition for youth unemployment, to pick up the nice sounding tones of this report; one could rename it ‘unwanted leisure’- is at a record level. The level of unemployment of the 15 to 19 years age group has risen steadily from 3 per cent in 1 970 to 17 per cent in 1979. In January 1980 it represented 20.2 per cent of all persons. At January 1980, 172,400 young people between the age of 1 5 and 1 9 years were unemployed.

What is happening to those unemployed young people? How are they handling their leisure? Do we have a report describing that, or will we have such a report? Some of those young people are living at home. We hear of case studies of the serious emotional effects of unemployment, including isolation, loss of selfconfidence, boredom and apathy. Some of these people are forced to leave home. A committee of organisations dealing with homeless youth in Melbourne estimated recently that 15,000 young people seek emergency accommodation each year in Melbourne. Many more sleep out under bridges, in parks, lavatories, bus shelters, or in the Brotherhood of St Lawrence bins which are left out for the collection of old clothes.

The unemployed, especially the homeless teenagers, are in great danger of drifting into crime, teenage prostitution, drug taking and alcoholism. I have spoken about that before. At the moment 67 per cent of all crimes which pass through our courts are committed by people under 20 years of age; that is, about two-thirds of all crimes which pass through our courts are committed by young people. Yet, on reading this report and the results of its survey and the very disappointing conclusions drawn, one would not be aware that that sort of problem exists. Threequarters of all breaking and entering offences and all motor vehicle thefts are committed by that young age group. My point is: What is the relevance of having an officer- I am sure he is a very commendable officer- sitting in an ivory tower and writing such a beautiful treatise not related to the facts of life when thousands of young people do not have any choice in life, not just in terms of what they do with their leisure? What signs do those young people show of ever having benefited from education for leisure?

To conclude, I believe that this report is of some limited use but I would be more interested in seeing a report from the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs on how to isolate and assess the real problem of unwanted leisure and some realistic proposals that would benefit all schools and all students, particularly those in disadvantaged areas.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 1564

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on doubleedged safety razor blades.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

In reading through this report I was very interested to notice that Wilkinson Sword Pty Ltd was mentioned in the inquiry. It reminded me of the last time that Wilkinson Sword was mentioned in the Parliament. That occurred when a previous president of the Senate, Senator Cormack, saw fit to allow the Senate to be used to promote Wilkinson Sword by arming the Usher of the Black Rod with a sword. That is something about which I complained to the President most bitterly at the time. I objected to any officer of the Senate being armed with a weapon of war. I made my feelings known to the then President.

I look forward to seeing the day when the Labor Party will have the numbers in the Senate to carry a motion to disarm the Usher of the Black Rod. I live in great fear that we might see the day when a senator may be suspended from the Senate and may refuse to go. I would hate to see any honourable senator- I may be that person- ushered out of the door on the end of a Wilkinson sword. I live in great fear of that happening. Perhaps I shall have some more to say about this matter when we debate the report in full. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1564

QUESTION

EAST TIMOR

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- Earlier today the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, tabled some material in relation to a question asked during the last sitting week regarding Afghanistan. On the same day that the question was asked I undertook to provide material concerning Timor and the material on which I based a question on that subject. I now seek leave to table that material. I have discussed it with the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Leave granted.

page 1564

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present a report on the proposals for variations to the plan of lay-out of the city of Canberra and its environssixtyninth series- together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings of the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I have a brief statement relating to the report. I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

The report on this series of variations covers eleven proposed changes to the plan of Canberra. One variation will allow a project at Bruce involving approximately 170 residences costing over $9m to proceed. Another involves a project for about 30 housing units at Holder with total expenditure estimated at $ 1.2m. The Committee has recommended approval of all but one of the items in the series. We have also suggested that the proposed residential development in Bruce be carefully monitored to limit any adverse effects on the environment.

The Committee has not approved variation one which is to gazette as cyclepaths previously constructed paths and recreation trails along Ginninderra Creek and around the foreshores of Lake Ginninderra. The paths have already been constructed and the gazettal would mean their inclusion on the city plan. However, the Committee has been informed that it is not intended that they be gazetted as cyclepaths under the Traffic Ordinance. Such a gazettal under the Traffic Ordinance would mean the paths would be for the exclusive use of cyclists. The Committee is concerned about this issue and will meet with officers of the Department and the National Capital Development Commission to discuss it further.

This report also stresses that the authorities concerned should ensure that the advertisements and displays outlining the variations, particularly major works, convey in considerable detail the nature and implications of the proposed changes and the works involved. In particular such material and the briefing provided by the authorities for the Committee’s use should give due attention to environmental questions.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1565

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

1 ) That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Monday, 2 1 April 1 980, at half-past two p.m.

) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at half-past ten p.m. on that day.

page 1565

ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BILL 1980

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

1 ) That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an Aboriginal Development Commission, and to provide for related matters.

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Bonner from moving motions relating to the first, second and third readings of the Bill.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I move:

Honourable senators will recall that on 21 November 1979, 1 introduced into the Senate the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1979. I said then that the Bill would place in the hands of Aboriginals important instruments for their own advancement. The amendments contained in the new Bill strengthen the commitment to self-management and are further steps down the road to making equality a reality for Aboriginal Australians. I am happy to be able to introduce this revised measure.

The former Bill was left to lie to allow public comment and discussion during the summer parliamentary recess. Fifteen hundred copies of it, together with explanatory notes and a ‘plain English’ version, were distributed to Aboriginal individuals and communities, and other interested bodies throughout Australia under cover of a letter from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney). Time was allowed for public comment to be received and assessed by the Government before debate and passage of the Bill. The task of examining and evaluating submissions and comments was assigned to a task force set up in the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assume responsibility for the development of the Bill. The task force made a substantial effort to consult with Aboriginal communities and groups throughout Australia, and visited all State capitals and eleven major provincial centres in all States and the Northern Territory between December 1979 and March 1980.

In addition to numerous submissions made orally at the meetings with the task force, eleven formal written submissions outlining views on the proposals were made by interested Aboriginals and Aboriginal organisations, including the National Executive of the National Aboriginal Conference- which set up a sub-committee to examine in detail the provisions of the Bill- the Council for Aboriginal Development and the Aboriginal Loans Commission, all of which provided valuable comment and suggestions. When the Aboriginal Development Commission Bill 1979 was introduced the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) wrote to the Premier of each State and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, sending a copy of the Bill and my second reading speech and inviting comments on the Bill. Six governments responded and their views were taken into account along with submissions received from Aboriginal organisations in developing the final form of legislation.

Key Aboriginal organisations including the National Aboriginal Conference, the Council for Aboriginal Development, the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Ltd made major detailed submissions on the Bill. In general terms, these submissions favoured a reduction in the role of the Minister in favour of an expanded role for the Commission, an all Aboriginal Commission and the creation of powers and responsibilities greater than those contained in the original Bill. After careful examination the Government has adopted more than 40 amendments, the more important of which I will mention later.

The Bill has been reprinted incorporating all the amendments agreed to by the Government and should assist in debate, because honourable senators can focus on the end document. The amendments themselves are detailed in an explanatory memorandum circulated to senators with the reprinted Bill. The amendments have the effect of reducing the role of the Minister, creating an all-Aboriginal Commission, and conferring powers and responsibilities on the Commission greater than those in the original Bill.

The primary purpose of the Bill still remains as before to establish the Commission to embrace the present functions of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission and the Aboriginal Loans Commission, take over from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs the administration of its enterprise grant-in-aid program, and assume an advisory role to government. The changes, although significant, do not alter the main functions of the Commission, which are to acquire land for Aboriginal communities and groups, lend money to Aboriginals for housing and personal purposes, lend and grant money to Aboriginals for business enterprises, and to give advice and make recommendations to the Minister with respect to the furtherance of the economic and social development of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The reprinted Bill results from careful consideration of the matters raised in many hours of discussion with Aboriginal communities and groups. There has been greater participation by Aboriginal people than ever before in the development of the proposals in the Bill.

In response to submissions received, including one from the Queensland Government, amendments have been made to clauses 3 and 4 to make it clear that the Bill is for the benefit both of the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people. An amendment has been made in clause 4 to the definition of ‘business enterprise’ to give effect to a suggestion made by the Government members’ committee on Aboriginal affairs. The amendment is consistent with a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs’ report on ‘Alcohol Problems of Aboriginals’. It enables moneys administered by the Commission also to be applied for enterprises which have primarily social rather than profit-making objectives. The amendment also takes into account representations by the Northern Territory Government seeking the encouragement of programs of a socio-economic nature. Their submissions indicated that in terms of learning, selfmanagement, Aboriginal involvement and employment there is scope for programs to be developed in that field.

The National Aboriginal Conference recommended in its report that the Commission should be completely free of ministerial direction and that clause 1 1 should be deleted because, as the NAC itself said, any control, even minimal, contradicts the spirit and letter of the legislation as set out in clause 3 regarding the selfmanagement and self-sufficiency of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. The Government believes that the Minister cannot meet his responsibilities as required by the Administrative Arrangements Order, which will confer responsibility on him for this measure once it is enacted, without a power of general direction. Nevertheless, clause 1 1 has been extensively amended to provide that the Minister may not give directions to the Commission in respect of advice, information or recommendations the Commission may provide to a Minister, department or authority of a State or Territory. The Commission will have discretion to tender information and advice it thinks appropriate. The Minister’s power to give directions is, therefore, limited and he is required to table the directions in the Parliament within 15 sitting days of giving them. This will make his directions subject to immediate public scrutiny. In addition, the Commission will be required to include any directions in its annual report. Special account has been taken of Aboriginal cultural values, and any general directions tabled in the Parliament shall not be able to disclose matters known to the Commission to be held sacred by Aboriginals. The effect of the changes proposed to clause 1 1 indicates the Government’s willingness to have its directions to the Commission made subject to early public disclosure and scrutiny. This attitude is consistent with the Government’s intention to confer maximum independence and autonomy on the Commission.

The membership proposals contained in the original Bill reflected the Government’s acceptance of initial advice given by the all Aboriginal Council for Aboriginal Development prior to the introduction of this legislation. The advice was that the Commission comprise a single national board, seven members of which should be Aboriginal, including the chairman. Council stated that the three remaining positions should be reserved for persons, not necessarily Aboriginal, with expertise in either banking, property-land laws, values or business enterprises. The National Aboriginal Conference in its recent report recommended that the Commission be comprised solely of mature, responsible Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders who have appropriate experience and expertise.

The Government has accepted retention of the concept of a single national board and proposes that the board should be comprised entirely of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in the light of widespread and strong representations by Aboriginals throughout Australia on this matter, and in response to the National Aboriginal Conference’s recommendations. In addition, the

Government was influenced by the fact that an all Aboriginal board of 10 members will provide greater scope for achieving a balanced and adequate representation of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders from throughout Australia. This was a theme strongly pressed by Aboriginal people in all the consultations undertaken by the task force. The Government believes that the Aboriginal Development Commission will need access to expertise and considers the substantial powers in clause 33 will enable the Commission to engage or make arrangements for persons with suitable qualifications and experience to assist the Commission.

The Government also was mindful of representations in particular from the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, concerning the special requirements of Aboriginal minorities and the need for regional or local influence within the Commission. As a result the Government has accepted an amendment to clause 45 to allow the Commission itself, without reference to the Minister, to establish committees. The power to establish committees, coupled with the power to delegate conferred by clause 44 will provide scope for the Commission to regionalise or localise its operations and activities.

Clause 17 provides for dismissal of a member by reason of misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. As widespread concern has been expressed by Aboriginal groups and individuals, in particular the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service about the expression ‘misbehaviour’, the clause is now amended to provide a role for the Parliament in the termination of a member’s appointment. The proposition was put forward as an alternative by the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service as a means of reducing the possibility of arbitrary action by the Minister and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The amended clause provides that in the process leading to the termination of a member, the Minister is required to cause a statement of the ground of the suspension by the GovernorGeneral to be laid before each House of Parliament within seven sitting days. A House may, within 1 5 sitting days, by resolution, declare that the member ought to be restored to office and, if resolved by each House, the Governor-General shall terminate the suspension.

The clause has been further amended in response to concern expressed about the mandatory power of the Governor-General to terminate a member’s appointment, particularly if he is absent from three consecutive meetings. The Government has accepted that the power of the Governor-General in clause 17 should be amended to provide a discretion as to whether he proceeds to the termination of a member’s appointment on the grounds specified. Concern has been expressed by the Victorian Abo gin al Legal Service Co-operative Ltd .bout lc Minister’s power to grant leave of absence in clause 1 4. The Government has also accepted that the Commission should have a role in relation to leave of absence and has placed an obligation in the amended clause 14 on the Minister to consult the Commission in this regard.

Strong concern was expressed by the New South Wales Aboriginal Legal Service about the relationship of the Bill to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 and the extent to which this Act impinges on the principles of Aboriginal self-management. In response, clause 3 1 which makes provision for dealings in land has been amended to provide that the Commission, as the land granting body, also has the power to approve of the disposal of land held by an Aboriginal body where it is satisfied, after consultation with the Minister, that the disposal will further the economic and social development of Aboriginals. Clauses 4 and 43 have also been amended to reflect this altered approach to Aboriginal corporations and to remove the requirement that corporations be incorporated under the Commonwealth legislation.

Clause 32, which provides for the recording of requests for land to be entered into the Aboriginal Land Register, is amended to ensure that an application for land is recorded immediately it is received and, once granted, also is entered into the Register. Provision has been made for appropriate consultations by the Commission with State and Territory land use planning authorities in clause 23 and by reference to clause 27, which are the functional clauses relating to land.

The reprinted Bill incorporates changes which Aboriginals themselves have had a significant role in shaping. The approach adopted of responding to Aboriginal views reflects the Government’s wish to achieve mutually acceptable arrangements between the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal Australians. The Government is grateful to the National Aboriginal Conference, the Council for Aboriginal Development and all other Aboriginal organisations and individuals throughout Australia who, whether in writing or orally, made submissions on the Bill and have contributed to the form in which it now appears. The Minister is particularly grateful for the advice and assistance he has received from both the Council for Aboriginal Development and the National Aboriginal Conference. The Government was pleased to receive the comments of the National Executive of the National Aboriginal Conference which, after making its suggestions for amendments, stated:

National Aboriginal Conference Executive applauds the Government ‘s initiative in implementing the Aboriginal Development Commission and is optimistic about its future and the benefits that will accrue to Aboriginals throughout Australia ‘.

I put the Bill forward in the same spirit of optimism. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 1568

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Motion (by Senator Chaney)- by leaveagreed to:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian National University Act 1946, the Senate elect Senator Georges and Senator Rae to be members of the Council of the Australian National University on and from 1 8 July 1 980 and that they continue as members for a period of three years from that date.

page 1568

COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA

Motion (by Senator Chaney)- by leaveagreed to:

That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1 960, the Senate elect Senator Davidson to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia on and from 19 August 1980 and that he continue as a member until 30 June 1 98 1 .

page 1568

ADJOURNMENT

Livestock and Meat Exports- Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Limited- Petroleum Products Freight Subsidy Scheme

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– To enable Estimates committees to meet, I move:

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– There are two matters which I wish to raise on the adjournment today and they are related. One is the export of meat on the hoof and the other is the export of meat after it has been processed. The first matter I refer to is processed meat. On 20 March I put a question to Senator Scott as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon), without notice. It seems that a practice is developing whereby Ministers write letters in answer to questions. I received a letter from Senator Scott under the date 15 April in answer to my question dealing with the false labelling of export meat in Western Australia. In reply, Senator Scott said that he undertook to seek a response from Mr Nixon on the matter, and he has now replied to me in the following terms:

Investigation by the Australian Federal Police established sufficient evidence for action to be initiated against the company involved. Proceedings were instituted under the Exports (Meat) Regulations and the Company was fined.

I ask Senator Scott whether he could have that answer incorporated in Hansard so that it is on the public record. I also ask him to do that if he can, because some of these meat export companies in Western Australia are now having problems because there seems to be a doubt in the minds of some people as to which company was apprehended and had proceedings instituted against it and was fined. I think, to clear the air of doubt over there, that the offending company should be named, and the amount that that company was fined should be published, so that other companies which export meat will not be under the cloud of suspicion that they may be one of the companies which infringed the export Act by falsely labelling meat. I ask Senator Scott to take those remarks of mine into consideration and endeavour to provide me with an answer next week.

The other matter which I raise is that of the export of live horses to Japan. I was very pleased to hear on the news this morning- although I could not find it mentioned anywhere in the Press- that Japan, because of the outcry from Australian citizens, is not going to enter into any further negotiations to import horses from Australia. But quite apart from that, I think that the matter of what has transpired since 4 April needs to be raised in this Parliament. Firstly, I want to place on record my gratitude to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to the waterside workers and to the people responsible for featuring the plight of these unfortunate animals on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Nationwide on Tuesday night last.

Nationwide was able to bring this matter to the attention of many people who may not have been aware of the grave cruelty that has been inflicted on these horses by their export. Of course, we know that cruelty is exercised not only on horses but also on cattle and on sheep which are exported live from Australia. I was astounded when I read the Australian of Friday,

I I April, to see on the front page a photograph of a horse, which can be described as little better than a skeleton, being unloaded from the Australian Seatrader. This publicity was brought about only because of the vigilance of the waterside workers in Melbourne, in conjunction with the RSPCA, to bring this terrible atrocity- as I would call it- against dumb animals, to the attention of the authorities.

I am very disturbed that that heading also said that the Government rebuffed the RSPCA ‘s plea for financial aid. Honourable senators will find, if they look in last night’s newspaper, that the RSPCA has had to launch a public subscription fund to care for these 40 horses which are now on agistment somewhere in New South Wales. I think the figure quoted last night in public subscriptions to help to care for these horses is somewhere in the vicinity of $ 1 5,000. 1 will quote from a Press statement issued by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, on 1 1 April, in which he said: . . the Bureau of Animal Health was maintaining a very close supervision of the horses unloaded in Sydney from the ‘Australian Searoader’. These horses were shipped from Melbourne on 5 April and intended for slaughter in Japan. . . veterinary examination in Sydney on 9 April after arrival of the ‘Australian Searoader’ had shown that at least some of the horses were not in a satisfactory condition to travel to Japan. All the horses were unloaded and transferred to an RSPCA refuge in Sydney which is approved for temporary quarantine . . .

One horse was destroyed on board the ship between Melbourne and Sydney and a second after unloading in Sydney … the horses are expected to remain under strict veterinary supervision in Sydney for some weeks, and under no circumstances will these or any other horses be allowed to be shipped overseas unless judged fully fit to travel.

That begs the question of why the Australian authorities allowed these horses to be shipped from Melbourne in the first place. If it had not been for the vigilance of the waterside workers, these horses would now be on board ship somewhere between Sydney and Japan, probably half of them dead and the rest in a very unsatisfactory condition. That is the cruelty to those dumb animals which has exercised a great deal of comment throughout Australia. People have shown their concern in no uncertain manner at the way in which people who want to make a quick dollar are not prepared to take proper care of the livestock they are dealing in to make a profit.

I think the Government is duty bound to do something about this, not only with regard to the export of live horses to Japan, although I understand that it will not be faced with that problem if the news item I heard this morning is correct, that is, that the Japanese will not buy any more horses from Australia. Mr Nixon went on to say:

Continuation of the live horse export trade will be dependent on all health and fitness requirements being met at embarkation and satisfactory shipboard facilities for proper care during transportation.

The transcript of the television program Nationwide of 1 5 April 1 980-1 saw part of that program as did many other people- provides evidence of the deplorable conditions under which horses are transported out of this country. Time does not permit me to go into full detail, because one of my colleagues has some remarks that he wishes to make before the suspension of the sitting. Peter Barber, who was the member of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and who appeared on Nationwide, said:

We’d say that all the horses actually suffer. They are standing in 2 foot 6 wide stalls for a minimum of 12 days and that’s actually the sea travelling time and prior to that as well, maybe a day on each side of that, and if there are any hold ups, more time again. It is inconceivable to us that those animals aren’t undergoing some sort of stress.

Then we had the amazing statement made by Mr Warren Grant, the meat trader responsible for shipping these horses. He is probably getting a financial reward for his part in the export of these horses. David Ransom, who was the interviewer on Nationwide, asked the question:

Is there any cruelty in the fact that the horses are standing up for the entire voyage?

Mr Warren Grant, the meat trader, said:

No. There is a lot of veterinary opinion that in fact the horses only lay down when they are in either a sick or an ill condition. Horses don ‘t lay down as part of their normal way ona

If we look at the conditions on this ship, we find that the space is only 2 feet 6 inches wide. They could not lie down whether they were sick or tired. They would have to fall down if they were sick. We have a statement from the meat trader in order to bolster his case that everything is fair and above board.

Senator Primmer:

– I suggest he has never seen a horse in its natural habitat.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course, he has not. As Senator Primmer says, no doubt Mr Grant has not seen a horse in its natural habitat. Of course, it lies down to rest, the same as a human being does. This person went on to make a further statement about horses. He said:

They have a mechanism in their front leg that enables them to lock their stifle joints and I think they take about 65 per cent or 70 per cent of the body weight on the front legs so they are standing, they’re sleeping while they’re standing, they eat while they ‘re standing, standing up isn ‘t a problem.

That is the type of answer one gets from these meat traders. Then we see that David Ransom poses a question to the veterinary surgeon:

  1. . Rick Walduck has accompanied one shipment of horses to Japan.

Rick Walduck replied:

Yes, I feel after the trip that I ‘ve recently been on which I approached with some reluctance, that I was certainly quite reassured at the end of the voyage, particularly the last few days of the voyage, the horses were not in distress, they were certainly not cruel.

What qualifications did that veterinary surgeon have? Was he a student or a fully qualified vet with vast experience in handling livestock to qualify him to make the remark that they are in good condition and well cared for, despite the fact that we saw this photograph which I held up showing the type of horses that are loaded on to these ships? I then go on to a further statement made by Mr Nixon on 12 April dealing with the horse exports. He said that there was a clear responsibility for owners and shippers of livestock to have them fit and healthy for travel. He further said:

Because of this responsibility, the Commonwealth will seek to recover from the owners all special costs incurred with the holding and the care of these horses in Sydney.

That is the question I now pose to Senator Scott. Can we have an assurance that the Government will pursue to the bitter end attempts to recoup these costs for caring for these horses from the people who exported them and that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Sydney will be reimbursed in full for any costs that it has incurred in caring for those horses? Mr Nixon went on to say that he had instructed his Department to review urgently livestock export legislation, including owners’ and shippers’ responsibilities, travelling conditions and general care necessary for the welfare of animal exports. He further said:

Any deficiencies present in current legislation would be corrected.

I again ask Senator Scott: Will he make some inquiries and inform the Senate next week of how soon that legislation could be introduced into the Parliament so that we will not see any repetitions of the terrible cruelty that was handed out to these horses? An article appeared in the Sydney Sun of Wednesday 16 April 1980 headed ‘Horse Owners “Fooled” on Sales’. In that article claims are made by the Australian Draught Horse Stud Book Society that these buyers, meat traders, are asking its members whether they can buy the horses, saying to them that they will find a good home for the horses. Invariably these horses end up, as we have seen, being shipped under deplorable conditions to Japan for human consumption.

As time is running out, although there is much more that I would like to say, I will leave that until next week when I get the answers from the Minister. I may need to raise the matter again at the appropriate time next week, not only in the interests of dumb animals who are exported under very adverse conditions but also in the interests of people who do great voluntary work for the RSPCA which in many instances has had to fund its organisation on voluntary contributions. I am very concerned to find out whether the Government will fully reimburse the RSPCA for any costs it has incurred. I say again and place on record my appreciation of the action taken by the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, the RSPCA and the people responsible for the Nationwide program for drawing this to the attention of all concerned people in our community.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to speak on two matters during the adjournment debate. One concerns the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) and the other concerns the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). Today in the House of Representatives the Minister for Primary Industry was asked this question:

I refer the Minister for Primary Industry to his announcement to the Australian Farmers Federation yesterday that Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd would remain a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Australian Dairy Corporation and be given greater trading powers. The Minister will recall that very serious allegations have been made about Asia Dairy Industries and that it has been conceded by senior officers of his Department that irregular payments have been made. Why is the Minister persisting with his refusal to table the Auditor-General ‘s report regarding those illegal payments? How does he justify extending the operations of Asia Dairy Industries while this cloud lingers over its previous activities? Will the Minister ensure that the Auditor-General’s report is made available to the Parliament as quickly as possible so that a proper assessment can be made of Asia Dairy Industries’ activities and its fitness to expand its operations?

In reply the Minister said, among other things:

I know that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports, who is seeking to interject, would like to do a Michael Finnane on the Webster case, just as the Labor Party did on Ian Sinclair. It is exactly the same sort of procedure. All you are seeking to do is to have the assertion tabled without the facts.

The Minister’s intemperate reply to that legitimate question today suggests that he is a man with a very guilty conscience. It has been stated in Parliament and confirmed outside by the Acting Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation that the Auditor-General has found that payments made by Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd for air fares for Mr Webster’s family were illegal. Any analogy that the Minister for Primary Industry chooses to draw between the Auditor-General’s inquiry on Asia Dairy Industries and the Finnane inquiry in New South Wales is his business. However, his executive decisions as Minister for Primary Industry are the business of the Parliament and of the electors.

Mr Nixon has refused to table the AuditorGeneral’s reports on Asia Dairy Industries. His latest excuse is that the inquiries are not completed. That did not deter him from making an executive decision not only to renew ADI’s corporate existence but also to extend its area of operation. To make that decision when malfeasance in the company is a matter of public record, when investigations are continuing and when the Auditor-General’s reports remains suppressed by him is astounding to say the least. To mitigate his irresponsible behaviour the Minister must table in Parliament the reports he has received and suppressed. I invite him to do so today. It will be recalled from the question that the Minister was explicitly asked whether he would table the reports when the inquiry was completed. He again dodged that question. I quote his answer:

When the Auditor-General has completed his investigation and has reported to me I wi’l either make a statement to the Parliament or, if the Parliament is not in session, issue a public Press statement on the matter.

It should be noted that, despite yet another specific invitation to give a guarantee that the reports would be tabled in Parliament, the Minister chose not to do so. We do not want a statement from the Minister; we do not want a Press release from the Minister. Parliament is entitled to have those reports tabled. I invite the Minister to do so today to make amends for the irresponsible decision he announced yesterday.

Before closing my remarks on this subject, I also invite the publishers of an organisation which calls itself Cheese Underground and which circulates among some members of the Parliament comment on dairy industry matters and on this issue in particular, but which, unfortunately, does not put in its publications the address or names of the publishers, to contact me. The second point I want to raise concerns the question asked of Senator Durack today by Senator McLaren. The substance of the question concerns advertisements which have been placed recently in newspapers all over Australia regarding the petroleum products freight subsidies scheme, at a cost of $17,000. 1 am not sure of the reason, although I could speculate. Senator Durack ‘s answer, to say the least, was no answer at all. The substance of the answer was that he would refer the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland).

The subsidy in question is paid under the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965. Payments are made to State governments under the ‘payments to the States’ category and in the Northern Territory finance for the subsidy is paid under a separate Northern Territory Ordinance. Payments made in the Australian Capital Territory cannot be made under a States grants Act but, since as early as August 1978 when the subsidy was introduced, it has actually been paid in the Australian Capital Territory. For more than a year I have asked questions about the legality of those payments. The matter was first raised last year in an Estimates committee hearing. Despite a ministerial undertaking to investigate the matter, no substantial answer has been forthcoming. Finally, the matter was raised again by means of a question without notice on 19 September last. The Attorney-General again evaded the question but undertook to provide an answer. That he did after Parliament adjourned for the summer recess. The letter which the Attorney-General forwarded to me was rather remarkable. It admitted that the payments being made in the Australian Capital Territory were illegal and acknowledged that steps would have to be taken to rectify that situation. Those steps would be the introduction of a separate ordinance for the Australian Capital Territory. Mr President, I seek leave to have a copy of the Attorney-General’s letter, dated 17 December 1 979, incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra, ACT 2600 17 December 1979

Dear Senator,

I refer to your Question Without Notice of 19 September 1979 concerning the legal basis of the petroleum products freight subsidy payments in the Australian Capital Territory, which you directed to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has advised that 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.

Yours sincerely, PETER DURACK.

Senator P. A. Walsh, 3 Norfolk Street, Fremantle, W.A. 6160

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Durack ‘s letter states in part:

The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has advised that 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 . . .

The letter goes on to state:

There is a long history of this arrangement . . . With the re-introduction 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.

That was stated in a letter dated 17 September. The letter goes on to state:

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 . .

In the final paragraph the Attorney-General states:

The drafting of a separate ACT subsidy ordinance, while satisfying a legal situation -

That is the critical phrase-

When completed, will achieve no other advantage.

It is quite clear that the Government is in a Catch-22 situation. It has acknowledged the illegality of the present payments by stating that the drafting of an Australian Capital Territory ordinance will satisfy a legal situation. But the payments have been made since the scheme was re-introduced in August 1978, apparently without legal sanction being provided for the payments. The Catch-22 situation is this: If the payments, as they are at present being made, are legal, why is there any need to draft a separate ordinance, as the Attorney-General’s letter stated would be drafted and implied would have been introduced by now? If the payments are legal, there is no need for a special ordinance. If there is a legal requirement for a special ordinance, the payments being made now and which were made in the past without the existence of such an ordinance must be and have been illegal.

Senator Durack, when questioned on the matter today, said that he would pass the question on to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. That is not good enough. The matter is Senator Durack ‘s responsibility as it concerns the legality of certain payments. Also, he signed the letter from which I have quoted under his own letterhead. I certainly am not satisfied with the further response from the Attorney-General indicating that he will pass the matter back to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. We have been following that path for the past 12 months without any satisfactory resolution.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I take the point that Senator Walsh has raised. In the answer I gave earlier today I overlooked the long history of this matter and the correspondence which has been exchanged. I accept the fact that perhaps I should look at the matter as well as the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Garland). Essentially, it is a matter of policy within the area of responsibility of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. The drafting of the ordinance is within the responsibility of my Department. Unfortunately, there are delays of considerable magnitude in the drafting of regulations and ordinances. I will undertake to have the matter investigated in my Department as well as in the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs.

Senator SCOTT:
New South WalesMinister for Special Trade Representations · NCP/NP

– I refer firstly to the remarks made by Senator McLaren. I am glad that he has my reply to his earlier question. I have noted the areas on which he seeks further information, namely the name of the company and the actual fine that was imposed as a result of the Australian Federal Police investigation. I shall endeavour to provide answers to the further questions he has asked. I noted also his reference to the export of live horses. Along with the Government, I certainly share Senator McLaren’s concern about the conditions under which live horses and any livestock are transported.

I am aware, however, and I am sure that Senator McLaren is aware that the Department of Primary Industry is at this very moment undertaking an in-depth inquiry into the circumstances in which livestock- in this case, live horses- are transported, the facilities in which they are moved, their physical condition and their feedstuff. If it is found that some form of legislation is necessary to tighten up the circumstances most certainly that course will be pursued. I shall refer these matters to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Nixon) and attempt to get a still fuller reply on the matters that Senator

McLaren has raised. I certainly have an understanding of livestock and horses. Whilst I would be happy to agree with Senator McLaren that horses sleep in virtually any circumstance and any position, they certainly sleep when they are standing.

The other matter to which I respond relates to Senator Walsh ‘s reference to Asia Dairy Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd which is now to be allowed to expand its operation. It is a large subsidiary of the Australian Dairy Corporation. It has more than $ 17m of investment. Its source of dairy products in Australia has somewhat dried up. It is now to be allowed to use dairy products of other origin and to move into food processing areas to enable it to diversify and gather strength in an area in which, as I understand it, it is regarded as a very useful contributor in the manufacturing and commercial world. The company operates in four countries of South East Asia. It appears to have made a considerable contribution to those countries. I shall make further inquiries about the matters raised in the question that was asked in the other place this morning and be in contact with Senator Walsh on those matters.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I raise a matter with you, Mr President. It concerns security and the manner in which visitors to the public gallery are searched. I believe that this is now an embarrassment to honourable senators and even more of an embarrassment to those who enter the public gallery. Yesterday a group of pensioners were subjected to what I consider to be an unnecessary search. In fact, visitors are now in double jeopardy, if I may put it that way. They come through the security section below, which costs a considerable amount of money. I think it is unnecessary for them to be searched in the way that they are searched. Elderly people are asked to empty their pockets and to hold out their keys while they are checked by a police officer. I think that that is highly unnecessary; it is terribly embarrassing and I ask you to look at the matter.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall be happy to do that. The Senate will now adjourn until Monday next at 2.30 p.m. to enable Estimates Committees to meet.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1.1 p.m.

page 1573

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Public Service Arbitration Act- Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-

No. 83- Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers and others.

No. 84- Electrical Trades Union of Australia.*

No. 85- Amalgamated Metal Workers’ and Shipwrights Union and others.

No. 86- Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).

No. 87- Customs Officers Association of Australia, Fourth Division.* ( *Not accompanied by statement.)

page 1574

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund (Question No. 2158)

Senator Gietzelt:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 6 November 1979:

  1. 1 ) What are the names of the Trustees of the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund established in 1 976.
  2. What is their present, or, if retired, immediate past: (a) occupation; and (b) employer, in each case.
  3. What is the formula for determining hospital benefits fund contributions to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund.
  4. What has been the total amount of Commonwealth Medical Benefits paid for the year 1978-79; and what was the total of the scheduled fees to which that amount relates.
  5. What were the amounts of: (a) Commonwealth Medical Benefits paid; and (b) scheduled fees, for services to: (i) pensioners; (ii) socially disadvantaged persons; (iii) insured persons; and (iv) non-insured persons.
  6. How many medical practitioners in each State rendered services for which claims were paid for services to: (a) pensioners; (b) socially disadvantaged persons; and (c) other persons.
  7. How many: (a) general practitioners: (b) surgeons; (c) physicians; (d) pathologists: (e) radiologists; and (f) other specialists rendered services in the categories in part (6) above.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The names of the Trustees appointed to administer the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund for a three year period from 19 November 1976 were as follows:

Mr W. A. Carson (Chairman). Mr A. E. Coates, Mr B. W. Walker, Mr M. W. Campbell.

The former Minister re-appointed Messrs Carson and Coates for a further three year period from 19 November 1979 and appointed Messrs D. A. Shaw and J. Mansfield for a similar term.

  1. Details concerning the current Trustees’ occupations are set out below:

Mr Carson was formerly the Administrator of the Hospital Benefit Fund of Western Australia. He is currently an Administrative Officer with the University of Western Australia.

Mr Shaw is employed by The Hospital Benefits Association Limited of Victoria as General Manager.

Mr Mansfield is employed by The Mutual Health Association Limited of South Australia as General Manager.

Mr Coates is a senior officer in the Insurance and Development Branch of the Department of Health.

  1. The following procedure is used by the Trustees to determine whether an organisation is required to make a contribution to the Trust Fund oris eligible to receive a payment from the Trust Fund:

    1. at the end of each quarterly settlement period each registered hospital benefits organisation is required to submit a return showing the total benefits and management expenses debited and the total contribution income credited to their Reinsurance Account thereby providing a deficit in the Account;
    2. the total of deficits for all organisations is determined;
    3. the average number of single unit contributors enrolled in the basic table of each organisation for the quarter (ordinary account plus reinsurance account) is determined- for this purpose contributors at the family rate count as 2, those at single rate as 1 ;
    4. the total average number of single unit contributors for all organisations is determined;
    5. the Commonwealth contribution (currently $l2.5m per quarter) is deducted from the total gross deficit in (b) to determine the total net deficit;
    6. the average net deficit per single unit contributor for all organisations is determined (i.e. the total net deficit in (e) divided by the total contributors in (d));
    7. the net deficit that would have applied to each organisation if it had an average experience is determined by multiplying the number of single unit contributors for each organisation under (c) by the rate calculated under (f);
    8. the difference between the actual Reinsurance Account deficit of each organisation under (a) and the amount calculated under (g) shall be paid to the Trustees if the latter amount is greater or by the Trustees to the organisation if the former is greater.
  2. The total amount of expenditure on Commonwealth medical benefits by the Commonwealth in 1978-79 related to the period from 1 November 1978 and was $34Om: the related Schedule fees are estimated to be about $580-$590m. Also expended by the Commonwealth in 1978-79 was an amount of $ 1 89m, related to Medibank Standard expenditure for services rendered prior to 1 November 1 978. The Schedule fees to which the $189m relates are estimated at about $215 to $220m. Benefits were also provided solely by registered medical benefits organisations for services rendered prior to I November 1978 and it is estimated that the Schedule fees associated with these benefits were about $370 to $380m.
  3. As indicated at (4), Commonwealth medical benefits became payable for medical services rendered on or after I November 1978. The following preliminary figures are based on returns of medical benefits claims processed by 30 June 1979 by registered medical benefits organisations, and the direct billing payment system operated by the Department of Health. Some of the Commonwealth medical benefits were, of course, reimbursed by the Commonwealth after 30 June 1979.
  1. and (7) The details currently available are:

Department of Social Security: Employment of Paraplegics and Quadraplegic, (Question No. 2408)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 February 1980:

How many paraplegics and quadriplegics are employed in:

the Canberra Offices; and

the State Offices, of the Department of Social Security.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Paraplegics 1, quadriplegics 0.
  2. Paraplegics 5, quadriplegics 1.

Retail Sales (Question No. 2427)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by Mr John Martin, National Director of the Australian Retailers’ Association, that retail sales per head of population declined in real terms during 1979.
  2. ) What have been the retail sales per head of population in each year from 1975 to 1979.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Australian Statistician has advised that the estimates of retail sales per head of population at 1973-74 prices for the years 1 975 to 1 979 are as follows:

1975- 51,236

1976- $ 1,251

1977- $ 1,247

1978- $ 1,250

1979- $ 1,239.

These estimates are derived from the ABS quarterly statistics ‘Retail Sales of Goods, Australia’ (Catalogue No. 8503.0) and the quarterly estimates of Population and Vital Statistics (Catalogue No. 32 12.0).

Pacific Basin Taxation Union (Question No. 2452)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. Has the Treasurer received the proposal from Mr W. E. Williams, E. Williams, Deputy Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service for the formation of a Pacific Basin taxation union; if so, what is the Government ‘s response.
  2. With which companies in the Pacific Basin region does Australia have double taxation agreements.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) This is a proposal being made at the administrative level to deal with aspects of tax administration. I am informed that there were preliminary and informal discussions between representatives of the United States and Japanese tax administrations and that this fact received some publicity. Subsequently the US tax authorities informed the Commissioner of Taxation of the proposal. The Commissioner has advised me that he expects to be kept in close touch with developments.
  2. Agreements are in force with the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and Japan. An agreement has been signed with the Philippines and will come into force when certain formalities are completed in each country. Confidential negotiations for agreements are at an advanced stage with three countries and dates have been proposed for the commencement of negotiations with two others.

Supporting Parents Special Benefit (Question No. 2525)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 1 8 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the weekly amount being paid in Victoria to supporting parents under 18 who are receiving special benefit, since the Victorian Government stopped payment under the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act 1 968.
  2. ) If the amount is different from the payment to supporting mothers over 1 8, what is the reason for the difference.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. For a person who has not attained the age of 18 years the maximum rate of special benefit is $36.00 a week, plus $7.50 a week for each child. It is understood that the Victorian Government provides an allowance for children to bring combined payments to sole parents up to the level of a Class A widow ‘s pension.
  2. The maximum rate of special benefit applicable to a person is determined by reference to the unemployment or the sickness benefit that could be paid to the person if he were qualified to receive it. The maximum rate of benefit for a person aged 1 8 years or more is higher than that payable to people under 18 years.

Social Service Beneficiaries: Access to Personal Files (Question No. 2582)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 20 March 1 980:

Under what conditions may a Social Service pensioner or beneficiary see his or her personal file at Offices of the Department of Social Security.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

A Social Services pensioner or beneficiary may have personal access to any documents supplied by him in connection with his claim for pension or benefit or to any statements made by him in connection with that claim.

Exports of Woodchips and Wood Pulp (Question No. 2591)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 25 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) How much (a) woodchip; and (b) woodpulp, has been exported from Australia during each of the last 10 years.
  2. What are the projected exports of (a) woodchip; and (b) wood pulp, for each of the next five years.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Exports of woodchips and wood pulp during the period 1970-71 to 1979 were:

  1. (a) The level of woodchip exports are determined both by market, availability of resource and facilities to process and load the chips. Taking account of these factors my Department believes that exports in 1980 should be about 4.5 million tonnes. If the market continues to be buoyant and new facilities are installed my Department would expect exports should rise to about 5 million tonnes by 1 985.

    1. The basis on which to make projections of future exports of wood pulp is less firm than for woodchips.

Although some increases in pulp exports from the very low basis of recent years are expected, the time taken to establish new pulping facilities will preclude any substantial increase over the next year or so. If all present plans are implemented my Department believes that pulp exports could rise to 100,000 tonnes by 1 985. It is believed that the export of market pulp by Australian based companies will become an important industry in the latter half of the 1 980s.

Asmarfish Group: Joint Fishing Venture Feasibility Study (Question No. 2622)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 26 March 1980:

  1. 1 ) On what date did the Minister for Primary Industry first receive a request for consideration of a joint fishing venture feasibility study involving the Asmarfish Group.
  2. On what date did the Tasmanian Government seek Federal approval of the proposal, and on what date was such approval given.
  3. Had the Tasmanian Government, at that time, already given its approval and recommended similar Federal action.
  4. Were Federal authorities aware as to whether or not the proposal had been discussed with and /or approved by: (a) the Victorian Government; (b) the Victorian Professional Fishermen; and (c) the Tasmanian Professional Fishermen.
  5. Was any detail of such discussion or approval included in the Tasmanian Government’s recommendations to the Commonwealth Government.
  6. What offshore limits were proposed in the submission.
  7. Did the industry in either Tasmania or Victoria seek postponement of the approval; if so, on what grounds.
Senator Scott:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 August 1979.
  2. and (3) On 14 December 1979 the Tasmanian Government advised of its approval for stage 1 of the revised Asmarfish feasibility fishing proposal and sought urgent Commonwealth consideration. Stage 1 involved purse seining for jack mackerel. On 28 December 1979 I advised the responsible Tasmanian Minister of my agreement in principle to Stage 1 of the proposal on the basis that final approval would not be given until all relevant sectors of industry had been consulted and any conditions considered necessary to safeguard the interests of other State Governments and the fishing industry were formulated and incorporated in the conditions of the project.
  3. Consideration of the proposal by other relevant State Governments and the fishing industry was sought on receipt of the Asmarfish proposal by the Commonwealth. The Victorian authorities subsequently indicated that final approval of the revised proposal by Victoria would be contingent upon the views of the Victorian fishing industry, which had been sought. The Tasmanian Government indicated it had already obtained the agreement of the Tasmanian fishing industry to stage 1 of the proposal.
  4. See (4).
  5. The area of operations proposed in the Asmarfish proposal included waters south of the 39° 12’ S between 143° E and 1 50° E, excluding all waters within the 3 mile territorial sea and waters within 5 miles of the Tasmanian eastern and northern coasts from mid-December to mid-April except for individually approved purse seine shots.
  6. When considering feasibility fishing proposals the Commonwealth seeks the views of the nominated representative of the Australian Fishing Industry Council (AFIC) on behalf of the Australian fishing industry. Each State seeks the views of local industry. The nominated representative of Federal AFIC suggested imposition of certain conditions and advised that it would be necessary to consult further with representatives of local industry.

Textile Industry

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 20 February 1980 (Hansard, page 87) Senator Jessop asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, the following question without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources aware of the concept of a globalised trade system in apparel and textile products that has been proposed by the United States apparel industry? Can the Minister say whether the Government has had any contact with the United States Authorities with respect of this proposition? In view of the difficulties experienced by the Australian Textile Industry, is the Minister in a position to state whether it would be a progressive step towards establishing an international system for orderly marketing? If so, does the Government intend to support a proposed move by the United States Government to introduce such a system?

The Acting Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am informed that a constant demand of the United States textile industry has been for what they term a ‘global ‘ approach to imports. By this the industry means that total imports into the United States should be set as a fixed percentage of total United States demand for textiles, with import levels moving up or down with demand changes. Essentially this would result in a type of ‘global import ceiling’ with the United States Administration left to allocate the share of imports amongst supplying countries.

I have had enquiries made of the US Government which have revealed that the United States Administration’s textile program remains essentially as publicly stated in February 1979. In essence, some of the main features of the program include (a) membership of the Multifibre Arrangement (MFA), (b) evaluation of total textile and clothing imports on a global basis to determine their impact on domestic industry, (c) aggressive control of import surges which cause market disruption and (d) reaching understandings in relation to existing bilateral restraint agreements entered into under the MFA with the leading major exporting countries to tighten controls for the remaining life of these agreements. The Administration’s program does not accept the United States textile industry’s global concept outlined above. 1 am advised that the United States textile industry is likely to seek modifications in the MFA when it comes up for renewal at the end of 1 98 1 . 1 also understand that the official United States Government position in relation to negotiations on the MFA is still to be considered.

The proposals of the United States Textile industry are aimed at protecting the United States textile and apparel industries and could not be termed a ‘global’ approach in the wider international sense ofthe word.

For its part, the Australian Government has referred the question of assistance for the local textile and apparel industries to the Industries Assistance Commission and the Commission’s final reports on its inquiries arc expected shortly. Decisions on the long term assistance arrangements for the industries will be taken by the Government in the light of all available information at the time it receives the final reports from the Commission.

Trade with Communist Bloc Countries

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 5 March 1980 (Hansard, page 549) Senator Archer asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, the following question without notice:

In view of the suggestions made by a director of the Electrona Carbide company that its current round of financial shortages is, according to the Mercury newspaper, due to a virtual boycott of Australian carbide products by the communist bloc countries, can the Minister advise whether the Government has any evidence, or has received any suggestion, of any reverse boycott situation against Australia or any Australian industry?

The Acting Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government has no evidence, nor has it received any suggestion, of any reverse boycott situation against Australia or any Australian industry by communist bloc countries.

Peanut Butter

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

– On 6 March 1980 (Hansard, page 615) Senator Gietzelt asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the level of anatoxin in peanut paste and peanut butter. The Minister for Health has provided the following information:

No dispute exists between the Public Health Advisory Committee and the Food Standards Committee. The recommendations ofthe Public Health Advisory Committee regarding permissible aflatoxin levels reflected the action of a senior committee when considering the most appropriate way of handling advice from one of its reporting committees.

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NH & MRC) has as its primary responsibility the safeguarding of health standards. In relation to potentially toxic substances, this entails establishing levels below those which might cause adverse effects. Very wide safety margins are prescribed. However, unrealistic levels which would impose a degree of stringency resulting in unnecessary prohibitions in the use of substances are avoided. Since all substances are potentially harmful if used improperly a balanced judgment is essential if proper use is to be made of valuable materials.

With this concept in mind a level of 15 parts per billion rather than 5 parts per billion was accepted, pending resolution of diverse views held in various parts of the world. A level of 25 parts is accepted in the United States whilst the United Kingdom and Canada refrain from specifying any particular level. The honourable senator can be assured that 15 parts per billion provides a safety margin but the question remains whether an even greater safety margin would be preferable as a long term measure. If in the light of further investigations this appears to be so. then you may rest assured that the NH & MRC will advise accordingly.

Deposits Insurance Scheme

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 5 March 1980 (Hansard, page 546), Senator Primmer asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning a deposits insurance scheme for permanent building societies. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The scheme that has been endorsed by the Government for the insurance of deposits with permanent building societies is a private industry-based scheme. The frame-work for such a scheme was developed following consultations with representatives from permanent building societies.

The scheme involves the establishment of a private national insuring corporation, the capital of which would be wholly contributed by building societies. Premiums would be paid to the corporation by insured societies.

As the purpose ofthe scheme is to protect the funds of depositors in building societies, and as the scheme would bc entirely self-financing, the question of participation in this scheme by other bodies does not arise.

The Government’s endorsement of the scheme in no way, of course, prevents interested groups from providing any comments or making any representations to the Government that they wish.

There are, of course, existing arrangements established by credit unions for protecting depositors, including the estalishment in several States of Savings Reserve Funds which have statutory responsibilities for the protection ofthe savings of depositors in credit unions.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 17 April 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800417_senate_31_s84/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant