Senate
27 August 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 415

PETITIONS

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1977

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 , 1 69 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act 1 977 should immediately be repealed because:

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Privacy Legislation

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 220 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 we are gravely concerned by the invasion of privacy caused by Government agents seizing patients’ medical records:

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

Legislate to protect the private and confidential nature of medical records from scrutiny except on the express and informed consent of the patient or an order from a presiding judge.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Allowances

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I present two petitions from 420 citizens of Tasmania and 1 10 citizens of other States, respectively, as follows:

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

Family allowances have not been increased over the last 4 years when food prices have risen by 60 per cent in Tasmania and consumer prices generally by over 50 per cent throughout Australia.

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

Ensure that the Government takes immediate action to restore the lost value of Family Allowances, to index them to cover future price rises and to provide additional support for homemakers and one income families.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 48 citizens of Australia:

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:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed’ 70’s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 1 00 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound wilt ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Citizens Band Radio

Senator ELSTOB:

– I present the following petition from 964 citizens of Australia:

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

Whereas the Australian Government has announced plans to terminate the availability of the 27 Megahertz - 1 1 Metre Band Citizens Radio Service for use by operators within Australia.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the 27 Megahertz - 1 1 Metre Band Citizens Radio Service be retained after June 1982; (b) That a dual service remain as ‘I.E.’ 27 Megahertz High Frequency Band and 476 to 477 Megahertz of the Ultra High Frequency Band, and this also be retained after June 1982; (c) That the current RB 14 and RB 1 4A be made a workable and understandable document, to both Citizens Band Radio Operators and also Postal Telecommunications Officials.

And that the following be implemented: (i) A legal calling channel; (ii) An emergency calling channel be retained; (iii) A recognized Trucker’s Channel; (iv) H.F. Band (27 MHz.) widened to 40 Channel Spectrum; (v) for approval of a H.F. Band (27 MHz) Directive Antenna (Horizontally Polarised Parasitic Array); (vi) Pensioner Licence concessions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Photography Students: Tax Exemption of Equipment Purchases

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 30 citizens of Australia:

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

That photography students purchasing photographic equipment and material for the purposes of their photographic education is necessary and a financially crippling burden.

That students have asked the Commissioner of Taxation for a sales tax exemption without success.

That the funds of the students are too small to finance a court test case on this matter.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Government direct the Commissioner of Taxation to interpret the sales tax so as to allow purchases of photographic equipment and material by photography students as being sales tax free.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 216 citizens of Australia:

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

That in order to:

Lower transport costs.

Boost tourism.

Improve defence.

Increase transport reliability.

Generally assist northern development.

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

Urge that the Federal Government proceed immediately with the construction of the Alice Springs/Darwin railway.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 present the following petition from 33 citizens of Australia:

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

1 ) Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a feu large international corporations seeking to profit Ir uri the exclusive rights over plant genetic minerals created by such legislation.

The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilisers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.

The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.

Recognize that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian Nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.

Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received anc read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 1 49 citizens of Australia:

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:

. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed’ 70s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the Average Weekly Earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator GIETZELT:

– I present the following petition from 8 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Privacy Legislation

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 101 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 we are gravely concerned by the invasion of privacy caused by Government agents seizing patients’ medical records:

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should -

Legislate to protect the private and confidential nature of medical records from scrutiny except on the express and informed consent of the patient or an order from a presiding judge,

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 8 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

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

Nursing Profession Reforms

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 decision of the Federal Government to not implement those aspects of the Sax Report supported by the Nursing Profession is a retrograde step in nurse education in this country.

Further, it is discriminatory in three ways:

  1. . It discriminates against the rights of patients in refusing them the opportunity to be cared for by persons qualified to do so, i.e. registered nurses;
  2. It discriminates against the rights of the largest single group of women in the work force to have adequate education to fit them for their roles in an increasingly technological age;
  3. It discriminates against those States who have not, as yet at least one ( 1 ) Basic Nursing Course in a College of Advanced Education.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that:

The Members of the Senate exert all possible pressure to have this decision reversed.

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

Petition received.

Pensioner 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 action be taken to protect the living standards of the aged and request that provision be made in the forthcoming budget for the: payment of the full age pension for all citizens over 65 years of age restoration of all indexation to all pensions for those citizens 70 years and over application of quarterly consumer price indexation to all age pensions granting fringe benefits to all pensioners.

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

Petition received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. 1 ) Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

    1. Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.
    2. The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.
    3. The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.
  2. Recognize that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian Nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.
  3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

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

Petition received.

Donations to Amnesty International: 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:

We, the undersigned, being concerned citizens of Australia and of the world; noting widespread violations of fundamental Human Rights around the world; observing that Australia has taken a leading role in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights; being aware that less than 40 per cent of money raised by Amnesty International is remitted outside Australia; urge the Government to support Amnesty International in a practical way by permitting donations to it to be deductible from income for taxation purposes.

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

Petition received.

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. 1 ) Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘fixed’ 70s 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 $ 100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

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

Petitions received.

Pensions

To the Honourable Mr President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the amount of ‘Other Income’ pensioners be allowed to earn before affecting their pension be increased to $50 per week.

And your Petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

page 418

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 418

QUESTION

SECURITY: TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether as a result of recent leakings of Government documents he has authorised any additional tappings of the offices of the Treasurer, the Department of the Treasury, the Government Printer, any journalist in Parliament House or the Leader of the Opposition. I ask also whether he has had discussions with the Australian Federal Police in respect of these matters.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I would have thought that Senator Wriedt would understand that any power that I have to authorise telephone tapping, as it is popularly known, arises under the Telecommuncations (Interception) Act and is limited to matters of security as defined in that Act, which was debated extensively in this Parliament last year. I refer him to that Act to reaquaint himself with the circumstances in which the Attorney-General may authorise telephone tapping. It has been my constant practice and the practice of most of my predecessors not to answer questions about whether any particular authorisations have been made. I do not intend to depart from that practice.

Senator WRIEDT:

– 1 ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the AttorneyGeneral advise the Parliament whether he has had any discussions with the Australian Federal Police in respect of these matters?

Senator DURACK:

– I have had no discussions with the Australian Federal Police in relation to these matters. The matters are not ones which I would discuss with the Federal Police. Authorisations under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act are given to the Director-General of Security.

page 419

QUESTION

URANIUM ENRICHMENT

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for National Development and Energy noted the recent statement of the Premier of South Australia, Mr Tonkin, that planning for the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in the iron triangle area of South Australia is well advanced? Would such a new industry and other related uranium developments create directly and indirectly many thousands of jobs which are sorely needed in South Australia as a result of ten years of Australian Labor Party State government? Would these developments be thrown into doubt, if not stopped, in the unlikely event of the ALP controlling the Senate, thereby halting any Federal legislation, for example for infrastructure financing, which may be required in order to facilitate the State Government’s program?

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. In a very wide way the question is seeking an opinion from the Minister and does not conform to the normal guidelines for a question without notice.

Senator Carrick:

– 1 did not hear the last part of the question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask Senator Messner to repeat his question, lt was not heard clearly.

Senator MESSNER:

– Has the Minister for National Development and Energy noted the recent statement of the Premier of South Australia, Mr Tonkin, that planning for the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant in the iron triangle area of South Australia is well advanced? Would such a new industry and other related uranium developments create directly and indirectly many thousands of jobs which are sorely needed in

South Australia as a result of ten years of Australian Labor Party State government? Would these developments be thrown into doubt, if not stopped, in the unlikely event of the ALP controlling the Senate–

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a further point of order, Mr President. How can the Minister give an answer to the part of the question which relates to the Australian Labor Party gaining control of the Senate? That is surely in the hands of the electors and not the hands of the Minister for National Development and Energy. Therefore, 1 submit that the Minister cannot answer that question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall allow the question to be answered by the Minister. 1 ask him not to answer the hypothetical part of it but to answer on those matters which come within the parameters of his portfolio.

Senator Mason:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. Should we now take it as a precedent that if an honourable senator is interrupted by interjections when he asks a question he is entitled to repeat that question from its beginning?

The PRESIDENT:

– No, certainly not. I asked for the question to be repeated because the Minister did not clearly hear part of it.

Senator Harradine:

– I raise a point of order. The question is based on a mathematical impossibility. I ask that it be ruled out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware, as indeed every very interested South Australian is aware, that the South Australian Government is seeking major new industries for South Australia to increase employment possibilities following years of stagnation in that State. I am aware that the South Australian Government is keenly interested in the possibility of the establishment of a uranium enrichment plant. Depending upon the nature of that plant, it could provide both directly and indirectly a very substantial increase in employment. For example, a centrifuge type of enrichment would offer very considerable employment. A gaseous diffusion type of enrichment perhaps would not offer quite as much. I am aware also that the project will require a Commonwealth government that is willing to seek and to encourage new industries for South Australia, including the uranium industry. Therefore it is in the interests of every South Australian to ensure that both in the Senate and the House of Representatives a government of Liberal faith persists.

page 420

QUESTION

DUMPING OF NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator WRIEDT:

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise the Parliament whether the Japanese Government is still expressing interest in dumping in Australia nuclear waste from Japanese nuclear establishments, that is, from any uranium shipped from Australia? The Japanese have been seeking this, as we know, in the past. Statements have been made in this Parliament about the dumping in Australia of nuclear waste from Japan. Can he tell us whether the Japanese are still interested in such a proposal? If they are, what is the Australian Government’s response?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I can say emphatically that the Australian Government has one unequivocal view regarding the dumping of nuclear waste in Australia, that is, that from whatever source externally it will not be dumped in Australia. I am not aware of any recent approaches by the Japanese with that suggestion at all. I am aware that the Japanese were inquiring into dumping at sea and Australia had expressed its concern in that regard. Quite emphatically, Australia is not to be a nuclear dumping ground for other countries.

page 420

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery to my right of honourable delegates to the Fifth Australasian Parliamentary Seminar. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to you honourable gentlemen and ladies our very warm welcome to this chamber. We trust that those of you who come from other countries will have a pleasant, helpful and profitable stay in Canberra and Australia. I wish you well.

Honourable senators - Hear, hear!

page 420

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 420

QUESTION

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. 1 refer to a current United States Senate inquiry and to legislation in the United States which requires a subject to disclose if he is a paid representative of a foreign government. Has the Government any plans to introduce similar legislation to require that an Australian citizen must not be a paid representative of or receive cash or payment in kind from a foreign government or its representative without first registering his interest with our Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no initial knowledge of the matter. I believe it would properly be one that would come under the scrutiny of the Attorney-General. Because we would need to study the text of it I undertake that the Attorney and I will look at the text of Senator Lewis’s question and give him a response.

page 420

QUESTION

BUDGET DEFICIT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to questions the Minister was asked yesterday about the size of the deficit. Does he agree with the report of an interdepartmental committee on economic strategy for the Government entitled ‘Fiscal Outlook’ that the increase in the burden of taxation was the most important factor underlying the reduction in the deficit achieved in 1979-80 and, further, that the burden to which the report referred had fallen increasingly on payasyouearn taxpayers?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware that the document to which Senator Button refers is, as yet, a public document. If it is not a public document it cannot be the source of a question except for those who deal in leaks and alleged leaks. If and when it becomes a public document - I understand it may - 1 will look at .the question and respond.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. Does the Minister agree, being an expert on the size of the deficit, as he indicated yesterday, that the decrease in the size of the deficit in 1979-80 was due to an increased burden on taxpayers? Does he agree that that increased burden has fallen on PAYE taxpayers?

Senator CARRICK:

– The decrease in the size of the deficit happened for a number of reasons. One reason is the prudent pruning of expenditure by the Government over a wide range. The fact is that the expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product has significantly fallen. That is the primary reason that deficits can be controlled. It is of course true that one of the aids towards the reduction of the deficit has been the oil levy. The oil levy has been a help in reducing the deficit and, by so doing, reducing the thrust of inflation in Australia. The lower the deficit the less the burden of pressure upon public borrowing, the less the heat upon interest rates and the more the ability of private investors to borrow at reasonable interest rates in Australia and to create employment. So there are quite a number of thrusts which, in fact, result in the lower deficit. It is good to see that the Opposition is interested in the fact that we have been able to achieve a domestic surplus.

page 421

QUESTION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LEGISLATION

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether the Government has a public commitment to bringing in freedom of information laws during this Parliament. In view of the way time is running out in this Parliament, can the Minister say when he will give the Government’s long-awaited reply to the Senate committee’s report on the Freedom of Information Bill, bearing in mind that the Senate committee reported in November last year, which is nine months ago - a fair gestation period for anyone? Further, is it a fact that in the meantime the Canadian Government has been able to draft a whole new freedom of information Bill obviously very largely based on our Senate committee’s report?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I think in both 1975 and 1977 the Government indicated a commitment to introduce freedom of information legislation. The only thing a government can undertake to do is to introduce legislation into a parliament. It is in the hands of the Parliament whether it passes legislation. In fact, I introduced the Freedom of Information Bill in June 1978 and this chamber of the Parliament decided to refer it to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, which has reported, as we know. That report has been studied by the Government. The Government has completed its study and I am in the process of finalising the response by the Government to that report. That response will certainly be made in the near future. The Canadian Government has introduced a freedom of information Bill into the Canadian Parliament. My attention has been drawn to it. I have not yet had the opportunity to give full consideration to that piece of legislation.

page 421

QUESTION

NATIONAL ACOUSTIC LABORATORIES, PERTH

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

–ls the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that for a pensioner to get an appointment for a hearing test at the National Acoustic Laboratories in Perth he or she has to wait for as long as three months? My informant, badly in need of a hearing aid, applied for a hearing test in the middle of August and was told that he would have to wait until November for an appointment, lt is also the situation that those pensioners who have bought hearing aids privately are not able to receive batteries on free issue from the National Acoustic Laboratories. Will the Minister look into this matter with a view to speeding up the process considerably?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I was not aware of the delay in receiving assistance through the National Acoustic Laboratories. I will refer that matter to the Minister for Health to see what can be done to help those who are eligible to receive this assistance to do so without the delay that has been mentioned. I undertake to refer this matter to the Minister for Health and seek information for Senator Mcintosh.

page 421

QUESTION

ADELAIDE-ALICE SPRINGS RAILWAY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. As the new Adelaide-Alice Springs railway is nearing completion can the Minister say how far Government consideration has progressed for the construction of the railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin which, when constructed, would link Darwin by rail to many Australian cities, bringing with it better trade and commerce facilities, including overseas commerce from the northern regions?

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

– This matter was raised by Senator Kilgariff in the Senate at a very late hour last night on the adjournment debate. I would not dignify the other contribution on the matter as raising any issue at all other than attempting to put down Senator Kilgariff. As I indicated to the Senate last night, the report which was jointly commissioned by the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments has been received and is receiving attention from the Government. The report indicates that, in straight economic terms, there is no immediate justification for the railway, but of course further development could change that situation. As Senator Kilgariff outlined in the Senate last night, there is considerable public interest in the matter in the Northern Territory and a lot of concern is being expressed there that the matter should proceed. The Government is aware of the points of view which have been put forward by Senator Kilgariff in support of those views. The Government hopes to consider the report as soon as possible and to be able to give an indication of an early decision.

page 421

QUESTION

RADIO RECEPTION IN TASMANIA

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, who will be aware that last night a document outlining the capital works projects relating to post and telecommunications for the next two financial years was circulated to honourable senators. Will the Government revise the program to allow the reception of Australian Broadcasting Commission radio programs in many of the important mining communities on the west coast of Tasmania, such as Rosebery, where over 4,000 people contributing tens of millions of dollars to the Federal Treasury are denied access to the information and entertainment so well conveyed by the ABC?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The honourable senator will be aware that the Government and the Postal and Telecommunications Department have been pursuing the goal of making services which are available to the great bulk of Australians available also to that small minority who no longer receive them. Apparently, as indicated by Senator Tate, there are people in some parts of Tasmania who are in that position, as there are people in the remoter parts of Western Australia and the Northern Territory and perhaps in other parts of Australia. It is a fact that to some extent those gaps will be met by satellite in the very near future. But 1 am not aware what provision is to be made for the west coast of Tasmania. I will seek particular information on that from the Minister Ibr Post and Telecommunications and let Senator Tate have a reply. As far as any variations to the capital works program are concerned, I think honourable senators will be aware that it is a rather Idle stage to suggest a variation to works which are currently in hand, but I will put that matter to the Minister for consideration.

page 422

QUESTION

TARIFFS ON IMPORTED CARPETS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. 1 refer to a decision to increase tariffs on imported carpets against the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission and the serious economic effect that decision is having on carpet importers, agents and distributors through its effect on carpets purchased in good faith prior to the decision being made and now in bond or already on the water. Will the Government consider granting to this section of business the same moratorium as was granted to luxury car importers and distributors and which applies to unsold luxury stock in Australia as well as en route from foreign manufacturers and even to uncompleted vehicles overseas for which orders were committed, in order not only to protect the financial stability of this section of the industry but also to save jobs which are now at risk?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Senator Sim raises a problem with which the Government is familiar and which arises when duties are imposed at a particular time in relation to goods that are on the water. I am not aware of the situation in relation to this matter. 1 will refer it to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs indicating Senator Sim’s concern about the matter, and seek to obtain an early answer for him.

page 422

QUESTION

BROADCASTING OF ELECTION MATERIAL

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– 1 ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question on freedom of information, which concerns the ban on broadcasting election material from midnight on the Wednesday preceding an election. Does the Minister recall that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, stated two years ago that he hoped to end this ban within a year, describing it as absurd and odd? Did Mr Fraser, the Prime Minister, also promise in 1975 that he would have the ban removed? Has he expressed a changed view on this in recent statements? Will the Government amend the Broadcasting and Television Act immediately so that this blackout can be abolished before the forthcoming Federal election and put an end to this repressive, discriminatory and illogical legislation? If the Government, for its own reasons, wishes to retain the ban on political advertising, will it at least remove the ridiculous ban on political comment?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– 1 am not aware of the statements by Mr Staley or Mr Fraser, although I accept Senator Chipp’s statement that they were made at the time. I am aware that over the past 20 years, I think, governments of all political faiths have discussed this limitation on broadcasting and television, and there has been a strong difference of viewpoint within and between political parties as to the merits or otherwise of the retention of the ban. It is a matter on which there is a divided view in public. As at this moment I am not aware of the intention of the Government to take any early steps to amend the Act. Nevertheless, 1 will bring the substance of Senator Chipp’s question to the attention of the Minister concerned.

page 422

QUESTION

PRIVATE HOSPITALS: OCCUPANCY CONTROLLERS

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health whether he is aware that in the Sydney Morning Herald of Thursday, 10 July 1980, at page 15, there appeared an advertisement for a private hospital occupancy controller whose duties were stated to be:

  1. . to control and promote– 1 underline the word ‘promote’ - the occupancy of a number of private hospitals in the city of Sydney.

What assurances can the Minister give that such an officer would not seek unnecessarily to fill hospital beds? What assurances can she give that the hospitals employing such an officer would be pursuing cost sparing rather than cost maximising practices? Further, can the Minister advise whether public hospitals are given any incentives to minimise rather than to maximise bed occupancies and admissions in this, the most expensive sector of Australian medical service provision?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

-I understand that the notice of the Minister for Health has been drawn to the advertisement mentioned by Senator Baume. I point out on his behalf that the Commonwealth’s involvement with private hospitals is limited to the approval of premises for hospital benefit purposes and the provision of the bed subsidy of $16 per day. The nature of the duties of the advertised position would indicate that it may lead to the provision of unnecessary medical services, resulting in additional Commonwealth $16 per day bed subsidy payments and medical benefit payments as well as maintaining an upward pressure on hospital insurance premiums. If this is to be the effect of the advertisement, such action is to be regretted.

As regards public hospitals, the States will make the decisions, and do so, in regard to adjustments to public hospital services. The Commonwealth Government does not see its role as being to determine priorities such as the need to adjust or to close public hospital beds or to vary services to facilitate the provision of new beds or services in needed areas. However, in the course of the commission of inquiry into the efficiency and administration of hospitals, the Commonwealth asked the States not to approve increases in the existing numbers of private hospital beds pending the outcome of the inquiry. This approach complements the Commonwealth policy of zero real growth in services as regards funding for public hospitals under the cost sharing arrangements.

page 423

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. By way of preface, I refer to the Minister’s iron-clad assurances during the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation legislation debates that the new Director-General of Security had informed him that no operative would indulge in gaining advantage by party political activities. It is in that vein that I draw his attention to an article in News Weekly, a Melbourne publication, of 30 July, which claimed that an ASIO evaluation of the operations of the Office of National Assessments had been diluted the second time around before presentation to the Government. I put an important footnote to the Minister. As he would know, in 1974 when he and

I were on a Senate committee and ASIO was under Mr Barbour there was evidence that the second and third ranking ASIO officers, to say the least, were not politically neutral. I do not want to return to that matter. Will the Minister have inquiries made of the editor of News Weekly or, better still, have him brought before the Senate?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– 1 do not think 1 can really do better than refer to the statement which the Prime Minister made on 19 August in relation to the inquiry into the Office of National Assessments. The Prime Minister referred to some assertions in the media of some watering down of reports of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation’s investigation into that matter. The Prime Minister informed the House - and Mr Justice Woodward has reiterated this to me - that Mr Justice Woodward had told the Prime Minister that he had taken all the significant decisions. At no time did he decide that any of the contents were too damning to be given as alleged, nor had he even considered such a possibility. The Prime Minister has also indicated that Mr Justice Woodward’s letter with those assurances is available to the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a supplementary question. Notwithstanding the answer I have received, does the Government contemplate having ASIO investigate News Weekly to see whether it has some sinister links and whether it feeds back many of these gross exaggerations that discredit our security apparatus?

Senator DURACK:

– 1 am not aware of the report in News Weekly. If Senator Mulvihill will make it available to me I will give the matter consideration.

page 423

QUESTION

DISCOUNTING OF AIR FARES

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Considerable disquiet has been expressed by sporting and other groups following what they regard as a government decision not to permit discounted group air travel. Was this decision in fact made by the Government? If so, will the Government consider rescinding the decision? If not, what is the correct position?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s initial question is no; the Government did not make any such decision. I am aware, as the honourable senator indicated in his question, that there has been considerable disquiet following the announcement that discounting for particular organisations would be discontinued. The information I have from the Minister for Transport is that the problem arose as a result of a complaint lodged by Ansett Airlines of Australia regarding the extensive proliferation of discriminatory discounting. Ansett said that if the Government did not intervene it would be prepared to match Trans-Australia Airlines in a fare discount war. This was of some concern to the Minister because of the effect it could have on the basic core fares such as economy, standard and first class fares.

The Minister asked both airlines to consult under the provisions of the two-airlines agreement and report back after they had reached agreement. Unfortunately, rather than reporting back, the airlines chose to curtail all concessional arrangements forthwith. As a result the Minister entered into discussions with the airlines, which discussions were concluded yesterday. In those discussions he expressed concern at the sudden cancellation of special fare arrangements which were available to some organisations and groups. The cancellation had caused hardship to many worthwhile organisations. The airlines, after hearing of the Government’s concern, agreed to provide as an interim measure a 15 per cent discount for sporting and charitable organisations. The existing discount of 10 per cent of the normal economy fare for common interest groups of 15 people or more will continue to apply.

That is the present situation. For the future, in an effort to reach an equitable long term solution that meets the requirements of everyone involved, it has been agreed that the issue should be examined by the Holcroft inquiry into domestic air fares. In the interim the airlines have assured the Government that the arrangements will continue until the report of the air fares inquiry has been received and considered by the Government. The new arrangement will ensure that all organisations within affinitive groups will be eligible to seek a discount.

Senator Bishop:

– Mr President, I raise a point of order. It is clear that the answer being given by the Minister is not in response to a question without notice. It contains the sort of information which ought to be given by the Minister in the form of a ministerial statement which the Senate may then consider. It seems that it is happening, of course, on the eve of an election. I suggest, Mr President, that Ministers might consider your advice to them about long answers to Dorothy Dix questions in the pre-election circumstances.

The PRESIDENT:

– Both question and answer should be as brief as is possible to convey the meaning of the question and the reply to that question.

Senator CHANEY:

– I had almost concluded giving the information that I wanted to give to the Senate in answer to that question. I think the only thing that remained to be said was that under this new arrangement all organisations within affinity groups will be eligible to receive the discount, whereas under the former arrangement only some selected organisations received discounts - some of them, of course, at a much higher level. I think that this matter is of considerable interest to a large number of Australians and that they would have expected this information to be brought out.

page 424

QUESTION

NATIONAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION: PRIVATE CONTRACTORS

Senator HARRADINE:

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to a statement made today by the Tasmanian Minister for Main Roads and Transport indicating the drastic unemployment effect of any decision of the Federal Government to force State governments to use a high percentage of private contractors for the construction of national roads. Has the Federal Government a policy, directly or indirectly, to enforce any such plan and, if so, by what constitutional, legal and moral right? Does the Minister agree with me that this matter is best determined in and by each State in the overall and long term interests of the road building programs in the States?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have not had the statement of the Minister from Tasmania drawn to my attention and I am therefore not familiar with the matter which has been raised by Senator Harradine. It would be well known to honourable senators - in fact, it has been the subject of considerable debate - that road funds made available to the States are made available on the basis of certain conditions which relate to categories. Whether the conditions extend to requiring the use of private contractors is not a matter within my personal knowledge. I will have to seek information on it from the Minister. I will let the honourable senator have an early reply.

page 424

QUESTION

POLITICAL PROPAGANDA

Senator GIETZELT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of the official circulation within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and the placement on a notice board of a party political speech made by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs to the Henty branch of the Liberal Party of Australia? Having made that statement, I can assure the Minister that I have checked the facts. They are as I have stated. I therefore ask: Is it Government policy that blatant party political propaganda should be officially ventilated within the Public Service structures? Does the practice constitute a contravention of Public Service regulations?

Senator DURACK:
LP

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

page 425

QUESTION

APARTHEID

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government to an article which appeared in the Australian on 26 August relating to a report released by the semi-official South African Bureau for Economic Research and Development, which alleges that the country’s policy of apartheid has failed, at least economically. Will the Minister comment on this report and, in particular, its claim that ‘separate and viable economies cannot be created’ in the Bantustans or black homelands and that the mass return of the black population to the Bantustans, as envisaged by the white minority regime, has not taken place? Does the Minister agree that these findings suggest the economic failure of apartheid as an effective and viable solution to the race problems in South Africa? Does the Minister also agree that the report vindicates the attitude which the Australian Government has adopted to the iniquitous doctrine of apartheid? Will the Australian Government renew its pressure on the Government of South Africa to terminate apartheid in all its forms?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Senator Missen asked a question with some six parts. I am aware of a recent report released by the semi-official South African Bureau for Economic Research and Development which claims that separate and viable economies cannot be created in the Bantustans. Such information, which is available to me, confirms the view of the Bureau. The homelands policy provides for the relocation of almost the entire black population of South Africa into a number of small economically disadvantaged areas. This relocation is to take place under government direction and without consultation with the black population. It inevitably involves hardship and dislocation, and eventually the loss of South African citizenship for those living in homelands declared independent. The mass return of the black population to the homelands, which is the stated aim of the South African Government, has not been achieved. It is clear, therefore, that the homelands’ policy is opposed overwhelmingly by the black population of South Africa.

The Government believes that the apartheid policies of the South African Government will never meet the aspirations of the black people of South Africa and will have to be dismantled if an effective and viable solution to the racial problems in South Africa is to be achieved. The Government is totally opposed to apartheid on moral, intellectual and political grounds and has made its views known to the South African Government on many occasions. The Government will continue its efforts to persuade the South African Government that unless it is prepared to abandon the apartheid policy and enter into consultations with the non-white communities in South Africa the cycle of repression and violence will continue with unfortunate circumstances for all the people of South Africa.

page 425

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether the Prime Minister stated, in his 1977 policy speech, that the price of petrol in country areas ‘will be reduced to within a cent per litre of normal city retail prices’. Is it a fact that the price for petrol in country areas is now on average six cents per litre above city prices and in some areas of Victoria 1 2c per litre higher? Does this difference represent the highest gap ever between city and country prices for petrol?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My recollection of the 1977 policy speech is that the Government would undertake a freight subsidy scheme which would mean that the wholesale price of petrol in any country area would not be more than two cents a gallon or, I think, 0.44 cents per litre higher than the metropolitan areas. The Government has in fact implemented that scheme. The wholesale price of petrol has, in fact, now been reduced to a 0.44 cents per litre difference between city and country areas. What is emerging is a difference in the retail price. The retail price of petrol is not controllable by the Commonwealth; it is a matter for State law.

What is happening is twofold. There is, of course, very considerable discounting of petrol prices in metropolitan areas. The Prices Justification Tribunal fixes the maximum price of petrol. There is keen competition. Because throughout Australia there has been a reduction in the total consumption of petrol, the different brands are fighting to retain their share of a smaller total market. That is happening in a strong way by discounting. In the country areas where the competition is not in existence or is not as strong there is less competition to put the price of petrol below the maximum margins. Therefore, of course, there is frequently a bigger retail mark-up. The fact of the matter is that the Government carried

Out the aims of its 1 977 policy speech to the extent of an involvement of, I think, $ 123m a year of taxpayer’s money.

Senator PRIMMER:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I refer the Minister to the specific quotation from the Prime Minister’s speech. The Prime Minister said in 1977 that the price for petrol in country areas ‘will be reduced to within a cent per litre of normal city retail prices’. I refer the Minister to the latter part of my question wherein I asked whether this difference represents the highest gap ever between city and country prices for petrol.

Senator CARRICK:

– I make the point that the Commonwealth has implemented a freight subsidy scheme which has reduced the wholesale price gap between country and city to 0.44 of a cent per litre and has more than carried out its policy. 1 repeat that the Commonwealth’s authority on this matter is over wholesale prices. I repeat that any need–

Senator Button:

– Why don’t you answer the question? Show some intellectual honesty.

Senator Walsh:

– You are revising history.

Senator Grimes:

– Well, why did you promise to fix retail prices? Why did you promise to do what you could not do?

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjectors will have failed to notice that a Labor Premier, Mr Wran, acknowledged in New South Wales that the control of retail prices of petrol was a State matter, and he accepted responsibility for that. The wholesale price has been equalised to within what was outlined in the policy speech, and that is costing the taxpayers $ 1 23m a year.

page 426

QUESTION

MANUFACTURE OF SUPER SILICON CHIPS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Science and the Environment. I refer to the proposal of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to set up a research group of IS scientists in Adelaide to design super silicon chips. Can the Minister say when this group will be established and where it will be situated? Can the Minister also say how long the research work is likely to take, what plans are in train to develop this proposal industrially and what employment opportunities are likely to be presented by this project?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– My advice from the Department is that it is hoped that the research that the honourable senator referred to in his question will get under way early next year. It will be located in Adelaide. I do not know the precise location in that city. Initially it is proposed to fund the research group for a period of some three years. The honourable senator asks how long the research might take. That is a question that probably cannot be answered in anticipation. In any event the Government proposes that it be funded for at least a three year period.

In relation to the plans for industrial development, it is intended that the CSIRO research group should collaborate closely with the Australian industries and universities and that the research group by its work should provide a nucleus of expertise which will be capable of enhancing the capabilities of Australian industry to get into this field. Once again it is a little difficult to predict to what extent commercially exploitable products will be developed by the organisation, but it is the clear view of the Government that this is an important area of development and one which ought to be examined very carefully and advanced for the future welfare of Australian industry.

page 426

QUESTION

NATIONAL WOMEN’S ADVISORY COUNCIL

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I draw the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the fact that the life of the National Women’s Advisory Council expired on 14 July. As yet the Government has not reappointed the 1 2 members to that Council. Has the Government made a decision not to reappoint or to appoint anybody, thus allowing the Council to lapse, which means that nobody will be advising the Government on women’s affairs? Does this mean that there was no input by women into the Budget considerations? Does this mean that the very small right wing women’s groups have had an influence quite out of proportion to their support in the community and have pressured the Government into abandoning the only body acting as a watchdog for women and an adviser in matters affecting women? Does this action fit in with the Government’s report on its attitude to women and matters concerning women, which was made on its behalf to the United Nations Conference on Women held in Copenhagen and which nobody has seen?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Commonwealth Government intends that the National Women’s Advisory Council shall be a continuing body. My colleague, Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, informs me that the membership will be announced today.

Senator Ryan:

– You did not get much notice of it, did you?

Senator CARRICK:

– The Government takes the view that the body is an important one and that it does a very useful job indeed. I am sorry that some honourable senators opposite think not. This body has been beneficial for the Australian community. This Government has taken more notice of the needs of women and the needs of the family than any other government in the past. Benefits- particularly under my colleague Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle - spouse rebates and a wide variety of advantages which have accrued to families have been based upon our recognition of the role and burdens of women in this community. The benefits have followed the advice which we have received from this body and many other women’s bodies.

Senator MELZER:

– I ask a supplementary question. Does that mean that the National Women’s Advisory Council has been reappointed? The term of office expired on 14 July and there has been no announcement to date that it has been reappointed.

Senator CARRICK:

– My understanding is that the National Women’s Advisory Council is a continuing body and that the forward membership of that body is to be announced today.

page 427

QUESTION

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF COAL

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether he has seen or read of a recent report which was submilted to the United States Congress relating to the use of coal as an energy source and its possible detrimental effect on the environment. As the report claims that the use of coal and other fossil fuels has a serious effect on the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, can the Minister state whether any studies of this aspect of energy sources have received attention from his Department? If not, will the Minister arrange for the matter to receive attention and, in particular, arrange for a comparative study relating to coal and other sources of energy and their effect on the environment?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In the environments where coal is a major source of energy, including the United States of America, there is very considerable concern that there is a potential danger to the environment by way of pollution from emissions from the burning of coal. A very great deal of study has gone into this matter both in America and in Australia. In Australia we are fortunate in having much wider spaces, much more diffuse populations, much greater ability to put our power stations away from centres of population - virtually at the coal face - and so we have a limitation to that problem. Nevertheless we are undertaking a wide range of anti-pollutant activities, including use of electrostatic devices, to remove the carbon and carbon compounds from the pollutant material emitted. A great deal of study has gone on by various scientific bodies in Australia. Those studies will continue. As coal replaces oil as the major energy source throughout most of the world in the future, it will be vital that the potential adverse effects of any emissions from coal be acted upon and that we have full knowledge of them. In this country we are certainly acting on the matter.

page 427

QUESTION

ARMY PERSONNEL: SERVICE IN VIETNAM

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I preface my question by advising him that on 27 February 1980 1 wrote to the Director of Co-ordination in the Army, requesting certain information relating to Army personnel who served in Vietnam. On 3 April I received a response from the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, stating that he would write to me again as soon as possible. As it is now four and a half months since that letter was written, will the Minister at least undertake to obtain the information for me? The specifics of the information requested are: The dates of service, the names of units and the operational areas in which those units were used. As it is becoming increasingly obvious that we are in the last desperate throes of the Liberal Government, will he undertake to make sure that before the dissolution of the Parliament that information is made available to me?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will take up the matter with the Minister for Defence but not for the reason that Senator Coleman gave, that the Government is in the last desperate throes of power. I think that was the phrase she used. I will take up the matter with him because the Government will have a continuing responsibility for these matters.

page 427

QUESTION

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY: PROPOSED RETAIL MARKETING LEGISLATION

Senator BONNER:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs assure the Senate that the package deal to be introduced by the Minister on his proposed legislation on retail marketing will be retrospective to the date on which he announced the introduction of such legislation? If this is not possible, can the Minister give any safeguards to the leaders of the Service Station Action Committee that the Shell Co. of Australia Ltd and other oil companies will not evict or fail to renew lease agreements?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am aware that the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has been giving close attention to this matter. As I indicated in a previous answer to Senator Bonner, the legislative package is virtually completed and will be introduced very soon. I will refer again the concern Senator Bonner has expressed to the Minister.

page 428

QUESTION

CLOSURE OF HOSTEL

Senator WRIEDT:

– Did the Minister for Social Security receive on three occasions from the TPI Association’s hostel in Hobart a request for the remission of all or part of a Commonwealth grant of $86,000 made in September 1966 towards construction of hostel units at the Association’s premises? Can she indicate whether she has responded directly to the Association on any of those occasions? As the building was offered for sale by auction on 14 May last and failed by a long way to reach the reserve price of $237,000, is it not apparent that the Association now finds itself in dire financial difficulties? In view of the contribution the Association has made to the community of Hobart in servicing the hostel over a number of years, will the Minister advise the Association whether the Government intends to remit the payment made in 1 966, or is it satisfied not only that the hostel has closed, but also that the Association will be left with a debt burden as well?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– I am aware of the difficulties of the hostel. I do not know whether letters were received on three occasions, but following the TPI Association’s decision to close the hostel as from 30 April, officers of my Department have worked closely with the Association to ensure the successful placement of all residents. I understand that a recent follow-up showed that all residents are settled in alternative accommodation. The residents understood, too, that there had been difficulties, that the Association was operating at a deficit and that closure was inevitable.

The point in Senator Wriedt ‘s question with regard to the grant that had been made for this purpose leads me to say that I understood that the Association was to sell the hostel. I am not aware that we have details as to what the result of that sale was, but I think the organisation understood that the original Commonwealth grant of $86,000-odd was required to be refunded in accordance with the normal agreement that is arranged between organisations and my Department when a grant is given to provide u service.

Given the provisions of the legislation and the agreements covering subsidies to organisations for aged persons’ accommodation, the question of a remission of a Commonwealth grant is dependent, in large part, on the circumstances surrounding the sale and the purpose to which the subsidised accommodation is then put.

I am interested in what Senator Wriedt has now advised about the financial difficulties of the organisation following the sale. I will undertake to look at that matter to see whether some assistance can be given and whether the difficulties of the organisation can be taken into account in requiring whatever remission is in accordance with the Act. I will undertake to do that as soon as possible. It would not be the intention of the Commonwealth Government to cause difficulties to the Association, given its long history of service to those people who were the residents of the hostel. I will certainly look sympathetically at whatever assistance we can give to avoid the remission that would have been required under the Act.

page 428

QUESTION

TRANSFERENCE OF AIR OPERATIONS CONTROLS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and concerns the transference of air operations controls from Launceston to Melbourne. Would the Minister not agree that in the event of a small plane crash the Melbourne-based personnel might not be familiar with the Tasmanian terrain and general geography and that this could lead to delays in the search procedures? Could this be a result of operations controls being no longer locally based? Further, can the Minister state whether it is the Government’s intention further to centralise air operations as is practised in Europe, but in Australia’s case, from Canberra?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I know of no plans to centralise air traffic control in the way that has been queried by Senator Watson. The matter is a technical one which I will have to refer to the Minister for Transport for consideration and reply. Of course, the fact is that the States of Australia are significantly different in area. A centralised air traffic control in Perth, for example, might be concerned with a million square miles, much of it much more remote from the control point than Launceston is from Melbourne. These are the sorts of considerations which no doubt are matters of concern to the Department of Transport and to the Minister. I will seek an authoritative reply from him for the honourable senator.

page 429

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. In reply to a question on 20 February this year the Minister stated that the level of unemployment benefit ‘should be adequate to provide a proper level of support for those who have lost income through unemployment’. Does the Minister now believe that $36 a week for a 16-year-old or 1 7-year-old living away from home and unable to find work is an adequate level of support?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I think this question really should more properly be addressed to the Minister for Social Security, but I will refer the matter to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs.

page 429

QUESTION

FUTURE DIRECTIONS CONFERENCE

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the Future Directions Conference which was held at La Trobe University from the 11th to the 14th of this month. Can the Minister inform the Senate of the composition of the Conference, the special interest groups represented, who appointed the delegates, whether Commonwealth money was given to this Conference and, if money was given, how much?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I understand that the Conference which Senator Walters has mentioned was organised by a body called Australian Frontier Inc. I understand that it is a non-profit, non-political, social research organisation and that it does consultancy work for governments and other organisations. I think I am right in saying that Senator Button and Mr Barry Simon are both members of its governing body. The Conference was organised as part of a larger project of developing a consensus on the changes confronting Australian society in the next 10 to 15 years. My understanding is that people from many walks of life were invited, including migrant and Aboriginal groups. I believe they were invited on the basis of their leadership potential. We have to keep in mind what is happening in the Senate. We have been observing a phenomenon in modern times. Honourable senators such as Senator Button are under 45 years of age, so I understand; but in the Senate they fail the test and lack the capacity to communicate. I understand that the Commonwealth made a grant of $20,000 towards the Conference costs. Other contributors included the Age newspaper, the Victorian Government, La Trobe University and church affiliated groups.

page 429

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– by leave- On Monday, 25 August 1980, a number of newspapers throughout Australia reported, or at least purported to report, comments made by me at the annual conference of the Independent Teachers Association held in Sydney on Sunday last. In the way in which some of those comments were reported, the Press reports were inaccurate and the comments were taken out of context. I would not have bothered to reply to the inaccurate reporting had the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) in another place last night not chosen to base some of his remarks during his reply to theBudget Speech on these inaccurate reports.

The reports imply that 1 said to the conference that the only - I stress the word ‘only’ - reason for increases in defence expenditure in this year’s Budget was that defence was an electorally more popular issue than education. That is not correct. What I said was that, in deciding how to allocate expenditure in any Budget, a government has to decide what it sees as the priorities necessary between competing items of possible expenditure, such as education, defence, roads, pensions and the like. I said that in making these decisions, a government must take into account what it sees as necessary in the national interest but that such attitudes are always open to influence through electoral pressures. I criticised the educationalists for not keeping enough pressure on the Government and in the public arena in support of some of their own special causes.

When I was asked in a separate question whether I thought that spending on defence currently had more support in the community than increased spending on education, I said that in my view that was a correct interpretation of current community attitudes as they were expressed to me. I did not say that more was spent on defence in this year’s Budget than was spent on education because it was more electorally popular. The headlines which imply this, when not supported by the actual text of what I said, are to this extent misleading and should be corrected.

page 429

TAXATION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The Fraser Government’s record taxation.

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

More than the number of senators required by sessional order having risen in their places -

Motion (by Senator Wriedt) - by leave - agreed to:

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the sessional order, Senator Walsh propose the matter of public importance now before the Senate.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I raise the following matter of public importance:

The Fraser Government’s record taxation.

I note that the final two words can be transposed without in any way altering the appropriateness of the statement; that is, we can say ‘The Fraser Government’s record taxation’ or ‘The Fraser Government’s taxation record’ - they are the same thing. Since 1975-76 the overall burden of taxation, as a proportion of gross domestic product, has increased. Total individual income tax receipts have increased as a proportion of GDP since 1975-76. The burden has fallen increasingly on pay-as-you-earn taxpayers, that is, wage and salary earners. Average rates of tax for average earnings have increased slightly over the period, but have fallen for non-wage and salary income because of increased tax avoidance.

Those were quotations. They come not from the Australian Labor Party, not from the taxpayers associations, not even from the Premier of Queensland; they come from the Government of Australia, from the interdepartmental committee report on economic strategy. Yet that is the truth about the Australian economy as perceived by the Fraser Government. It is a snapshot from inside, unimpeded by electoral facades, lt is the Pentagon papers of the Australian economy and it will send Malcolm Fraser the same way Richard Nixon went, but it will do it more quickly. Malcolm Fraser leads the highest taxing government in the history of this country, notwithstanding those bold prophecies and undertakings from his 1975 election policy speech, when he said:

For three dark years, our freedom, our prosperity, the selfrespect of many Australians have been eroded - eroded by the highest taxes in our history.

We will reduce the tax burden. We will put an end to Labor’s tax rip off.

That is what Malcolm Fraser said in 1975. That was the promise. What is the performance? I quote again from the Government of Australia, from its own internal, honest assessment of its own performance:

Total individual income tax receipts have increased as a proportion of GDP . . .

Malcolm Fraser said that our dignity, our selfrespect had been eroded by the highest taxes in our history. That was his assertion. His performance has been to impose substantially higher levels of taxation. Malcolm Fraser, judged by his own criteria, is a failure. He has failed on employment. He has failed on economic growth. He promised to achieve a figure of 6 per cent to 7 per cent; he has delivered 2.2 per cent, way below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average for the same period. He has failed to honour promises to the Queensland miners. He has failed to keep inflation from rising. He has failed on ministerial propriety. He has restored to senior Cabinet rank a man who, on his own admission, is the custodian and the beneficiary of 300,000 stolen dollars. He has sanctioned the use of stolen funds as working capital for private ministerial businesses. But above all, he has failed to deliver on his taxation promises.

Senator Peter Baume:

– I believe that is a personal imputation on the Prime Minister and should not be allowed.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Yes, and on the Minister too. I ask you to withdraw, Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– If it is a personal imputation, I withdraw. It is, nevertheless, a statement of bald fact.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I ask you to withdraw unreservedly. Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– I withdraw because I want to expose some of the other hypocrisy of this Government. Above all, Malcolm Fraser has failed to deliver on his taxation promises. He presides over the highest pay as you earn tax collection - that is, wages and salaries tax collections - in Australian history, plus a petrol tax which this year will yield $3.5 billion. This is on top of the highest personal income tax ever imposed by an Australian government. In 1975-76 income tax on wage and salary earners was $7 billion. The estimate for this year is $14 billion. Those figures can be verified from Budget Paper No. 1. In just five years Malcolm Fraser has doubled taxation on wage and salarY earners. Wages in that period, it is true, have gone up. Since the period is not finished, we cannot be precise. They will rise by just over 50 per cent - wages up by 50 per cent; taxation doubled. That is the record of the Fraser Government so far as wage and salary earners are concerned. Set that against the promise of 1975. In 1975, Malcolm Fraser said:

We will reduce the tax burden. We will put an end to Labor’s tax rip off.

In 1980 we know what he has done. He has doubled income tax for wage and salary earners in a period when wages and salaries have gone up by only half. They are the aggregate figures. What does this mean to the individual wage and salary earner? We can find the answer to that question as well in these fascinating Budget Papers.

In 1975-76 wage and salary earners, on average, paid $24 a week in tax. This year they will pay $42 a week - from $24 to $42 a week in tax, on average, for wage and salary earners. In addition to that, in 1975-76 the average Australian household paid $1.20 a week in oil tax. That is now $14.20 a week - up $13 per household for Fraser’s petrol tax - as well as all-time record levels of personal taxation. Taxes on wage and salary earners, which went up by 17 per cent last year, will go up yet another 1 6 per cent this year. That is way above the rate of inflation in both of those years. How does that measure up with the 1 975 promises? Mr Fraser said:

We will reduce the tax burden. We will put an end to Labor’s tax rip off.

We will make government more honest with your money, said, in 1975, the man who in the last two years has put taxes up another 35 per cent, the man who has doubled taxation for wage and salary earners in just five short years, or should 1 say in five dark years.

Senator Button:

– Five long years for me.

Senator WALSH:

– Five long dark years. The Queensland miners know perhaps more acutely than anyone else what value can be placed on a prime ministerial promise. But everyone is now realising what value can be placed on a prime ministerial promise. Even if people do not know the precise figures, everyone knows instinctively from how much money he has or how much he owes at the end of the week that he is paying more tax under this Government than he has ever paid in his life. Presiding over all this is an arrogant, insensitive, born-to-wealth, Western District brahmin who has broken more promises than all former Prime Ministers of Australia combined.

Senator Button:

– Is a brahmin a bull or a person?

Senator WALSH:

– I use it in the Indian sense, meaning the upper class. Malcolm Fraser poses as a farmer. He has never been a farmer in his life. He has never had dirt under his fingernails or calluses on his hands. He was born to wealth. He has lived in wealth all his life. He genuinely does not understand what it is to live on a wage or salary. Because he has never experienced it, he does not understand what it is like for the majority of Australians who have to think about what they will buy today in terms of whether they will have anything left to buy food just before the next pay period. They know also that it is becoming much harder to do that because of the enormous increase in taxation which the present Prime Minister has imposed upon them. The same man simultaneously presides over massive organised tax dodging by the wealthy which the Treasurer (Mr Howard) admitted in 1977 was costing around $700m a year. Tax dodging schemes and the sale of those schemes have proliferated since that time. If the amount was $700m in 1977 it must be well over $ 1,000m today. According to one very well informed opinion on this subject - I refer to Professor Russell Mathews - in January of this year tax evasion was cheating the revenue of almost $3 billion. That is equal to another petrol tax. That gives us some idea of the magnitude of the tax dodging over which this Government presides and about which it refuses to take any effective action.

The Prime Minister has reduced taxation for some. He has reduced it for the richest 10 per cent, his own class. While for the richest 10 per cent taxation has come down, for wage and salary earners in just five long dark years the level of income tax collections has doubled. Wages have gone up by 50 per cent. Taxes have gone up by 100 per cent. That is the story of the typical Australian. Superimposed on that, of course, is the great petrol price rip-off which brings in an amount equivalent to a further increase in taxation for everyone of 1 6 per cent. The tax paid on income is up by 100 per cent. The tax paid on the petrol that goes into the family car is up by an extra $13 a week for the average Australian household. Senator Carrick who represents the Prime Minister in this place normally, but not today, can obfuscate, prevaricate, spray his windy rhetoric around this place and other places, misrepresent and distort ancient history but he cannot escape those hard facts. Taxation collections from wage and salary earners in five long dark years of Fraserism have doubled. The typical Australian is paying nearly twice as much in income tax as he paid five years ago when the Prime Minister said: ‘We will reduce the tax burden. We will put an end to Labor’s tax rip-off’. In addition to income tax, on average, Australian households are paying an extra $1 3 a week in petrol taxes. An extra $13 a week is coming out of the average household because of the petrol taxes imposed by this Government.

The Government seeks to obscure its record tax rip-off, its record rip-off of the ordinary Australian, while simultaneously the brahmin class has its tax reduced and the criminal class - I use that term advisedly; the social criminals- dodge their taxation altogether with a variety of commercially marketed tax avoidance schemes against which this Government refuses to take any effective action.

Senator Messner:

– Rubbish.

Senator WALSH:

– I repeat that it refuses to take any effective action. Senator Messner disputes this. The one thing which will kill the tax avoidance industry stone dead is the credible threat of retrospective legislation. There is no doubt about that. In every session of parliament this Government goes through the charade of passing legislation ostensibly designed to close off tax loopholes and to defeat the outrageous rulings given by the High Court on tax cases as well as on other matters, but it refuses to do the one thing which everyone knows will work. It refuses to tell the tax avoidance industry, the social criminals who refuse to accept their social responsibilities, that it will legislate retrospectively to recover tax deliberately avoided.

Senator Messner:

– Would you make every tax law retrospective?

Senator WALSH:

– Senator Messner’s Government has passed retrospective tax laws already so he should not start raising matters of principle. The Government has done it already. It refuses to do it against these people because they chip in to Liberal Party slush funds. That leads me to another point. I asked Senator Carrick a question last Wednesday. Government policy, publicly stated, on the pricing of Australian oil from large fields was that the price would be increased in accordance with increases in the consumer price index after December 1978. Between December 1978 and the time when the increase occurred the CPI went up by 12.4 per cent. The price of crude oil to the producer from these fields went up by 1 4.8 per cent. A week ago I said to Senator Carrick: ‘Isn’t that a curious collection of facts? How did it happen?’ He said: ‘It is a complex issue. I will get on to my Department and give you an answer’. He still has not given me an answer. We know why. Perhaps it does not sound very much; it is only $26 a barrel. But it is $ 18m a year that furtively this Government, in defiance of its own publicly stated policy, has transferred to EssoBHP. What we would like to know - the Government, of course, refuses to allow any legislation to be passed in this direction - is how much of that $l8m finished up in the Liberal Party’s election slush fund, just as we would like to know how much the tax dodgers, against whom the Government refuses to take effective action, are contributing to the Liberal Party slush fund.

As well as imposing a record tax rip-off, the Government seeks to obscure it from ordinary Australians with a breathtaking hoax. The fraudulent proposition is being advanced from all sections of this Government that a lower deficit equals lower inflation. That proposition, of course, defies the long-standing experience in countries like Germany and Austria which have had considerably higher deficits than Australia and considerably lower rates of inflation throughout the 1 970s. It also defies the empirical evidence of the last two years in Australia itself. In that time the deficit has come down by 50 per cent and the inflation rate has gone up by 40 per cent. How does the Government respond to that empirical evidence and those historic facts? It responds by saying: ‘If we get the deficit down inflation must come down with it’. That relationship between the deficit and inflation in Australia over the last couple of years is not a casual relationship. There is nothing coincidental about it. It has a common cause.

What has made inflation go up is the same thing that has made the deficit come down, that is the Government’s record tax rip-off. I refer not only to the Government’s record tax rip-off in the aggregate but also to its specific record tax rip-off in the form of petrol tax. The petrol tax is the reason for both the reduced deficit and the higher inflation. In the last two years the deficit has come down by $191 2m. The oil tax in the same two years has gone up by $2,070m. They almost balance precisely. The cause of the higher inflation is the same policy which has caused the lower deficit. The Fraser Government has the fraudulent effrontery seriously to propose to the electorate that as long as we get the deficit down inflation must automatically fall. The deficit has come down and inflation must automatically fall. The deficit has come down and inflation has gone up because of the Fraser Government’s record taxing policies.

In the one minute that is remaining to me I say again that this Government presides over the highest levels of personal income tax ever imposed on Australian wage and salary earners, in addition to which it rips off an additional $13 a week in petrol tax from the average Australian household. This Prime Minister, who promised to end the great tax rip-off, who said in 1 977 that we cannot have economic recovery until we get taxation down, has doubled income tax for ordinary Australians in just five long, dark years of Fraserism. In addition he imposes $13 extra tax on every Australian household for the petrol people put into the family car. He is a failure; his

Government is a failure. It has been shown to be a failure by its assessment of itself.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– To listen to the Australian Labor Party senators complaining about what they claim to be other people’s taxation records is very much like listening to Satan rebuking sin. Under these circumstances, who better to lead for the Opposition than Senator Walsh, snarling yet again another one of his litanies on class hatred, telling us all about the necessity for people to properly represent themselves, people who he says have never had dirt under their fingernails or calluses on their hands? Presumably he is like his beloved former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, and like the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran. They certainly had one thing in common. The first thing they did as the opportunity became available to them was to get out from living among the electors they claimed to represent.

If we want to start talking about the question of record, we can look back at the record of the Labor Party’s achievements during its period in office. Whilst I do not intend to spend a great deal of time on this matter, it is important for people to understand precisely the record of the Labor Party in its period in office. We know that aggregate personal tax collections rose from $4,089m in 1972-73 to $9,2 19m in 1975-76, a growth of 125 per cent, and that in the same period average earnings rose by only 67 per cent. We know that in 1 974-75 alone the Government’s take from personal taxes rose by 40.5 per cent. We know that the average family income earner, who in 1972 was paying 1 9 per cent of his total earnings in tax, was paying 25 per cent by the time the Labor Government had finished with him. We know that the Labor Party, in terms of its taxation record, was particularly harsh on the farmers whom Senator Walsh was so anxious to talk about a little earlier. It reduced taxation concessions for water, soil and fodder conservation, lt repealed the 100 per cent tax write-off provision in any year for certain primary production capital equipment, substituting a 10 per cent write-off over a 10-year period.

Look at the rate at which it continued its tax rip-off. Individual income tax receipts as a proportion of gross domestic product in 1 972-73 were 9.6 per cent. By 1975-76 the figure was 12.7 per cent. The Labor Government had managed to push it along by a marvellous 32.2 per cent. In the five years that Senator Walsh has been speaking about it went from 1 2.7 per cent to 1 3.2 per cent, representing an increase of 3.9 per cent. Senator Walsh in comparing a 3.9 per cent increase in the five years of this Government should bear in mind that during the more limited period of the Labor Government the increase was 32.2 per cent, over eight times the increase that has taken place under this Government. We will be coming back in a minute to the taxation proposals put forward by Mr Hayden, the economist whom Clem Jones says cannot even read a balance sheet. We know that under the Hayden 1975-76 Budget scales the wage earner on $10,000 was taxed at the marginal rate of 45c in the dollar, whilst for a wage earner on $1 6,000 the figure was 55c. Under the standard rate applying at the moment to these income levels the rate is back down to 32 per cent.

We know that the overall picture in which taxation policies have to be examined has a great deal to do with the health of the economy in general. Nobody in this Parliament or in the wider community needs to be reminded of the Labor Party’s stewardship of the Australian economy. Nobody needs to be reminded that Budget outlays as a proportion of GDP under the Labor Party were up to 30.1 per cent and have now been hauled back down to 27.9 per cent or that the deficit as a proportion of GDP under the Labor Party was 4.93 per cent and has now been hauled back down to 1 .2 per cent.

It is useful now to turn to the specifics of the Government’s record in taxation relief and reform. We know that the old seven-step scale confusing, inequitable scheme of taxation arrangements was replaced by a simple, three-step taxation system. We know that the surcharge which was imposed at an earlier stage was removed from taxpayers in December 1979. We know that the provisional tax threshold in the 1979-80 Budget was raised from $400 to $1,000. We know that the Commonwealth after 1 July 1979 fulfilled its election commitments to the abolition of death and gift duties. We know that despite the economic pressures that have been apparent in this country we are now returning to a system of 50 per cent indexation of personal taxation. We know that there has been an improvement in the tax averaging provisions for primary producers. In terms of specific industries, we know that considerable incentives have been provided for as an example the tourist industry. A provision for the depreciation of certain new income producing buildings of at least 10 rooms used for the accommodation of travellers at a flat rate of 2i per cent commenced after 21 August 1979.

We know that in 1976 the Government increased the retention allowance for private companies from 50 per cent to 60 per cent and that in the 1979-80 Budget the retention allowance was further increased to 70 per cent. We know that major changes have been made in the investment allowance. The Government introduced an investment allowance for eligible new plant at 40 per cent for plant ordered before 30 June 1978 and in use by 30 June 1979. We know that major taxation incentives have been allowed for such things as the on-farm storage of grain, hay and fodder. We know that there have been major revisions in sales tax. In the 1978 Budget the rate of tax on, for instance, motor cars and station wagons was reduced from 27½ per cent to the general rate of 15 per cent. We know that there were particular taxation reductions for articles designed and manufactured expressly for the use of blind, deaf and otherwise handicapped persons. We know that sales tax exemption levels were raised for small business. It is no wonder that the Labor Party objects to these changes. Turnover exemption levels were raised from $1,000 to $12,000 and annual sales tax liability exemptions were increased from $100 to $250.

We know that the new taxation rates that took effect as of 1 July this year reduced the standard rate to 32 per cent and indexed the income range by 3.8 per cent so that the tax free allowance is now $4,041. Dependants rebates were increased 34 per cent with the rebate for a dependent spouse rising to $800 and for a sole parent to $559. We know that major contributions have been made in terms of the restoration of deductibility of contributions up to $1,200 per annum made by selfemployed persons and employees unsupported by superannuation arrangements. We know that there- will be a further inquiry into the question of zone allowances.

Senator Walsh made a great deal about tax avoidance. No Treasurer and no Government could have been more assiduous in attempting to deal with the questions of tax avoidance than the Treasurer, John Howard, and this Government. After three years of having been in government, Senator Walsh’s last minute Damascus road conversion to the principle of chasing tax avoiders should sit pretty ill with those who pause to consider it.

Let me turn to one specific example, that is, incentives and assistance for those in the greatest need. This Government has been responsible for raising the threshold level at which taxation becomes payable in the first instance. Half a million Australians are benefiting directly from not having to pay any taxation at all.

Members of the Opposition put themselves out as the champions of those most in need and the champions of those most in distress. In the whole period of their administration of the Treasury they were not able to take any single step in order to provide assistance for people in need as dramatic as that step of raising the taxation threshold. We know that the assistance that has been continually provided to the persons in greatest need has been a feature of not only the taxation but also the general welfare policies of this Government. We know, in terms of family allowances and all of the other things that this Government has introduced, just how far that assistance goes. We know now that because of the rationalisation of the taxation system over 80 per cent of taxpayers now pay tax at no more than the standard marginal rate. Now a worker earning $12,500 per annum can earn an additional $4,700 without any increase in his marginal rate of tax. We know that the maximum marginal rate has been reduced from 65 per cent to 60 per cent.

The important thing about those moves is that they indicate the degree of care and concern that this Government has had for people in the greatest need. Let me compare this with the sort of schemes being put forward by the Opposition at the moment; for instance, the Australian Labor Party family income supplement scheme, which can lead to the sort of situations where a small rise in income can deprive a family of substantial amounts of money, where the rise of $1 in family income can impose a penalty on that family of something like $208 per year, where the scheme can be so worked that large families, because they are receiving the levels of child endowment that this Government has provided, may receive lower levels of supplement than smaller families with the same private income, where pensioners can be faced with more overlapping income tests and where harsh income tests can nullify the extra earnings on several ranges of income creating further poverty traps for people who are in the greatest need and who will not be served in any way by the schemes that the Labor Party is putting forward.

The Labor Party has as per usual been putting forward any number of schemes. We know from the platform of the ALP annual conference held in Adelaide in 1 979 that one of the A LP’s policies calls for it to enhance the equity of the tax system by taxing large accumulations of personal capital above a floor which will be reviewed regularly. In other words, this is the capital gains tax, the continued attempt to penalise thrift and enterprise. We know that the Labor Party intends introducing an alleged resource rent tax. We know, for all that Senator Walsh has had to say about petrol pricing and the increases incurred there, that Mr Ross Gittins asked a question of Mr Paul Keating on the question of oil prices. Mr Gittins said:

Would the resources tax raise more or less than the oil production levy?

In other words, Mr Gittins asked whether Mr Keating’s proposal would raise more than the current Government proposal. Mr Keating replied:

I think it would probably raise more.

Mr Gittins said:

That sounds to me as if a resources tax is just a different version of a branch of the tax office at the petrol pump.

Mr Keating said:

Well, it is to some extent.

When asked about the Labor Party’s scheme Mr Keating said:

I think it would probably raise more.

Let me note the Labor policy on the abolition of the investment allowance. Let me note a speech by Mr Ralph Willis, the Labor spokesman on the economy, to Labor economists. In predicting the way in which the the Labor Party would get thumped in this year’s Federal election, Mr Willis said:

If Labor does not gain office at the next election then by 1983, when we could next hope to gain office, wc would face a mammoth task in rebuilding the public sector - and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so.

In other words, this clearly states that the Labor Party is back to the old principles of socialism, of expanding the public sector and trying to persuade - or in fact one should say, trying to con- the Australian electorate in to a belief that it should pay higher taxation to finance the proposed Hydrocarbon Corporation and all of the other schemes. What will be that level of higher taxation? If one is generous and looks at the costing of a few of the policies and does not attempt to cost the 250 or so policies that are flapping around one could say that the additional cost would be a mere $2,000m and that, in order to pay for the schemes, the increase per week for each taxpayer in Australia would be in the order of $6.63. If the cost were up to $2,500m, which is well within the bounds of possibility, the extra tax on each taxpayer each week would be $8.29.

Mr Hayden’s one.time friend and colleague, Mr Jones of Brisbane, has indicated that Mr Hayden ; the so-called great economist, the economic guru of the Labor Party ; would be a good economist except for the fact that he cannot read a balance sheet. He cannot read the balance sheet of the national economy; he has never been able to read the balance sheet of the national economy.

In the period when he had direct responsibility, both as a Minister and, more significantly, as a Treasurer, he was engaged in the most monumental rip-off of the Australian taxpayer ever perpetrated. The rates al which he increased taxation do no credit to him. Mr Hayden presided over an economy for a period of years and it has taken this Government some period and some difficulty, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said, to pay off the debts, to get the books back into the black and out of the red and to get back to a situation where economic responsibility and economic management are again accorded their proper level of priority. But there is still emanating, no wonder the Australian says in its headlines this morning, another $300m financial give-away.

There is no end to the extent to which the Opposition will simply rely upon the tactic that almost worked for Dr Evatt of going around the countryside promising to everybody who asks that his particular desires will be met but they will be met only out of increasing government revenue, out of increasing taxation across the board both personal and in every other respect, by pushing up prices such as the price of petrol and by increasing the deficit and Australia’s indebtedness.

The opposition conies before the Senate this afternoon with a spurious matter of public importance dealing wilh the taxation record of this Government. No government would be worth its salt if it was not constantly stirring towards a position where it could get taxation levels down. This Government has been doing all of the things necessary to bring about a situation in which levels of personal taxation can be reduced. Since 1976-77 there has been a slight reduction in the overall burden of personal income tax. The conditions which have to be created by a government to bring about that desired end of reducing personal taxation are being brought about by this Government. They will not be brought about by the spendthrift and wasteful policies that the Labor Party is once again putting forward and which marked its dismal three years in office and its monumental tax rip-off which was well enough known to the people of Australia.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Anyone listening to the comments of Senator Puplick would wonder at the throw away remark that he made towards the end of his speech. We listened for almost 15 minutes to a catalogue of what appeared to be massive taxation reductions which are alleged to have taken place under the Fraser Government.

But it will be noted that in the last 30 seconds of his speech he said: ‘1 admit that there has been a slight reduction in income tax in this country’. What was that slight income tax reduction by the Fraser Government? lt was 90c a week, which is alleged to be, according to Senator Puplick and people on the Government side, the honouring by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) of all the promises that he made in 1975 and 1977 about reducing income tax. I will come back in a moment to the so-called reduction argument by Senator Puplick. However, there are one or two other points he made that I must comment on.

Senator Puplick referred to rural tax benefits which had been taken away by the previous government. He failed to tell us, of course, that his own govenment did not reinstate them. He admits to a 3.9 per cent increase in taxation under this Government, and that is true. We all know that in 1975, when the Fraser Government came to office, total personal income tax collections in this country were approximately $9 billion; that is $9, 000m. This year they have doubled to $ 17,000m. That has been the result of the Fraser Government’s policies. Senator Walsh quoted in detail figures which illustrate that there was no intention at all on the part of Mr Fraser to reduce income tax in this country. Those reductions which have taken place have been regressive and inequitable, and they have favoured the people on higher incomes. In this regard I will shortly quote Mr Risstrom, Secretary of the Australian Taxpayers’ Association.

Again we get the perennial argument about high taxation and high spending by the previous government. There was some high spending by the previous government, but there was good reason for it. We inherited the education mess. The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) loves to talk about how his Government has achieved the objectives of the Karmel inquiry during its term of office, but those objectives have been achieved only because of the fact that the Labor Government was prepared to allocate to education the resources, both into the government and non-government sectors, that enabled Senator Carrick to inherit the work that we had done.

The Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) is in the same position. It was the Labor Government which allocated the resources to give the pensioners a go and to lift pensions from 1 8 per cent of average weekly earnings to 24.5 per cent. In all the years that have gone by, in the 24 years prior to that under non-Labor governments, no effort was ever made to give the pensioners a go, and they were rotting on their 18 per cent of average weekly earnings. Of course we made a commitment that if we were elected to government we would in three years lift the old age pension to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings. Admittedly we did not quite get there, but we got close to it, in the short space of three years. Of course it meant that we had to allocate finance to do it. We had to allocate resources. Is that anything to be ashamed of? In historical terms, has anyone to be ashamed of our efforts in medical insurance, our work for the pensioners, our work for education? If a national government wants to do those things it must allocate resources to do them, and we have nothing to be ashamed of.

Let us compare our record with what has happened over the last four or five years. Senator Walsh commented earlier that the Prime Minister is a millionaire five times over, a man who would not understand what it means to take home $150 a week, a man who would not understand the plight of the millions of housewives who have to live on a normal pay packet. He sends his people into the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and tells it not to give the workers of this country, the wage and salary earners of this country, the 85 per cent of the work force, wage increases that keep up with the cost of living. That is the Government’s policy. That is what he has succeeded in doing. Those figures are available in Hansard for those who wish to check them.

The figures from the Treasurer, Mr Howard, illustrate the fact that the ordinary householder has felt the effects of the Government’s policy of depressing real incomes and the great tax rip-off that has gone with it. Yet, Malcolm Fraser, this man who bullied the athletes about the Moscow Games and who has bullied everyone else around the country - he bullies his own Cabinet members - the very man who just does not understand what his policies mean to the ordinary person at the same time can put thousands of dollars into his own pocket by selling the wool that he produces on his property to clothe Russian soldiers. What greater example of hypocrisy can one get?

Let us look at the position which has obtained in the last 41 years. We have seen the doubling of income tax collections. Even that was not satisfactory for Mr Fraser. He decided to institute the petrol tax. Members on the Government side will tell us that this is justified. They will say the fact that an ordinary person is paying $ 1 3 a week more to fill his petrol tank than he was two years ago is completely justified, despite the fact that 90 per cent of the petrol he puts into his car is produced in Australia at a fraction of the price which he is being forced to pay by the policy of the Fraser Government.

Senator Puplick, who has left the chamber, of course, in the latter part of his speech had a passing shot at the resource rental tax. 1 must not forget to mention this because as we know certain information has become available publicly now. I refer to an interdepartmental committee report which contains the advice given to this Government by its most senior committee on economic strategy. Paragraph 38 of the report in regard to resource rental tax reads:

Similarly, the retention of more than normal profits by one section of the economy is likely to encourage ‘excessive wage’ pressures, and it would then be difficult to prevent a more general ‘flow-on’ to other areas of the work force.

Paragraph 39 of the report reads:

For these reasons it will be important to ensure that the prospective income gains from resource investment accrue to all Australians;

That is exactly Labor policy but it is not the policy of the Fraser Government. The report continues:

It is also suggested that with potentially very profitable resource projects it may be desirable at some time in the future to consider further the appropriate taxation of ‘above-normal’ profits or the ‘rent’ involved.

In other words, the Government’s senior committee on economic policy is advising it to institute a resource rental tax, the very policy that we have advocated for the past two years and which we are told would be a dreadful imposition on the mining companies. Senator Puplick quoted Mr Keating, the Opposition spokesman in that area. He has said that of course it will mean increased revenue in certain areas because the resource rental tax, as that document says, is designed to get revenue for the Government from those mining and oil companies which are able to pay it but not to penalise the marginally economic mining companies, which will enable them to stay in business and continue to develop the resources of this country. But that is not Mr Fraser’s policy. One wonders why it is that he adopts policies which favour certain sections–

Senator Rae:

-But Senator–

Senator WRIEDT:

- Senator Rae, who is trying to interject, would know better than I would that certain sources of finance come into the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party knows where they come from and it acts accordingly. That is par for the course as far as the history of the Liberal Party is concerned.

The ordinary Australian taxpayer is concerned about only two things regarding taxation. He or she is concerned, firstly, with how much he or she has to pay and, secondly, what happens to it. This afternoon we heard some figures mentioned about how much the people of Australia have to pay. It is a progressive policy of this Government to continue this consistent rip-ofT of tax. lt is no good our arguing about the matter. I realise it is only a matter of confusion if we all start arguing backwards and forwards about specific arguments on who collected this and who gave back that. As Senator Walsh indicated at the start of this debate, certain facts are inescapable. Income tax in Australia has doubled in the 4-1 years of the Fraser Government. Even this year income tax will go up by 16 per cent and wages and incomes by 10 per cent. That is the sorry story. It is not simply a matter of income tax at the Federal level.

My last point relates to the subject which Senator Puplick touched on in his remarks. He said that there was a slight reduction in taxation, in income tax. I will not argue with that. There was a slight reduction last year - 90c a week for the average wage earner. The policy of the Fraser Government is to make itself appear good as a tax reducing government but to pass the burden of income tax over to the States. Let every Australian realise the significance of this. Mr Fraser, from the day that he was elected Prime Minister, was committed and remains committed to the introduction of State income taxes. He cannot constitutionally force the States to impose taxes. I accept that. But he can do it through the back door method by turning off the finance to the States until the States reach a point where they are no longer able to finance their own activities, especially in the area of public works. He leaves them the options of either increasing their indirect taxes, such as motor registration, tobacco tax or whatever, which hurts the ordinary person far more than it does the people who are on higher incomes, or the alternative of introducing State income taxes over and above the Commonwealth income tax. That is Mr Fraser’s policy. That is his objective.

The States have not done so as yet and that is the reason the building and construction industry in this country is at a depressed level of activity. Sixty per cent of the work that private contractors in the building and construction industry receive comes from government contracts, mainly State government contracts. The State governments have been starved of these capital funds because the Commonwealth has reduced those payments. The States cannot let out the contracts to the private sector and, therefore, the whole of the economy remains in this continually depressed condition. Thank goodness it is now getting through to the Australian people. As evidenced by all the surveys which are now available to us, the Australian people have had enough of Mr Fraser’s attitude of opting out all the time, of passing the buck to the State governments and the private sector and saying: ‘It is not our responsibility to get this country moving again, despite the fact that we go on ripping off taxation from various sources’.

We must remember that it has been said in this chamber by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, who is the Minister responsible, and in the other place by the Treasurer, Mr Howard, and the Prime Minister: ‘We will continue the petrol tax. We will continue to increase it at the rate that we have been increasing it over the past two years’. If the people of this country want the tax rip-off to continue they should put Mr Fraser back into office and in two years’ time they will be paying 50c a litre for petrol simply as a means of taxation. The Prime Minister is not game enough- he does not have sufficient conviction and courage - simply to increase income tax scales. Instead he raises revenue by the back door method. This matter of public importance was brought before the Senate today for the purpose of again alerting the Australian people to the absolute falsity of the assurances and promises that were given by Malcolm Fraser in 1977.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– One cannot help but wonder what the people of Australia who are listening to this debate must think. Firstly from the Australian Labor Party they heard a speech by Senator Walsh.

Senator Georges:

– Just give us some facts.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I will give the honourable senator some facts shortly. The people of Australia who are listening to this debate first of all heard a characteristically windy and proportionately weighty contribution from Senator Walsh. The people then heard a contribution from Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and some time candidate for the seat of Denison, in which he illustrated the fact that he cannot distinguish between departmental advice and government decision-making. That is a sad state of affairs for a former Minister. Obviously he did not learn much during his brief tenure. Senator Georges has asked for some facts. 1 will give him a few facts about the Labor Government in which the previous speaker, Senator Wriedt, was a member. Let us have a look at the Labor Government’s record on taxation. Senator Puplick quite rightly has already referred to something of its record. In 1972-73 the income tax take of the Labor Government was about $4 billion. By 1974-75 it was $8 billion. These figures are rounded but that was an increase of approximately 90 per cent in just a couple of years and an increase of 44 per cent in real terms. Those are the facts about the Labor Government and the impact of its income tax policies on this country. There was a real increase of 44 per cent in a couple of years.

Perhaps it is worth comparing the record of the previous Labor Government with that of the present Government. In the period 1976 to 1980 average personal income tax collections increased by 3 per cent in real terms compared with 14 per cent under Labor. The 3 per cent increase under the present Government can be measured against the increase in the work force and so on and can be justified on that basis. How do we justify an average annual increase of 1 4 per cent in real terms in personal income tax under a Labor Government? Appropriately there is silence from the Labor Party benches. Members of the Labor Party cannot explain and justify it, but it is a fact. Senator Georges wants to know the facts. One of the facts is that under the Labor Government the real increase in income tax was four times and more the increase under this Government.

Let us look at what has happened under the present Government in another area. Senator Wriedt casually talked about regressive measures taken by the present Government. Because of income tax measures taken by the present Government more than half a million individuals in this community - -people who are all on lower incomes - no longer have to pay income tax. That is due to the reforms introduced by this Government. Is that regressive? Is that what Senator Wriedt is talking about when he talks about ‘regressive’ measures? A more pertinent question to ask would be: What is he talking about?

In the 1979-80 Budget the present Government - this Liberal Government - raised the provisional tax threshold from $400 to $1000 which was an increase of 250 per cent. Provisional tax is payable by wage and salary earners, pensioners and people on superannuation who have relatively small incomes from other sources, usually from small investments that they have developed over the years. Raising the threshold means that pensioners - I emphasise that 1 am referring to pensioners and superannuitants - can earn up to $1000 a year from investments without being subject to provisional tax. ls that regressive? ls that what Senator Wriedt is talking about? Again I ask: What is he talking about?

Senator Georges:

– You are posing a lot of questions.

Senator KNIGHT:

- Senator Wriedt’s speech this afternoon raised a lot of questions but did not give us too many answers. I also add that another reform which was introduced by this Government means that no Commonwealth death or gift duties are payable in Australia. I ask whether a Labor government would reimpose those duties - that is, if ever there is another Labor government in this country. Let me emphasise that 90 per cent of taxpayers in this country now pay no more than the basic standard marginal tax rate that was introduced by this Government with its standard tax rate. I suggest that the fact that so many people pay the basic standard rate indicates that this Government has, through its policies, introduced measures which are to the benefit of taxpayers. If Senator Georges wishes, I will emphasise again that in the period 1 976-80 average annual personal income tax collections rose by a real 3 per cent; under the Labor Government by a real 14 per cent annually which is more than four times as much. The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) recently said:

The Labor Party wants to do all things to all people but at a massive cost to the taxpayer because that is how it must be done.

In just five areas in which the Labor Party has made a range of commitments in recent times its commitments would cost $2,000m. Where would that come from? Senator Wriedt suggested that it would come from a resources tax. I reiterate what Senator Puplick said when he referred to an interview by Mr Keating, the Labor Party spokesman in this area. Mr Keating was asked the following by the interviewer:

Would the resources tax raise more or less than the oil production levy?

That is the levy of the present Government. Mr Keating, who is Senator Georges’ colleague in the Labor Party, said:

I think it would probably raise more.

Who is going to pay that? Let me cite the next statement. Mr Keating was asked the following by the interviewer:

That sounds to me as if a resources tax is just a different version of a branch of the tax office at every petrol pump.

What did Mr Keating say? He said:

Well, it is to some extent.

Where is the cost going to finish up? It is going to finish up with the consumer. This fiction about the Labor Government reducing the cost of petrol is nonsense. It will introduce a measure which will not have the effect of promoting conservation or alternative energy sources; it will deter investment in this country and will cost this country jobs. It will have regressive effects and will be a disaster for Australia, just as the whole range of other policies proposed by this discredited Opposition would be for this country. The Labor Party was discredited in this area in government and in Opposition it has nothing better to offer. This will not be credible with the people of Australia.

This afternoon the Labor Party in the Senate has, once again, demonstrated that it is bereft of any constructive policies for the economic management of this nation. Therefore, it is bereft of any constructive policies for the social betterment of the Australian people. This Government has removed from more than half a million people the burden of payment of taxation; this Government has introduced tax reforms that have meant a reduction in billions of dollars to the tax man, to the Government, by trying to lighten the tax burden on the Australian people. The Labor Party illustrated when it was in government that it had no commitment to lower taxes but rather to higher taxes because a big spending party and a big spending government must be a high tax party. The Labor Party illustrated last night, in another place, with their parliamentary leader’s alternative Budget, that the Labor Party continues to be a high tax party which would have a disastrous impact on the economy of this nation and the social well-being of the Australian people. The Labor Party has, once again, illustrated that it is bereft of constructive policies, in contrast to the present Government. This has been clearly illustrated in forceful terms by Senator Puplick. It has been my pleasure to support him on this occasion. Therefore I move:

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. Senator Knight invited me to answer him and now he has moved this motion. Surely I can answer the questions he has raised.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is no point of order.

Senator Georges:

– He has a darn cheek! He raised a number of questions and then moved this motion.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is a motion before the Chair that requires immediate determination. That question is:

That the business of the day be called on.

Question put.

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

Ayes………. 29

Noes………. 25

Majority……. 4

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 440

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Reports

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, 1 present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

Aircraft maintenance complex and access pavements, RAAF base, Darwin, Northern Territory; and New hangar complex, HMAS Albatross. Nowra, New South Wales.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 440

IMMIGRATION (UNAUTHORIZED ARRIVALS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– The Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Bill 1980 provides legislative power for the Government to take action against the owners, charterers, crew or agents of vessels, be they ships or planes, which arrive in Australia without a permit or uninvited and which usually, of course, contain illegal immigrants, particularly refugees. The stimulus for this legislation comes from the refugee problem which has arisen particularly in this country since the Indo-China conflict and which has resulted in increasing numbers of refugees arriving at our northern shores uninvited, without visas and frequently have paid to come to the country. With such movements of people as have occurred in our near northern areas in recent years comes inevitably those who will seek to profit from human misery and despair and in this case those who would bring people here in vessels for a price with the certainty, as it has been in the past, that they will nearly always escape penalty. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Government finds the need to introduce such legislation and we certainly do not oppose the intent of the legislation.

Of course, there is another side to the coin and that is that, when such an influx of refugees occurs or when the situation arises as it has, there is amongst our citizens, as there is amongst citizens of all countries, a certain element in which latent xenophobia is present. This xenophobia becomes manifest as overt hostility to refugees when the refugee situation reaches the state it has now. Therefore, we believe that we as legislators must be careful not to be influenced by this attitude, by this sometimes very noisy manifestation of xenophobia and, therefore, not to overreact when introducing legislation such as this to control the flow of illegal refugees and the activities of those who would seek to profit from human misery.

Therefore, we do not oppose at all the principle of the legislation and its general thrust. We have some disquiet that the legislation may represent an excessive zeal on the part of the Government in seeking to penalise those who would abuse our laws and exploit the position. We are quite aware of the fact that the legislation is not aimed at the refugees themselves and that we are maintaining our responsibility as a signatory to the Geneva convention concerning refugees to accept such refugees. We are aware of the fact that this legislation is aimed at the people who would bring refugees to Australia. We have no qualms, Ibr instance, about the level of penalties - fines of $100,000 or 10 years gaol- for those who bring illegal immigrants or refugees into this country. But we have some difficulty with the extension of those penalties in some areas and with the manner in which in some clauses of the Bill those penalties are applied and people can be fined or gaoled. In the debate in the other place our spokesman on immigration, Dr Cass, dealt very carefully with these worries of the Opposition. The amendments which he moved and which I will move were not accepted by the Government in the other place and 1 accept that they will not be accepted by the Government in the Senate. But if the amendments do nothing more than draw to the attention , of the Government and the people the dangers that are inherent in this sort of legislation, we feel that we will have achieved something.

For instance, we are a bit concerned about the general way in which this legislation extends penalties to crew members who may be under the direct charge or, indeed, who may have an obligation to obey the master of their ship or the captain of their vessel. I am perfectly aware that in many cases the carrying of a large number of illegal refugees has been a co-operative effort; that, in fact, the crew has been part of the organisation bringing out those refugees and that the crew members have been profit-sharers in this area. But I suggest that there may well be cases where they are, in fact, the employees or the servants under the control of the owners, the agents or the charterers. lt seems to us that there is little protection in this legislation for such innocent people. If they are not nationals of this country and if they are not English-speaking there is a danger that innocent people may be affected.

We are also concerned, amongst other areas, about the nature of the arrest of people and the proceedings whereby they can be penalised under this legislation. For instance, clause 12 allows for arrests without warrant of people who are unauthorised arrivals in this country. That may or may not be necessary but 1 think we should be concerned when that situation exists. The clause provides also for a hearing before a magistrate which need not comply with the rules of evidence. People may be forced to give evidence - including evidence which incriminates them - in a situation which I am told does not apply in many Australian courts. The clause states, in part, that a hearing shall be held:

  1. . without regard to legal forms, and shall not be bound by any rules of evidence . . .

The magistrate may: . . inform himself of any relevant matter in such manner as he thinks fit.

This is pretty broad legislation. This is a very broad clause. We have always believed and accepted here that people’s rights should be protected and that they should be protected by rules, such as the rules of evidence. We found it difficult to see - initially in any case, in what is new legislation - why those words should be included in the legislation. We believe very firmly that people should be charged for committing offences under this legislation.

We accept that there is a problem. We accept that that problem will continue, with the world in the turbulent state it is in now. But we are very wary that with this legislation the problem may arise where, in our determination to get at people who profit in this way from human misery, who cause difficulties in our country, we might go too far and not protect the rights of individuals as we normally do under our legal system. We believe that people who are charged in this country deserve the normal protection of the court, the normal protection of the rules of evidence and, as my colleague, the honourable member for Maribyrnong, Dr Cass, said in another place, even the normal courtesies in a court to help such people to protect themselves and to plead properly.

We have other worries. We are aware that clause 21 of the Bill contains the very proper provision that people should not be allowed and it should be an offence for people to obstruct an officer in the course of his duty. But it may well be that, when instructions are given in English, someone who does not speak English does not understand the situation. Yet this legislation contains no provision for instructions or the law to be written in a language other than English. For this to happen in a society which is trying to work towards being a multicultural society, which certainly is a pluralistic society, we think is a bit unfortunate.

At the Committee stage 1 will move the amendments which were moved to this Bill and defeated in another place. We feel the necessity for the legislation is such that we in fact support its general direction. We do not wish to go to the barricades over the amendments we will move, but we ask the Government in the future to keep a close watch on how this legislation operates. We ask it to remember the points that we have made and the qualms that we have about the protection of individual liberties so that we can make sure that we recognise civil rights and civil liberties in a way that this country has always prided itself in doing, so that we can make sure that we can stand up in the world as a tolerant and just country, a country which has accepted so many migrants from so many different countries in recent years in a manner which has been to its credit. We should not mar that record by the introduction of over zealous legislation of this type.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The Senate is discussing the Immigration (Unauthorized Arrivals) Bill. I want to add a few comments, but I will not take very much of the Senate’s time. Many things Senator Grimes said on behalf of the Opposition are things which Government senators would want to endorse and support. This Bill deals with unauthorised arrivals of people in Australia and will introduce measures to prevent commercial attempts to bring people to Australia without permission. It is really a Bill to prevent exploitation of refugees. I think it has been brought about, particularly, by the situation that has arisen in lndo-China over the last few years and by the very large efforts which have been made in lndo-China for people to leave that area and to travel to safer places. Like Senator Grimes, I look at this Bill as a part of a wider problem, as part of the questions of what we in Australia feel is our place as a recipient of refugees, what our history is as a place which receives refugees and what our continuing role should be in opening our doors to people in need around the world. The Bill raises these wider issues.

When we look back over our record we find that Australian history is a very proud one. I am reminded that in 1938, when a blanket of darkness had settled over Europe, a conference was held at Evian-les-Bains in France, Efforts were made to find countries that would resettle some of the Jewish refugees at that time. One of the few countries that responded with a positive offer of sanctuary for some thousands of people - for small numbers of people; nevertheless, for some people - was Australia. That tradition has been developed and extended by governments of all political persuasions in the generations that followed World War II. Our history is a very proud one. The people from the Baltic states, after their tragic experiences in World War II, came to Australia in large numbers. As many honourable senators would know the number of refugees we have taken per capita of our population is the second greatest in the world. Only one country has taken more refugees and that is Israel. It did that for particular reasons. Australia has a record which is quite notable and very much to its credit.

My reason for joining in this debate - I think Senator Grimes has already referred to this - is that there are issues relating to South East Asia and to some of the ways in which people have been arriving which draws our attention towards particular problems which the South East Asian refugees, the Indo-Chinese refugees, present to some parts of the Australian community. We have a national record of accepting refugees gladly and of amending our immigration regulations to take into account new refugee situations. For example, I received very sympathetic help from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs two or three years ago when the situation in the Lebanon became particularly unstable. Particular efforts were made to try to accommodate the needs of people caught in the Lebanon and so on. It is unfortunate that, in spite of this, there remains in Australian society a thread of hatred and intolerance which would have us turn our backs upon the acceptance of arrivals of any kind from Asia, much less unauthorised arrivals.

I regret that I, and probably all other honourable senators, have been in receipt of some of the literature and have seen some of the efforts of those people who would try to stop some of these refugees from getting to Australia. I can understand that some people who resist the arrival of Indo-Chinese refugees do so simply because they do not understand. Some people do it because they are disturbed that their relatives, or perhaps people they know, have not been able to get immigrant visas, yet we take boat people, we take unauthorised arrivals, and we show compassion and concern for them. I say to these people: I understand how you feel, but you are wrong.

There are those people who are scared that something bad will happen if this country takes in people who have nowhere else to go, that the ethnic mix will be altered - not to put it too bluntly. I cannot understand the point of view of those people. This nation is a melting pot and its strength derives from the admixture of people and the cultural diversity which it has achieved over the last 30 years. I believe Senator Grimes has already referred to this. I think there is no honourable senator in this chamber who would not want to see that situation continue and who would not want to continue to support the kind of advantages which Australia has had. It gives me no pleasure, Mr President, when I see newspaper reports of a citizen of one of the States offering his home for sale, but not to an Asian. That, to me, is repugnant; it offends against everything I believe in.

There is a third group of people who oppose the entry of Indo-Chinese refugees, and they do it on the basis of race hatred. When I was campaigning in the Grayndler by-election a lot of material was posted around in the trees. At that stage the Honourable Michael MacKellar was Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. There were signs in the trees referring to ‘yeller MacKellar’ put out by some of these hate groups using these crude slogans to try to suggest that there was something in our immigration policy, something in our attitude towards Indo-Chinese refugees that in some way was bad for our society and bad for our community. 1 have received letters from such crazy groups as the Immigration Control Association. I believe a Mr Clarke is the president of that association. I had the pleasure of writing to him to state, in response to one of his pieces of literature, that one of the principles I held was in disagreement with everything that he and his group stood for. I asked him whether he would please pass that on. He had the courtesy to write back to say that he would pass it on, especially at election time.

Senator Puplick:

– They are not just crazy; they are dangerous.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– As Senator Puplick said, they are not only crazy, but also dangerous, but they are here in our society. This Bill, which is a Bill to protect people and to stop exploitation, must make us turn our minds to what some of these fringe groups are doing, some of the hatred which they are spreading and some of the ways in which they are undoing in our society many of the good things which are going on and many of the bridges which are being built. lt is worth putting on record my dissociation from all these extreme groups and what they are doing. I regard this legislation as being complementary to other work being done by the Government and by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. That includes such things as the regularisation of status program, which involves taking another look at how we should deal with unauthorised arrivals or, perhaps, people who have arrived in this country but who have overstayed their visas - people who are here. Of course, the amnesty which has been granted or offered under the regularisation of status program in itself offers new capacities for people to become Australian citizens and to share in this society.

As honourable senators will know if they read this legislation, it is extremely detailed. I understand that in the Committee stages many of the particular clauses will be examined. I do not wish to go into the details of the legislation. I believe it is a desirable piece of legislation. It is designed to prevent exploitation. When it is viewed in the wider context of Australia’s role as a refugee receiving nation, as a multicultural and accepting society and a nation which rejects the narrow kind of racism which some fringe groups espouse, I believe it will be seen to be good and worthy legislation which deserves the support of the Senate.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I briefly enter the debate to supplement what my colleague, Senator Grimes, has said. The only reservation I have - I agree largely with what Senator Baume said - is that probably if we had a standing Senate committee vetting immigration, as the United States has, particularly in relation to its refugee intake, we would remove some of the misconceptions. I say that because I well remember that when Senator Willesee was Foreign Minister we inherited the effects of the downfall of the Allende Government and took in our first LatinAmerican political refugees. It is difficult in more ways than one to overcome some of the technical difficulties with which we were beset. At that time I did not have a very high opinion of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I say that for a reason.

Last night I made a plea about how many people Australia is taking in from at least four Latin American countries that are suffering under fascist regimes. Senator Chaney, mindful of the latness of the hour, with my support had figures incorporated in Hansard. When one looks at the figures, one finds that from the Latin American dictatorships that exist, according to the strict term of political refugees, last year Australia brought in only five Argentinians, one Peruvian, two Uruguayans, one person from Paraguay, and 49 Cubans. This shows the weakness of the refugee policy. We ought to have a better quota system.

The Latin-American community in this country is comprised of taxpayers and trade unionists. I must say, in regard to Senator Baume’s comments about what we might call a mini-amnesty, that on behalf of the 118 trade unions in Sydney, through the Labor Council of New South Wales, 1 had a lengthy discussion with Mr Macphee some time before the amnesty was launched. It was very hard to tell some Latin American people that their society was better or less oppressive than societies in South East Asia. It is difficult to get greater parity in our annual intake from the areas that are under all forms of political oppression.

I know the difficulty because when the Labor Government of 1972-75 took 1,000 people from Chile and then about 5,000 people from Cyprus, following the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey, we felt that we had met our immediate commitments. Then there was the flow-on from the Whitlam to the Fraser era and both governments had to grapple with the Lebanese situation. One of the difficulties has been that we have had refugees from other areas, notably, of course. South East Asia and Latin-America. The demand from Latin-America is growing. Regrettably - one may take Lebanon as a case in point - these civil wars fester on. Some people are rejected. The line between family reunion and subjection to political duress is very hard to define.

Following the deliberations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees we might be a little more determined in regard to achieving parity in percentages or quotas. While there was a certain diplomatic battle between Carter and Castro, Australia apparently was leant on by the United States and took in 14 Cubans. It is debatable whether there was the same need to accept those people and their kith and kin from Cuba as there was in relation to people from Uruguay. Senator Evans indicated the shocking record of political terrorism there.

I believe we would have been able to get an even more bipartisan approach to the refugee policy by having the Senate committee that I advocated in August 1979, a replica of the US standing congressional committee. I think from time to time the Canadian Parliament adopts the same procedure. Ethnic groups can give evidence before such a committee and hear counterevidence. Some of them feel martyred. Senator Baume commented in regard to racism. I think he will agree with me that some ethnic groups are jealous of other groups and say that the other groups are getting a better run than they are. When facts and figures are given one can remove a lot of that jealousy. I again raise the question, and I certainly will continue to do so at meetings of Estimates Committee C, whether we are being taken for granted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. With Mr MacKellar, I spoke to one of the office’s representatives, a Brazilian, at a seminar last year. When I referred to our obligations, and particularly to the persecuted trade unionists in many of those LatinAmerican countries where trade unionism is getting a severe battering, the representative said that it is UN policy for North America to take those people and for Australia to take people from South East Asia. Once one group is given a privileged situation there is jealousy, envy and you name it. I cannot stress that point too much.

The second point I raise is one which Senator Grimes dealt with, and that is the extent of the penalties and how they will be enforced. There are some dubious vessels which have autocratic captains who rule, in a sense, with iron fists. A crewman may suddenly become aware that the captain is involved in some refugee rort. He has to think of himself. He may be dumped on the beach. He is wondering what will happen to him. Because of his fear of discipline he may perform an illegal act. Let us assume that on one of these vessels which is trading in human flesh a seaman jacks up and refuses to accept a command. The ship could be sailing under a Panamanian or

Greek flag, to name just two countries. The seaman may have to swim ashore. He may have no desire to stay in the country. He may want to follow his calling as a seaman. I ask the Minister whether we would utilise the refugee seaman’s convention for a man who, in an indirect way, refused to breach Australian law. What would we do in that case?

Most immigration rackets lead to somebody in Australia. As an illustration I refer to a Chilean national named Arroyo whom the Department - I say this respectfully - has had on ice for nearly 1 8 months. 1 concede that the New South Wales Government, through its Travel Agents Registration Board, has been trying to prosecute the travel agent involved. He has been very lucky. He has met some extremely charitable magistrates and has been getting adjournments for four months at a time. The Federal Government is reluctant as yet to give Arroyo permanent resident status. It was largely, through my agitation that he was given continuous extended visas. He will probably be a vital witness in exposing the racketeer I have in mind. Whatever the thrust of the legislation it is aimed at the unscrupulous master of a vessel. There mays also be some connivance on an airliner. That is all very well. I would like to believe even when prosecutions were brought the Government would probe the matter further to discover the link with the agent or ring involved. I know that the Government probably touched the tip of the iceberg in the recent case involving some Koreans. Admittedly, it did not involve many people. Whatever punitive clauses are contained in this legislation, I would like some assurance that the Australian Government will work much more closely with the States. Perhaps it will ask them to be more effective so that if the Federal Government cannot prosecute somebody the States will.

I received a letter recently from Mr Macphee. It touches on the Arroyo case. He also said that there are sometimes difficulties under Federal law in getting a conviction against some of these immigration-cum-travel agents. As I said, it may well be that the State travel agents registration boards can put these people out of business. Whether they can be put in gaol I do not know. In effect, there is a need to have an all-embracing, combined Federal - State law so that people will not take advantage of human misery. In conclusion, we accept quotas for people who are victims of political oppression. They have to be a reasonably good mix. People in at least five Latin American countries are going through extreme political oppression. They should be considered.

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

(5.17)- I thank Senator Grimes, in leading for the Opposition, for the way in which he supported the intent of the legislation and advised us that the Opposition does not oppose it. I took note of the matters that he raised and the comments that he made with regard to the hostility which can arise about refugees. He said that we should not overreact in some cases to these circumstances. Senator Grimes also expressed the disquiet of the Opposition with regard to some matters in the Bill. Perhaps I should refer to some of those but before doing so, I state again that the principal purpose of the Bill is to discourage operators of vessels from conveying to Australia large numbers of persons who do not .– proper documentation for travel to Australia. The Bill makes it an offence for the master, owner, agent, charterer and crew of a ship or aircraft or persons who have commandeered a ship or an aircraft to bring the vessel into Australia if it has on board more than five persons or such other number as may be prescribed who are not Australian citizens, do not hold visas or return endorsements for travel to Australia or who are not exempted by the Minister under the Migration Act 1958 from the necessity to obtain proper visas or return endorsements. The Bill makes it an offence for any person to scuttle or disable such a vessel within Australia or Australian waters without lawful excuse.

Some of the matters raised by the Opposition in the Senate were raised when the Bill was dealt with in the other place. Senator Grimes referred to crew members. I take this opportunity to express the comments of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) with regard to the liability of crew members. I can understand the Opposition’s concern. The matter was also referred to by Senator Mulvihill. The Minister has stated that whilst he has some sympathy for the views expressed by the Opposition concerning the position of crew members it must be remembered that the provisions of this Bill are directed to meet a very unusual situation. It is essential that the crew members of the big refugee boats be liable to the same penalties as a master, particularly as evidence has established that crew members on these boats have been intimately involved in the carriage of refugees and have derived substantial benefits therefrom.

The Minister in his second reading speech said that the Bill is principally designed as a deterrent to profiteers bringing large numbers of refugees to Australia. I think this is acknowledged by Opposition senators in the remarks that they have made. Failure to render crew members liable to the substantial penalties contained in the Bill would lessen its deterrent effect. We are not dealing with the usual situation in which articled crew members are on board. There is, in most cases, no formal documentation on board these vessels to show who is the master or who are the crew members. The Government is of the opinion that because of this unusual situation the Bill must of necessity cast a very wide net in order to prosecute all those who derive profits from the voyage. In this regard the Minister points out that since the introduction of the Bill on 1 May neither he nor his Department has received any adverse reaction to the proposal from shipping or airline operators. It may be remembered that the Bill was introduced and allowed to be exposed for public comment for some time before its passage through both Houses.

The Minister assured members of the other place that the Government has no intention of prosecuting innocent crew members, nor does it have any intention of prosecuting bona fide commercial carriers, who may, for example, effect a genuine rescue at sea. To ensure that this does not occur and that proper consideration is given to the matter, clause 23 of the Bill requires that any prosecution for offences attracting the maximum penalties must be consented to by the AttorneyGeneral. The Attorney-General would not give his consent unless he were satisfied that the interests of justice required the prosecution.

The Minister also pointed out that as a result of the provisions of clauses 2 and 3 1 the Bill will not come into operation until a date to be proclaimed and when proclaimed it will operate for a period of only 12 months unless its operation is further extended by the Governor-General in accordance with a resolution passed by both Houses of the Parliament. This mechanism will give the Parliament control over the extension of the operation of the Act. Those provisions are important. They give us an opportunity to test the Bill. I think both Senator Grimes and Senator Mulvihill will agree that we need to have a Bill of this kind to deal with an unusual situation, lt will not be proclaimed unless it is required to be used. If it is proclaimed it will be used in a way in which we can test it. After 1 2 months both Houses will need to pass a resolution and to get the assent of the Governor-General for the Bill to continue. Those safeguards are important to note, particularly as Senator Grimes referred to his concern about civil liberties.

The rules of evidence were also referred to. Again, I refer to the comments made by the Minister in response to the honourable member for

Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). In his statement he referred to matters relating to clause 12 and noted that the suggestion was that the prescribed authority should in all cases be bound by the rules of evidence. Clause 12 of this Bill requires a prescribed authority, who under clause 14 will be a magistrate, to inquire into, among other things, whether a person who had disembarked from a vessel without authority would fit into the category described by the honourable member. These inquiries may frequently be made in situations where the observance of formalities may be at best extremely difficult. The magistrate should be able to make whatever inquiries he considers appropriate even in an isolated situation of a kind which could arise with a boat arriving unexpectedly at a remote coastal area. I think that the overriding need to establish the facts of the matter- it is considered that the experience possessed by the magistrates will ensure that they adhere to the normal procedures as far as is practicaljustifies this provision.

In passing the Minister observed that coronial inquiries proceed precisely along these lines. He also stated that he believes that our magistrates have enough experience and conviction about the spirit of the administration of justice to ensure that natural justice prevails and that the fears of the honourable member for Maribyrnong will not be realised. In response to the debate on the Bill the Minister has given assurances which I believe were accepted by the Opposition. I thank Opposition senators for their comments with regard to the Bill. Senator Grimes commented that he hoped that the discussion that we have had in the Parliament on this matter has alerted the Government to ways in which the Bill would need to be interpreted and handled so that there would not be overreaction or miscarriage of justice in its application. With those comments I commend the Bill to the Senate. I thank the Opposition for its support.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave - I move:

  1. Page5, clause 6, sub-clause (5), lines 15 and 16, leave out “if the person charged establishes to the satisfaction of the Court”.
Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(5.33) - The Government has noted the amendments that have been moved by Senator Grimes. I indicate that, as I think is understood, the Government is not able to accept them. Senator Mulvihill raised the matter of a crew member on a vessel engaged in illegal activity. The matters contained in the statement that 1 made with regard to crew members would be taken into account. I think that individual circumstances would need to be considered at the time and all the factors taken into account. Senator Mulvihill questioned what would happen in an unusual situation that could arise. The Bill is able to deal with all matters related to unauthorised arrivals. However, our other immigration practices, which are so well known to the honourable senator, would be used to deal with the unusual circumstances he raised. I do not like to comment on behalf of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr

MacKellar) about Senator Mulvihills proposal for a continuous Senate committee.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I should have directed that to Senator Carrick. He is in charge of the Senate.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– He is. If there is ever such a committee I am sure that Senator Mulvihill will be a very prominent member of it.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a third time.

page 447

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Report on the Seventy-first Series of Variations to the City of Canberra

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I seek leave to make a statement in view of the fact that I did not table the report earlier when it was scheduled that 1 do so.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator McLaren:

– Whilst I have no objection to leave being granted I think what has happened here today has pointed out in no uncertain terms the disarray in which the Government has found itself since the Parliament resumed for the Budget session. We have seen complete confusion reigning each day with the tabling of papers. We now see confusion in connection with the business paper.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Mr President, a senator cannot speak in the way Senator McLaren is speaking.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator McLaren, you cannot take advantage of the question and speak in this way. Leave must either be granted or not granted.

Senator McLaren:

– I will give leave, but I might speak about the matter during the adjournment debate. The Government is in complete disarray.

Leave granted.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I thank Senator McLaren. On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present a report on the proposals for variations to the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and its environs - seventyfirst series - together with extracts from the minutes of proceedings of the Committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator KNIGHT:

– This report recommends the approval of works valued at over $ 1 .4m which involve 10 changes to the plan of Canberra. The Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly did not object to any of the variations and the report of its Finance Committee was considered by the Joint Committee in preparing this report. The Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory has approved a variation in the Belconnen Town Centre where last year it had rejected proposals to which both the Canberra Commercial Development Authority and the Canberra Revival Centre objected. Since then a draft policy plan for the Belconnen Town Centre has been published and the proposed change referred to in this report is supported by the organisations which objected to the changes considered last year. On this occasion the proposal is for the deletion of part of a road reservation off Chandler Street and the addition of a road off Benjamin Way. This is in accord with the draft policy plan and will provide access to the Belconnen Town Library.

The Joint Committee was concerned about the question of access to the Library for northbound traffic on Benjamin Way which it did not consider satisfactory. However, the Committee was later informed by the National Capital Development Commission that it ‘has an approved opening planned in the median of Benjamin Way to permit northbound traffic to turn right into the carpark and thus provide access to the cul-de-sac and complete the loop onto Benjamin Way’. A road in Civic has also been approved though it will mean the loss of some open space and trees in the area known as Glebe Park, lt will, however, permit a proposed major commercial development worth about $50m to go ahead. The Joint Committee has noted that $100,000 had been included in the NCDC construction program for 1980-81 for the development of Glebe Park. The Joint Committee has stressed that Glebe Park should be gazetted as a public park under the Parks Ordinance as soon as possible and believes the area should be suitably developed as a community facility.

Another variation concerns a proposed commercial development in Deakin. The Committee has sought further information on some of the issues raised during the public hearing on this proposal and may make a statement on it at a later date. At this stage the Committee is not satisfied with the information it has received on this proposal or with the planning of the area involved and will seek further advice from the National Capital Development Commission. This variation has therefore not been approved. Other variations were necessary to remedy encroachments or to allow particular developments to proceed and all have been approved by the Joint Committee. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 448

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (STAFF) BY-LAWS

Withdrawal of Notice of Motion

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– by leave- As 1 indicated when this notice of motion was given, it was given on the last available day for giving notice to allow the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances to conclude its inquiries in relation to the amendment of the Telecommunications (Staff) By-laws which is the subject of the notice of motion proposed by the Committee. The amendment concerned the power of the Australian Telecommunications Commission to dismiss staff. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) has now provided the Committee with a satisfactory explanation of the effect of the amendment which, read in conjunction with certain other provisions, has the effect of ensuring that certain temporary employees enjoy certain rights in relation to disciplinary offences provided in the Telecommunications Act. In the light of the explanation provided by the Minister, the Committee has decided to take no further action in relation to the amendment, and I therefore withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name, in accordance with notice of intention given yesterday.

page 448

PREFERENCE TO AUSTRALIAN GOODS (COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The purpose of the Preference to Australian Goods (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill is to require all Commonwealth authorities to give preference to the procurement of Australian made goods. The legislation is long overdue, lt is a laudable piece of legislation. One can ask the question why it has taken until 1980 for the Parliament to see fit to introduce this essential legislation.

The Labor Party thoroughly supports the attempt of the Bill to increase the Australian content of purchases by Commonwealth authorities and states quite unequivocally that there has been a failure of governments in the past to recognise their responsibilities in this respect. We make no apologies, however, for saying that the Whitlam Government was unable to bring such legislation forward in the years 1972-75. We must bear in mind the tremendous amount of legislation that the Parliament was required to consider in those years.

The growth problems of the Australian economy, the sluggishness of the private sector and the growth content of the three arms of government in this country are all the more reason why Australian manufacturing industries should be given an opportunity to participate in this area. The legislation embodies an excellent principle which can only bolster the prospects of providing increased employment in Australia and boost the economy. If pursued with appropriate determination by the Commonwealth, particularly along the lines proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, in his speech on the Budget in the House of Representatives last night, it is clear that the legislation can play a significant part in the regeneration of the Australian economy.

In essence the Bill aims to enforce the Government’s policy for procurement preference in respect of Commonwealth statutory authorities. There are two elements in the policy. Firstly, it calls for preference to be given to goods of Australian origin or of relatively greater Australian content unless there are substantial reasons to the contrary. Obviously, we will not enforce the policy if in fact the Australian market cannot produce the goods. Secondly, and importantly, the policy requires tender specifications to be drawn up so as not to exclude Australian suppliers which are suitable or reasonably adaptable in the circumstances. The problem has been that many statutory authorities have not complied with this policy in recent times. That is why, of course, the legislation is needed. When we appreciate the tremendous growth in the number of statutory authorities in the post-war years, I think it is understandable that legislation of this nature is necessary to bring all government purchasing between two parallel lines.

In large measure, the legislation is the result of legal advice obtained by the authorities to the effect that they could side-step the guidelines which had hitherto been imposed upon them. Their charters give them a degree of independence. Their charters establish them as independent authorities, and they felt that they had the authority to act regardless of what the policies of the national Government may be from lime to time. But since statutory authorities are responsible for more than two-thirds of total government procurements, this was a very substantial problem which had to be overcome. These statutory authorities have not complied with the Government’s wishes in these matters, lt is by no means the smaller ones that 1 am referring to, because the larger statutory authorities have taken an independent position from time to time. Telecom Australia is one that comes immediately to mind.

We are talking about purchases in the area of $3 billion to $5 billion per year, which is a substantial amount of money. If there is to be a proper analysis of the failure of past governments to recognise their responsibilities in these areas, we are inclined to be a little cynical about this piece of legislation because clearly in the years of growth in the 1950s, the 1960s and 1970s not enough attention and planning was paid to our own needs in respect of government purchases. I think it is scandalous that, because of this lack of foresight, the sum of money we are talking about here cannot be restricted to Australian produced goods and that Australian industry has not been encouraged or geared to meet the needs of our public authorities.

There has been a running down over many years in a whole range of areas. This is so particularly in regard to technology which is fundamental and vital, for example, to our defence requirements. When recently there grew in the Parliament, in the Government, and perhaps in the Australian community, a recognition of the need for an increase in defence spending - I do not want to enter into the argument of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing - what we found when we decided to allocate funds to increase defence expenditure was that Australian industry was not geared to meet that demand. The greatest proportion of the increase in defence expenditure will be on the purchase of goods overseas. When we get to that level we are probably at the end of a very long queue, which means that if there were an immediate defence requirement by the time that we placed the order and received the goods the need for such defence expenditure may well have passed.

Senator Chipp:

– That does not mean to say that a lot of these goods could not be made in Australia.

Senator GIETZELT:

– That is right. What I am advocating is that these sorts of goods ought Id have been in the planning stages, that the need for them ought to have been envisaged and that industry ought to have been encouraged to develop them. That is part of national government responsibility. Because Australia will be at the end of a long queue, we could quite conceivably miss out in respect of our defence purchases.

Australia has an untapped potential for implementing this policy in government establishments. That applies not only to the Department of Defence but also to Telecom Australia and the Department of Transport workshops, to name just a few. The Department of Transport and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation developed together the wellrenowned InterScan air navigation system which I remember discussing in the Senate last year with former Senator Webster. The failure of this Government to give that development a proper marketing is another story, but the development itself only highlights the potential for innovation which exists in this country.

Telecom workshops have modified international telephone exchange systems for this country, but unfortunately the modification is becoming the patented property of L. M. Ericcson Pty Ltd, a transnational electronics company, which will make billions of dollars of profit internationally, thanks to the assistance rendered by the Australian taxpayer and the technologists who are trained in this country. It is scandalous that this sort of lack of planning and lack of responsibility is allowed to continue, because there is a close relationship between government spending and the level of economic activity in the private sector. This has never been properly understood by the Government or its advisers. It has never been given appropriate recognition by conservative governments. Instead, this Government has pedalled what I believe and what the Labor Party believes to be the phony view that if public sector spending is cut, the private sector is somehow miraculously encouraged to increase its level of activity. That could be so, if in fact the Government were to give it the sort of encouragement and the sort of forward planning that could take place in this area of Commonwealth purchases.

The view that Australia can stand apart from its requirements in the area is completely nonsensical. It is a view which has cost Australia dearly. Needlessly, it has cost Australia dearly for the past five years, for by reducing demand in the public sector and by failing to ensure that this demand is increasingly met by local production, all that results is further damage to Australian industry. We need to think in terms not only of Commonwealth purchases but also the inability of the States to accept their responsibility in this area. What a great boost it would be if the States were to have the same sort of underlying philosophy that this legislation provides. That could be a very important element in developing a more viable manufacturing base in this country, having regard to the difficulties that our manufacturing industry suffers in this period of great structural change which is taking place within our country and changes which are taking place in the world market.

These are all influences which have disastrous effects upon the viability, the investment potential, the growth potential and the employment potential of industry. The latter is, of course, the most important element of all, that is, we should have a manufacturing base which is capable of meeting all of our domestic needs and which is capable of providing growth and job opportunities. Unfortunately, this Government’s policies have not provided that essential element. The potential to boost Australian production is being wasted because of this Government’s servile commitment to private enterprise, not recognising that public activity is an essential part of regenerative private enterprise. Because we will not accept the concept of some form of forward planning - indicative planning as other people call it - that opportunity is lost.

The sort of money that we are talking about just in respect of national authorities is something between $3 billion and $5 billion. If we were to add to that the sorts of potential purchases at the State level, or for that matter at the local government level, we would be talking about a tremendous area of growth in the area of public purchasing. For a government worth its salt, a government claiming to be representative of the needs of the Australian people, that should be the yardstick by which all its legislation is directed.

This legislation contains the potential that 1 have been referring to. Why has it taken so long to bring it forward? After all, the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, promised it in 1975 and again in 1977. Now in the dying days of the second Fraser Administration, on the eve of an election, the legislation is being brought forward.

We have lost five valuable years in the Australian manufacturing industry in which, had the legislation been brought forward, jobs could have been created on a time scale that would have assisted in relation to the claims made in all of the Budget pronouncements and the statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Productivity (Mr Newman), the Treasurer (Mr Howard), the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) and all of the principal spokesmen of the Government who talk about the need to get the economy going and about the need for manufacturing industry to play a meaningful role in our society. Yet it takes us five years to reach the point where a piece of legislation comes into being for the purpose of realising a very desirable, laudable and proper objective.

Perhaps we can be excused if we are somewhat cynical when we hear excuses that the Government is under some pressure from sections of the Australian manufacturing industry to bring this legislation forward. Surely the Government cannot argue that it has taken all this time to prepare a draft of the legislation. There is an obvious bipartisan approach. The Government knows full well that it will receive the unanimous support of the Parliament and our manufacturing industries. Nobody in this country would challenge the concept that in all of our government purchasing there should be a bias toward the purchasing of Australian goods.

Having said that, naturally we will give support to the legislation. We will be watching very carefully the endeavours of this Government to make sure that all of the statutory authorities in this country come to the party and play their parts in developing a stronger industrial base in our country at a time when it is under pressure. We will be watching this Government, in the few weeks that it has left, to see whether it takes the next step; that is, raising with the State governments in the spirit of the wonderful words which we have heard so often in this place - cooperative federalism - that the States too apply the same concepts that are embodied in this legislation and so play some part in job creation which surely ought to be the only principal strategy of any government worth its name in this country.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Australian Democrats strongly support the Preference to Australian Goods (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1980, as does the Australian Labor Party. We are very much in favour of the concept which the Bill provides. We have consistently supported Australian manufacturing industry especially in regard to protection. I have said that I sometimes wonder what happens to the academics who hide away in Treasury or in the Industries Assistance Commission and who make these erudite statements that we ought to remove protection and apply it only to efficient and economic industries. 1 sometimes wonder what solutions they have to the massive unemployment that that would cause in Australia. In the couple of minutes remaining to me to speak on the Bill this evening, 1 wish to develop further the point which was mentioned by Senator Gietzelt about defence spending.

The Australian Democrats believe that a great amount more of defence spending should be directed to Australian industry. Recently I was privileged to be a guest at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Amberley where the FI I ls are based. I saw the incredibly delicate work being done by Australian technicians there on repairing the FI 1 1 . As I understand it, when we bought the Fill it could not fly very well. The aircraft could not function very well. The fact that it now is an incredibly good performer is essentially due to the ingenuity and artisanship of Australian technicians who have perfected the faults in the black boxes and throughout the rest of the aircraft. I was informed that the aircraft has been improved to such an extent that the Americans intend to seek Australian expertise in sorting out some of the problems.

I am not persuaded that the new aircraft - whatever the Government buys in the United States of America - could not be manufactured in Australia. There could be a contract with an overseas company but with the proviso that the aircraft is, in fact, manufactured here. I am mindful of the contracts entered into by countries such as Israel and Sweden when they buy defence equipment from the United States. They insist that the Americans establish a factory in their own countries and use workmen from those countries. I do believe that it is time, as I said in this chamber last week, that we had more confidence in the ability of Australians to perform these sorts of tasks. We should at least give them an opportunity, with the consequent savings in foreign balances and the building up of our own expertise in Australia.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

page 451

QUESTION

BUDGET PAPERS 1980-81

Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Senate taken note of the papers.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Mr President, the Senate will be debating this evening and for some sitting days to come - for what remains of this session - this Budget brought down last Tuesday and legislation emanating from that Budget. The most significant thing at present about the state of the economy would be its sluggishness; that is, it is in a fairly depressed condition. For example, about 450,000 Australians are seeking employment. On an annual basis that figure is still on the rise. Amongst that group of people we have a very large percentage of young people up to the age of 25 years who are seeking employment, many of whom have been unemployed for several months and whose prospects of getting employment are slim. In the regional areas of Australia we know that for every one vacancy that exists as many as 20 or 25 young people are seeking employment. At the same time, the building industry is in a depressed condition, running at about 15 or maybe 20 per cent undercapacity throughout the country. In various areas the rate of depression of the building industry varies. It is sufficient to say that there are very real needs for stimulation of the building industry.

There are three areas in the economy where an initiative can be taken or a stimulus can come from to get the economy moving again. We can look at the federal area, the responsibility of the Federal Government, the State governments and the private sector. Despite the fact that it is generally recognised that the economy is slow and, in fact, depressed one would have thought that this Budget would have been an opportunity for the Fraser Government to take the initiative and act as a national government and set about giving the stimulation that the economy needs. One of the salient aims of the Fraser Government was gradually to reduce the role of the Federal Government in Australia. This, of course, was part of the new federalism policy which was enunciated in 1975 and which has been in the process of being implemented over the last four and a half years. The essential aim of that policy is to downgrade the role of the Federal Government in Australia, allegedly upgrade the role of the State governments and, therefore, in some way to stimulate the private sector. All of us realise that in the type of economy we have in Australia there is no point in any one of these three sectors being deliberately depressed. If any one of them is depressed obviously there is an effect on the other two sectors. If we look al the position over these past 4i years, it would seem that one of the main reasons why the economy remains in its present condition is a deliberate policy to keep the role of the Federal Government in Australia not only at a minimum level, but also at a reducing level; that is, its effect on the economy is gradually declining. That is a deliberate decision by the present Government.

This Budget is not a document to promote either economic growth or industry confidence. Significantly, it gives the lie to the argument which this Government has pushed that it has brought about lower inflation, lower taxation and smaller government. As usual, it is left to the Treasury attachments to the Budget to spell out the important matters. As we heard this afternoon in the course of the debate in this chamber, lax collections are at an all-time record in both real and absolute terms. The personal income tax collections of this Government have almost doubled in the time from an amount of $9 billion in the 1975-76 Budget to $17 billion in the present Budget; that is to say, income tax collections have doubled. They have not been reduced. So much for the promises of tax indexation and of lower taxation which we were given in 1975. There has been a general deception of the Australian people.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his Treasurer (Mr Howard) place great store on the fact that, for the first time, they are producing a domestic surplus. The figure is $39m. It is put out as evidence that they are good housekeepers. What we are not told is that borrowings, both in Australia and overseas, are running at record levels. At present public sector borrowing is running at $4.3 billion and overseas borrowings by the Commonwealth to prop up the balance of payments is still over $6 billion. The Treasurer has conveniently forgotten that he has achieved a domestic surplus only by forcing bodies such as Telecom Australia and the Australian Wheat Board to borrow on commercial markets. So substantial sums have been shifted out of the Budget. In the longer term, these have contributed to forcing up interest rates. While it is possible to argue that it has lessened the pressure from government borrowings, the net effect is more likely to be an increase in rates because these authorities have still been borrowing.

The domestic deficit has also been reduced by the rapid increase in the crude oil levy. This year that levy is reaping for the Government $3, 500m from the motorists of Australia, which is working out at something like $18 a week from each motorist in this country. That increase in revenue from the petrol tax has increased 12 times in the 41 years of the Government. The Government claims that there must be no relaxation of the socalled relentless effort to control inflation. We agree that getting inflation down is an essential requirement, but it is rising again under this Government’s policies. This year it is expected to be around 1 1 per cent. Some people in the business world tell us that it will be close to 1 3 per cent by the end of the year. This has been a direct result of the petrol pricing policy. It is quite obvious that the intention of the Government in reducing inflation has been upset by this petrol policy.

The Government seems to bc ignoring the possible impact of the recession in the United Stales and the upward pressure on the Australian dollar. In spite of the constant allegations that wage increases have adversely affected Australia’s competitive position, the true position is reflected by the value of the Australian dollar against our major trading currencies. If the mineral boom. which this Government depicts as being just around the corner eventuates, it will place strong upward pressure on the value of the dollar. Unless the Government deliberately holds it down and by doing so encourages speculative short run capital inflows, the value of the dollar will rise and our rural and manufacturing export industries will suffer. More jobs will be lost, and in such a proportion that the mining industry will simply not be able to replace them.

That is exactly the same approach which the Government is using with the States. As I mentioned earlier, the States, being an integral part of the total economy, have had an extremely raw deal under the present Government. To see the manner in which the States are not able to provide the capital funds necessary for roads, building, construction and so on which it is their responsibility to provide we should look back over the past four Budgets to 1975-76. We will find that the general purpose capital funds which have been paid out to the States, in fact, have been frozen. As far back as 1975-76 total payments of those funds to the States were $1.3 billion. This year, that is five Budgets later, they stand at the same figure of about $1.3 billion. In other words, there has been virtually no increase in real terms. In specific purpose capital payments to the State governments there is also quite a dramatic picture. This time there has been a dramatic fall. In 1 975-76 the Federal Government made available $1.8 billion to the States for these purposes. This year the figure has declined to $1.4 billion. So again there has been a massive loss of funds to the Slates. Therefore, there has been a reduction in their capacity to provide the stimulus, especially to the private sector, which I am sure everybody would wish to see.

This Budget does nothing whatsoever to rectify that position. In fact, that policy will continue while the Fraser Government continues deliberately to attempt to force the State governments to raise their own revenue by instituting the State income tax idea. This Government has not heeded the advice of the Jackson Committee, the Crawford Committee or the Myers Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia. All of those committees made it clear that strong economic growth is a partnership between the sectors, that is, the public and the private sectors. This Government seems to expect the private sector and the State governments to carry the load of stimulating economic activity. How can they when, for example, the building and construction industry is dependent on such things as welfare housing and government contracts generally? As this Government continues to cut back in capital funds to the States the labour intensive industries will contract. This does nol lead to the strong growth in employment which the Treasury argues is the basic element in growth and expenditure. There is very little which offers any prospect of increasing employment significantly.

On the basis of the Budget figures there is little hope for the unemployed. We have to look only at page 105 of Budget Paper No. 1, which shows payments for the unemployed and related benefits, to see the testimony to the failure of the Government’s policy. In 1978-79 the actual payments were $9 10m. The figure will climb this year to $959m, an increase of $34m. That amount of money is being paid to unemployed persons when, in fact, the policy should be to get these people back into jobs so that they find some purpose in their lives and they also, of course, help to stimulate the economy generally. It is important to realise that the policies which have been adopted and which are being adopted are only exacerbating and worsening the position that we are seeing. At a time when the economy is labouring to recover, the rate of unemployment remains at about seven per cent of the work force, which is the highest figure we have seen since the Depression.

So the Government again is not prepared to take any measures to alleviate this problem which we find in the economy. Unless there is a change of heart and unless the Government is prepared to recognise that it has a national responsibility to initiate moves, obviously there cannot be any recovery which will be really effective for the Australian community. 1 believe there is no justification for the Prime Minister to wash his hands of the problem and tell the States or the private sector that they must get up and go. The national Government should set the standards. It should be giving a lead; it is not. Therefore it does not deserve the confidence of the Australian people. I am sure that it will find out shortly that it does not have that, confidence.

The PRESIDENT:

– I now have very much pleasure in calling Senator Neal. I wish to point out that the honourable senator is making his first speech in this place. 1 trust that the usual courtesies traditional to these historic occasions in the political life of any person will be extended to him. Senator Neal, I have pleasure in calling upon you to speak to us.

Honourable senators Hear, hear!

Senator NEAL:
Victoria

– Thank you, Mr President. It is a great honour and a privilege to have been nominated by the National Country Party of Australia and chosen by the Parliament of Victoria to represent that State in this prestigious and historic House. As the youngest senator from Victoria ever to serve in this chamber, I follow a small group of National Country Party senators from that State who have served Victoria with distinction. I should mention in particular my friend and predecessor in this House whose appointment as High Commissioner to New Zealand allowed me to take this present position. I refer to Senator the Honourable James Joseph Webster, who served in various capacities in this chamber –as Leader of the National Country Party, Chairman of Committees, Deputy President and Minister for Science and the Environment. Jim Webster brought a vigorous and business-like approach and a unique number of skills, including accountancy, to government. He served Australia well as a Minister and continues to do so in his capacity as High Commissioner to New Zealand. I am sure that this House wishes Jim and his family every happiness and success for the future.

Tonight I wish to touch on some aspects of my own political philosophy, which clearly, I believe, fit into the mainstream of Australian politics. But more than that, my philosophy is one which reflects, I believe, the aspirations, the ideals and the needs of the great majority of the Australian people. The genesis of the National Country Party was in the town and country areas of Australia at about the turn of the century, lt was a unity of interest between those who lived in the towns and those who lived on the farms that led to the emergence of my party. Both types of people saw a countryside that lacked roads, schools and water supplies. Both believed in the virtues of life in the country. Fundamentally this ideology pointed out that all country people were on the same side in trying to achieve a balanced development of Victoria and the other States. This ideology stresses an equality of opportunity. Fundamental, 1 believe, to this thinking was the need to protect and develop the great wealth-producing industries of our land, lt was on these which the nation and ultimately every person in it depended for the wealth needed to promote a better way of life.

The early leaders of my party and party members grew up in a world where communications were bad, where government was remote. They understood how a government could act against the wishes of the majority of the people. They understood the need of the people to feel that they were important; that their needs were being effectively represented in the Federal Parliament. My prime aim on entering politics is to ensure that this kind of representation is maintained. My party continues today to work for more effective local government and is opposed to the centralisation of power. A basic element of my philosophy is the importance of the individual. My party has always regarded the individual as the key element in society and the family unit as the basis and cornerstone of our society. Freedom of the individual, though, involves not only freedom of choice but also equality of opportunity. In essence, equality of opportunity means that each individual should have the same basic opportunity to follow his or her life as the abilities and capacities dictate. My party established that principle in its fight for equal opportunities for the people in the areas throughout Victoria and throughout Australia that it represented.

In many cases, because of institutional factors, equality of opportunity can become a reality only through government action. Therefore, I recognise a clear need for government involvement in the community. I recognise the need for the Commonwealth to play a part in providing a framework for the individual so that he can gain a measure of security. Of course, that does not mean that it is the States’ responsibility to protect people from the results of their decisions; rather, it means giving people a measure of protection from things such as economic fluctuations by means of proper economic management and providing help for those people in our society who need it. 1 believe that we must be aware of the need to protect the minority rights, the minority groups, in our society. I refer to the unemployed, the new settlers, the pensioners, the aged, our first Australians and”, generally, the socially disadvantaged in the community. After all, it was the grievances of a group of people who believed that they were disadvantaged that provided the impetus for my party’s formation. I believe that it also is vital to make government responsive to the needs of the population and, by extension, that people should feel involved and be involved in governing their society. The importance of the individual, the need to protect minority rights and to make government responsive to the needs of individuals affects attitudes towards government in many ways. Firstly, the actions of government should always be subject to close scrutiny. Secondly, I believe excessive central control of government needs to be avoided. Thirdly, I believe smaller administrative units are needed to cater for local needs and to counter excessive centralism.

Having spent much of my working life as an educator, naturally 1 am interested in educational method and educational systems generally. But particularly I am concerned for the welfare of both students and the teaching profession. I am anxious to ensure that in this Government we do all that we can to produce thoughtful, caring, aware young adults and ultimately school leavers. We must constantly do all we can to ensure that they spend their time usefully and productively at school, each working to his or her appropriate capacity, and that when they leave school, college or university they know what role they can play in the wider Australian community. I am anxious also that our school leavers and graduates are well trained to meet the new century.

I congratulate the Government on funding an additional $260m from the Budget to bring the Commonwealth’s contribution towards education to $2,867m. Honourable senators will notice that next year 89,000 students will receive benefits under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. 1 am glad to see that the Government is able to achieve a further easing of the burden on TEAS recipients. That is an area of government assistance which, I am sure, many of us believe should receive greater attention. I know that some hard words have been said about this matter and perhaps more money should be made available. TEAS has been supplemented. Honourable senators can be sure, however, that I will keep working for it, just as the Government will. It certainly is not unreasonable in many cases to expect the family to help to some degree to alleviate the difficulty.

The education budget contains significant adjustments to a number of schemes. I mention a few of them: The Aboriginal schemes, including the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme and the Aboriginal Secondary Grants Scheme; assistance to isolated children; the Transition from School to Work Program; and assistance to handicapped children. The fact that many of those schemes are now more relaxed in their means tests seeks to ensure that, whilst money is spent where it is most needed, access to it by people will be more widely available. I congratulate the Government on its defence funding increase. It is shopping carefully for the best and technically the most efficient defence hardware the world has to offer. However, I ask the Government to write into those contracts as large an Australian materials and assembly component as is possible. I believe we need every possible post to be made a winner in this respect in order to find work for Australians and Australian industry.

I now refer to the small business sector and renew the call of the General Manager of the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for a government-sponsored national conference to be held, which would involve all facets of small business, Australia-wide. That has just been done in the United States of America, where 1,700 businessmen met with the Government at the President’s personal invitation. The conference produced 60 points, from which it is expected that guidelines for government initiatives will be produced. I am pleased to back John Horrower’s call and commend the suggestion to the Government as an initiative and a mechanism which could help the growth of industry and commerce in Victoria and in Australia generally.

Because I represent Victoria in the Senate, I wish to assure Victorians that their interests are also mine. During my time in the Parliament I intend to specialise in helping to uplift the status of Victoria’s transport system, to make it among the best in the world. In common with all Victorians, 1 find many aspects of the present transport system dilapidated and archaic. I give the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) due and timely notice that they will find me in constant attendance on their respective doorsteps until sufficient finance is made available to overhaul the railway, tramway, bus and road systems, upgrading them and renewing them, consistent with the modern requirements of a hardworking State. Here 1 enter a plea that special attention be paid to the morale of transport staff. I therefore make a strong call for another look at Victoria’s transport problems, at the need to produce the right policies which will promote enthusiasm throughout the service.

My second pledge is to work towards a solution of the many faceted problems of unemployment, with particular regard to youth. While working for the good of all of Australia, I will continue to keep in close touch with primary industry. I realise that a superficial examination of the Budget may fail to find what the Budget strategy will do for the country. To highlight the Government’s help to rural industry and rural people, I draw attention to specific policies and schemes relating to rural industry. Mr President, 1 seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard specific statistics relating to government measures.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

The Budget contained increased appropriations for 1 980-8 1 in several important primary industry areas, including: an increase of $6m for wool promotion, from $14m in 1979- 80 to $20m an increase of $2.1m for wool research, to $7.1m for

1980- 81

extension for a further 12 months to the end of December 1981 of the $20 per tonne nitrogenous fertilizers subsidy, at a cost of $5m $ 1 7.7m set aside for assistance under the rural adjustment scheme, compared with expenditure of $15.6m in 1979-80 an increase of $ I m over 1 979-80 for fisheries research, promotion, development and administration of the 200-mile Australian fishing zone. net outlays for cattle disease eradication and compensation payments estimated to increase from $2.5m in 1979-80 to $3.4m. net outlays on meat export inspection and animal health services estimated at $21. 7m, compared to $18.4m in 1979-80 an increase of Sim to $6. 7m for export inspections of grains, wool, fruits and other exports requiring quality certification funding for the commonwealth extension services grant to be retained at the same level as 1 979-80, $5m introduced a new taxation concession for four years from I July 1980 to allow immediate write-off of expenditure of subdivisional fencing and stockyards which is certified by disease eradication authorities as being essential to control livestock for brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication where compulsory disposal of stock occurs as a disease eradication measure, the proceeds will not be taxed until the replacement stock are sold.

Country areas will further benefit from other Budget decisions for example, to: introduce a new incentive to encourage superannuation or retirement planning by self-employed people through an effective doubling of the current rebate of $ 1 2,000 increase the allowance payable for children of isolated families attending boarding schools increase benefits paid to people who care for chronically ill or disabled relatives or other people in their own homes who would otherwise need nursing home care improve benefits under the isolated patients’ travel and accommodation assistance scheme, which helps people living in isolated areas to obtain specialist medical treatment increase allowances paid for children of pensioners and beneficiaries increase the rate of handicapped children’s allowances.

Initiatives that have been taken outside the Budget context give further evidence that this Government does have the interests of primary producers and country people very much in mind. For example: earlier this year introduced a major taxation concession allowing for immediate 100 per cent write-off of capital expenditure on plant and structural improvement for conserving or conveying water for primary production (dams, wells, pumps, etc.) implemented new wheat marketing arrangements to facilitate earlier payments for wheat deliveries cut price of propane and butane and introduced a new pricing arrangement to keep LPG at no more than half the price of petrol provided an $80 subsidy to householders using reticulated and bottled LPG extended the fuel freight subsidy scheme which will benefit rural Australia to the tune of $123m this financial year raised the wool floor price to 365 a kilo for 1980-81 season increased the dairy underwriting level for the 1980-81 season by 20 per cent to $2. 1 0 per kilo butterfat at the farm gate lifted the interest rate on income equalisation deposits from 5 per cent to 7 per cent slashed costs of STD and trunk calls in off-peak periods, and promised further reductions in long distance charges after Easter next year.

These are all positive initiatives which are of direct benefit to rural Australia. When considered in total, 1 believe everybody must acknowledge that the Government’s record of recognition and implementation of measures to meet the needs of primary producers and country areas is an impressive one.

Senator NEAL:

– Thank you, Mr President. Finally, I wish to comment briefly on the Senate. I do so because to many Australians the role and the nature of the Senate is not clearly understood. Under the Australian Constitution the Senate has very special and very important responsibilities and great powers as part of the Commonwealth Parliament. I believe that we must continue to strengthen the effectiveness of the Senate, lt is a House of review, both in terms of the legislation which comes from the House of Representatives and in its providing a counterbalance to excessive powers of the Executive of the day. The Senate is also rightly described as a States House. This was a key aspect in its original conception. I understand the term ‘States House’ to mean more than the mere parochialism of one State against another. Senators may cogently present the real and diverse interests of their particular States to the nation.

Mr President, I am a firm supporter of the Senate’s committee system. Perhaps there is a need to inform the community more widely about the work and the role of our committees, especially their ability to gather evidence and to work co-operatively with different members of various political parties. This I see to be a great strength of the committees. It is perhaps the bipartisan nature of our committees that provides a unifying aspect to our parliamentary work. An important aspect of the Senate is its ability to protect personal rights and liberties which might be endangered if there were a concentration of unrestrained power in the lower House. The defence of the rights and liberties of the citizen is an area of responsibility that crosses party lines in this chamber, and it is one that I will seek to maintain while I am a member of the Senate. In the words of J. R. Odgers:

In general, the Senate is the watchdog and the safety valve of the Australian federal system and of the nation. The Senate will always keep its important identity as a States House. However its responsibilities have become as much national as State.

Mr President, 1 thank you and honourable senators for the friendship, guidance and assistance that you have provided in the short time that I have been a member of this chamber. I give my thanks also to the officers of the Senate for their advice and assistance. I look forward to taking part in future debates, and I thank the Senate for the courtesy that has been extended to me tonight by honourable senators.

Honourable senators:

– Hear, hear!

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I begin by taking the opportunity of contratulating Senator Neal on his maiden speech in this place. 1 hope we will hear a lot more from the honourable senator in the remaining time in which he is a senator. The Senate is debating the Budget which was brought down a little over a week ago. The Budget Papers which accompany the Budget are a monument to five years of the Government’s endeavours to manage the Australian economy - five years of effort; five years of failure. The record of that failure, whatever waffle goes on in the Senate, is contained in the Budget Papers. Essentially, the Government has said in relation to the 1980-81 Budget that it intends to rely on its record. In a minute I shall examine that record as it is, but before doing that I want to make one or two general comments about what the Budget documents reveal in respect of a number of key matters of crucial importance to a great number of Australians.

Firstly, the Budget Papers reveal that this is the highest taxing and highest spending government in the history of Australia. If one looks at the Budget receipts, as revealed in the Budget Papers in terms of the tax burden on Australians, one sees that total taxation receipts are in the order of onethird larger than the total receipts of the first years of the Fraser Government, 1976-77. The total expenditure of the Federal Government, as estimated in the current Budget, represents another increase of more than 50 per cent since the Fraser Government came to power in 1975-76, committed as it was to cutting government expenditure. If one looks at the total receipts in terms of the Commonwealth Budget and the fact that State government expenditure and State government employment have increased considerably in these five years, one will see the effect on the overall development of the public sector in Australia that there has been under a government committed to reducing the size of the public sector.

The Budget which has been brought down is accompanied by statements about the Government relying on its record for the previous five years. I want to examine that record in terms of the living standards of the average Australian. First of all, I want to deal with the question of employment because it is implicit in these Budget statements that a high level of unemployment will continue under the present Government, and will in fact increase. It is also quite clear that the Government is committed nol to expending any additional funds on job creation schemes or the training of unemployed personnel in the foreseeable future. The promise made in November 1977 was that unemployment under a Fraser Government would start to fall in February 1978 and would continue to fall. The record, the performance, as distinct from that promise, is entirely different. The Budget Papers reveal the fact that it is entirely different from the promise of performance. In 1980, when there are 200,000 more registered unemployed in Australia than there were in 1975 when the Fraser Government came to power, the promise of 1977 has been seen to be very empty indeed.

Secondly, I want to touch on the matter of inflation as revealed by the Budget Papers, lt is clear that the level of inflation in Australia in the coming Budget year probably will reach 12 per cent. The promise of the Fraser Government in 1975 and again in 1977 was to reduce inflation. The promise in 1977 was that inflation would be reduced to a rate of 5 per cent or 6 per cent in the course of the calendar year which followed. Current inflation rates are creeping back to close to the level of calendar year inflation rates which the Government inherited from the previous Government.

Thirdly, there is the question of interest rates. The promise in November 1977 of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) was that if interest rates did not fall by 2 per cent in the coming six months he would eat his hat. That is a promise which, as I think 1 have said before in this place, appeared to be unpalatable to the Deputy Prime Minister because there has been no sign at all of that happening. The fact is that Australia is facing increasingly rising interest rates. Home buyers in particular are facing increasing interest rates which considerably affect the household incomes of a very large percent age of Australians.

Next I draw attention to the question of petrol prices, a matter which has been debated and argued about in the Senate for some time. The promise made in 1977 by the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, was that country petrol prices would be reduced to within one or two cents of city prices, without any consequent increase in the city price of petrol. The accompanying promise from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, was that Australia had no need to move rapidly to world parity pricing. He thought that that would be inadvisable in November 1977. Those were the two promises that were made. The performance of the Government is reflected in the increasing weekly expenditure on petrol by every Australian family. The average now spent, in terms of the increase in petrol prices under Fraser Government policies is about $16 per Australian family. Again, one can see the difference between the promise and the performance.

I now refer to the area of health insurance. When this Government came to power the promise made by the current Prime Minister was that Medibank would be maintained and extended. There have been four or five changes in health insurance arrangements in Australia since that date. The result is that health insurance in Australia is in a greater mess than it was in the 1960s, with fewer Australians being insured and all Australians paying vastly more, if they have health insurance, than they paid in 1975 or in 1976. 1 draw the Senate’s attention to a summation of these matters which appeared in the Melbourne Herald on 3 May 1980 under the heading Tax by stealth lives on’. The article commented on each of the issues to which I have referred,- particularly health services, petrol prices and mortgage repayments on home loans, lt stated:

When the present Government came to power, hospital and medical care services were free. Now the average family pays around $ 1 0 a week in insurance for these services previously paid for by the Government.

Tax has obviously been raised by an effective $10 a week by this manipulation.

On petrol prices the article stated:

In addition, since 1976, the Government has reaped a tremendous tax harvest from petrol, through higher excise and the crude oil levy.

Experts put this harvest at about 7c a litre for the period or about $3.50 a week for the average family spending $20 on fuel for the family Holden.

On mortgage rates the article stated:

Since most households have a mortgage and a loan to buy a car (say $25,000 mortgage and $5,000 car loan) they have probably had to pay an extra $300 to $400 a year with a 1 to 1 i per cent lift in interest payable. This is equal to $6 to $9 a week.

Taking these factors into account, plus the fact that indexation has failed to keep after tax pay in line with the increasing cost of living, is it any wonder that retailers and manufacturers are depressed at the volume of trade and orders?

Is it any wonder at all? Quite apart from the promise and performance in respect of employment, inflation, interest rates, petrol prices, health insurance and particularly mortgage rates, I refer the Senate generally to the promise and performance in relation to personal income taxation on every Australian wage and salary earner and family. All these factors put together constitute a total tax on the living standards of Australian families and a decline in real living standards for the average Australian. I would argue that the Government is cynical, complacent and out of touch with the interests of Australian families.

I refer again to the 50 per cent to 60 per cent increase in taxation revenue in the last two or three years under the present Government. It. is now estimated that a person on average weekly earnings, estimated this year to be about $14,440, at the end of this year will require to receive a pay increase of about $16 a week to restore him to the economic position equivalent to the one he was in at the end of 1975. That calculation takes into account the Budget estimates themselves for the increases in earnings and inflation this year. It also makes allowance for health insurance and makes the necessary adjustments for the extra amount of money that families receive through the family allowance, an allowance which has not been increased in the present Budget. As a result of this Government’s deliberate policies there has been a significant move in the burden of taxation away from the wealthier section of the community more directly into the area of the pay-as-you-earn taxpayer.

The discussion on the deficit in the Senate at Question Time, if one can dignify it by calling it a discussion in the context of Question Time, by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick), is perhaps a very academic discussion to the average Australian wage and salary earner. But it is important for him to understand that when this Government says it has reduced the size of the deficit and in fact budgeted for a domestic surplus in this financial year it has done so at the expense and burden of the taxpayer, that being the most important underlying factor in the reduction of a deficit in 1980-81. Income tax receipts have also increased as a proportion of gross domestic product since 1975-76 and the share of total revenues of income tax receipts has not changed much. lt was clearly indicated in a document which gave advice to the Government on this matter, advice which the Government chooses to ignore in the pursuit of ideological politics, that the vast burden has fallen increasingly on the payasyouearn taxpayer. Rates of tax on average earnings have increased slightly over the period but have fallen for non-wage and salary income earners. In essence those people are the professional classes and business managers. The reason that the tax burden on non-wage and salary earners has fallen in Australia is increased tax avoidance. On the question of tax avoidance in this country, there has never been more windy rhetoric from Government spokesmen and less action. Tax avoidance has been talked about by Ministers in this Government. Small initiatives have been taken, but the problem has in no sense been tackled. The real reason it has not been tackled is that the Government has neither the gumption nor the ideological commitment to attack the public immorality of tax avoidance which is rife in Australia at the moment. It is not only a means of aggrandising the personal incomes of the wealthy sections of the community but also it is damaging to this society as a cynical exercise and abuse of the system which discourages confidence in the Government, the system of government and the justice and equity of the whole society in which we live.

Senator Primmer:

– The very fabric of our society.

Senator BUTTON:

– As Senator Primmer pointed out with a fine rural analogy, it attacks the very fabric of our society. Those are the things to which governments legitimately concerned about the fabric of society ought to be addressing their attention. But nothing has been done about that. As was pointed out in the Senate this afternoon, the solution to massive tax avoidance in Australia is simply to legislate retrospectively. We could wind up the Peter Clynes of this earth and the tax avoidance industry very quickly if we were prepared to tackle courageously and vigorously the whole question of tax avoidance, not solely as a matter of revenue but also as a matter of public morality and concern, as Senator Primmer put it so well, to the fabric of the society in which we all live and work.

The record of this Government is documented in the Budget Papers by the increased taxation burden for all Australians, the vastly increased revenue from taxation, increased Commonwealth Government expenditure which this Government promised it was ideologically committed to avoid, continuing high levels of unemployment, no relief in terms of job creation schemes or benefits for the unemployed, continuing inflation, interest rates and likely developments in that regard, petrol prices, health insurance, taxation and particularly interest rates on family mortgages. The whole record of this Government is one of continued disastrous failure. The record itself is in the Budget Papers for 1980-81. The damage to the political life of this country is much better demonstrated by contrasting that record with the promises which were made by the Fraser Government on these matters, rather than just by a perusal of the Budget Papers themselves. 1 need hardly remind the Senate, or the people of Australia for that matter, that the premises upon which the then Liberal Opposition took the actions which it took in 1975 - actions which constituted a grave assault on the political system of this country - were all predicated on the following assumption: We can do better’. The promises on the issues of employment, inflation, interest rates, petrol prices, taxation, health insurance and so on were perhaps made in the belief that the then Opposition could do better.

Senator Peter Baume:

– We have done better.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, I agree that the Government has done better, if its political aspiration is: ‘Higher and higher still shall thy bounds be set, Mai who made us mighty, make us mightier yet’. Under this Government we have higher interest rates, higher inflation, higher unemployment, higher health costs, higher taxes and higher petrol prices. If that is Senator Peter Baume’s idea of doing better, he should talk about it on the hustings as hard and fast as he can go. That is what the record shows.

It is quite extraordinary that in the scenario of an election in 1980 we hear very little about the things which were regarded by Malcolm Fraser as being important to the average Australian - not that he would know very much about that. In 1975 and 1977 the issues that somebody advised him were important to the average Australian were employment, inflation, interest rates, petrol prices, taxation and health insurance. He made promises about all those things. He made promises about restoring dignity and comfort to the average Australian family. He talked about the fabric of the Australian family. All these things which he regarded as crucially important in 1975 and 1977 in order to get into office, are areas of failure to the average Australian taxpayer, to the average Australian wage earner, to ordinary Australians in all aspects of life. We do not hear very much about them in 1980. What we hear about are great pipelines in the sky, great developments. Senator Carrick, if I might say so, is the artiste par excellence in creating mythologies in the sky. He never answers questions in this place about the employment multiplying effects of the vast mineral resource developments that we hear so much about. He never answers questions about the costs or the actualities of foreign investment in the mineral resource industries in Australia.

All these matters which were of concern to the Australian people in 1975 and 1977, according to the Fraser Government, are not dealt with now. What the people of Australia are being told now is not: ‘1 need three years to fix up the Australian economy’, as we were told in 1975. They are told: *I now need five or 10 years to make this the wealthiest country in the world per capita because of mineral developments in the north’, and so on. That is what we are now told. One dream has turned into a nightmare; a band-wagon of Fraserism has turned into a hearse. These dreams of 1975 and 1977 have been replaced by new dreams which will become new nightmares, new band-wagons which will become new hearses for the Fraser Government. As Malcolm Fraser himself has said on a number of occasions when the appropriate speech writer has slipped a document in front’ of him, what is important in the Western democracies are cohesive societies. We create cohesive societies in a democracy such as Australia and if Australia is to remain a democracy it is necessary to let every Australian understand that he has a stake in the society in which he lives and, if he is lucky under the Fraser Government, works. If every Australian feels that he has a stake in the society and the benefits of the society in which he lives and, if he is lucky, works, then Australia can become a genuinely cohesive society. But in five years of Fraser Government we have had broken promises and poor performance on all the issues which were once said to be important and, in 1 980, the invention of a whole new nirvana scenario, the sort of Roman emperors’ bread and circuses stuff par excellence.

What we are moving rapidly towards is a much more divided society, a society which is not cohesive and a society which is totally cynical about the capacity of governments generally to deliver but, more particularly, about the capacity of this Prime Minister and this Government, members of which are sitting on the other side of the Senate, to deliver and to say anything which is intellectually honest to the Australian people about the sort of society in which we think they should all live and in which we would all want them and their children to live. These are the sorts of things which have happened in five years not only to the economy but also, as I have said, to the political fabric of this country. We had a lot of waffle at the start of the period of the Fraser Government about economic management. What an extraordinary concept for it to talk about. It is almost a joke, as somebody rightly pointed out. The Government’s economic management has not enabled it to cost its estimates for unemployment and to cost the benefits which will flow from a variety of schemes which it suggests. It is economic management which provides three or four different costings for resource developments in Australia, economic management which uses the Public Service of this country to cost Labor Party election proposals and, incidentally, fails in the exercise because the Public Service apparently cannot do it. That is the sort of economic management which we have had in this country from a government which said: ‘We will fix the economy in three years’.

Senator Primmer:

– lt fixed it all right, really fixed it!

Senator BUTTON:

-That is right, lt has been fixed all right. There is no doubt about that. Another word comes to mind, but parliamentary convention prevents us from using it, Mr Acting Deputy President, I am sure.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Just good taste.

Senator BUTTON:

– I thank Senator Peter Baume. He will go down in history as a person who is concerned more about good taste than about the good welfare of the Australian people. That is what I am concerned to debate in this context. What I am also concerned about is the costing of proposals which I mentioned a minute or two ago.

I wish to refer to one area with which I am particularly concerned. That is the area of education. The Labor Party costed its education proposals for the 1980 election at about $100m. The Prime Minister then sought from his Department an opinion as to whether the Labor Party costings were correct. The Department said that the Labor Party costings were basically correct, except for one item, the costing for which was $55m out. That is the advice that the Prime Minister would have used in compiling all the rubbery figures which he compiles about the Labor Party’s proposals. Senator Carrick does not even take the benefit of any advice, I suspect. The figures come straight out of his open mind - open at the back and the front - and are presented to the Senate in the way in which we get them at Question Time.

The costings provided by the Prime Minister’s Department on one small item were out by $55m. Yet last night in the House of Representatives the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) of all people, the man who is supposed to have his fingers in the money bags if anybody in this country should have his fingers in the money bags - Mr President, I mean nothing offensive by that expression; I am not attributing to Mr Eric Robinson the qualities of anybody else in this place - said that the Labor Party costings for this one item were out by $38m. Therefore, we have a unique range of costings none of which agree with the costings of the Opposition or of the Department of Education. The estimates from the Department of the Prime Minister were out by $55m. The estimates of the Minister for Finance were out by $38m. The Department of Education estimates are not really out at all. These are the things which form a part of a totally dishonest exercise in the context of the Budget debate.

The Opposition has very serious qualifications about the Fraser Budget, but we commend it to the reading of all Australians as a document which records five years failure in terms of promises and performance on all the issues which affect the interest of every ordinary Australian. I have discussed tax, interest rates, petrol prices, health insurance, mortgage rates, family living standards and inflation all of which amount to a record of shocking performance. These matters are documented in the Budget Papers of the Fraser Government and stand as a living monument which not even the windy rhetoric of Senator Carrick can blow down. I commend the Budget as a best seller for every Australian to read in order to see the shocking record of failure which this Government has inflicted on the people in five years.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 461

PREFERENCE TO AUSTRALIAN GOODS (COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– The Senate has moved from debating the Budget - a most important document - to debating the Preference to Australian Goods (Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1980 which I understand the Government wishes to pass as quickly as possible. I understand that wish because the Bill will be welcomed by Australian industry. For some time both the Government parties and the Labor Party have pronounced a philosophy that preference should be given to Australian manufacturers by Commonwealth statutory authorities when ordering goods. Although that principle has been laid down it has been admitted by the present Government that certain statutory authorities have been able to get around those provisions in one way or another. This Bill is being introduced to tighten up that philosophy and to ensure that as far as possible Commonwealth authorities, which we were told in the second reading speech spend around $3,300m a year on purchases, can be better persuaded to buy from Australian manufacturers. It is interesting to note that while statutory authorities spend $3,300m a year government departments spend only $1 ,500m a year.

It is clearly understood that a government Minister can have some sort of control over his department in the buying of Australian goods whereas statutory authorities, which have greater freedom in these matters, can sometimes escape such government policy. Before the dinner recess I mentioned that the Australian Democrats believe there must be some long term planning either by this Government, or the next government, to indicate to Australian industry where it may be five or 10 years from now. There has been the most incredible ad hockery by both Labor and Liberal governments towards Australian industry that one wonders that it has survived so long.

I will firstly discuss what those people in the heat of the business world regard as academic boffin-like thinking by some academics in Canberra in the Treasury and the Industries Assistance Commission. Very few of us believe that palpably uneconomic and inefficient industries should be propped up forever. 1 think very few people would agree with that concept. People, particularly the Aussie battlers who are producing remarkable efficiency and economics in industry, get tired of academics in Canberra who draw a line across a graph and say that anything below that line will no longer receive protection. That, as an economic argument, is valid. It is one that I learned many years ago during my economics course at university. What the theory in its naked form ignores totally is what will happen to the employees in the industry, who are displaced by such an arbitrary stroke of the pen.

The Australian Democrats are a private enterprise party. We believe that an indication must be given to industries about where the Government wants them to head in the next five to 10 years so they can plan, expand and diversify rather than be twisted about month after month, year after year, by changes of government policy. If certain industries have to go to the wall because in general judgment they cannot be sustained in Australia, for goodness sake let us say to them, OK., for five years you will have a certain amount of protection. After that, we will not be able to afford you. We will phase you out gently and assist by retraining your staff and subsidise you for any losses that occur’. At least we should let industry know where it is going so that it can improve the economy of this country.

I was privileged to be a guest a few weeks ago at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Amberley, Qld, where the Fills are stationed. As honourable senators may know, I was once Minister for the Navy. I have had some experience with the Navy but in a different capacity from that of my friend Captain Hamer. I am sure he would agree with me that when the Navy bought the DDGs and the Air Force bought the Fills they were not, by any means, buying perfect products. There were so many bugs. In fact, some of the remarks made to me about the Fill make me wonder about the wisdom of such a purchase at the time, but that is another point.

The point I want to make concerns the technicians in the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force who are backed up by technicians in private enterprise in Australia. They have perfected the faulty black boxes, the faulty navigation aids and the faulty aerodynamic appliances so much so that the original manufacturers, the Americans, are coming to Australian technicians and saying: ‘How did you solve this problem? We have been unable to solve it. Give us some of your expertise’. Apart from the fact that that makes a person very proud to be Australian it leads me to another point which concerns the purchase we are about to undertake overseas of incredibly expensive defence equipment, particularly aircraft. I ask: Is it not possible to contemplate building that equipment in Australia, sophisticated and complex though it may be? I have studied in some detail the experiences of both the Israelis and the Swedes. In my understanding, when they buy defence equipment from America, or whoever, they say: ‘There is no way you will build that equipment in your country using your employees. We will contract with you to build it, but you will build your factory here in Israel, or in Sweden, and use Israeli or Swedish technicians and workers’. After my visits to defence establishments, I think that although it would be difficult - certain people say that there is a cost benefit element here - it is time we did this in Australia. I am not being silly and emotional, lt is time we really believed that we can be good at these things. We can match anybody in the world, even in the advanced phases of technology such as the manufacture of silicon chips. Anybody who visits Amberley and other defence establishments will testify to that.

Senator Sibraa:

– We could certainly build the F5.

Senator CHIPP:

– After my visit to Amberley and other establishments, I am absolutely persuaded that we could build the F5. I thank the honourable senator for his interjection.

Senator Elstob:

– And the Leopard tank.

Senator CHIPP:

– Indeed, yes. We have constantly supported Australian manufacturing industry, especially with regard to the matter I have just mentioned. I shall now talk specifically to the Bill. If we really mean business in regard to helping Australian manufacturing industry, we need to look particularly at the question of tender specifications. I am informed that in the past government authorities- that is, statutory corporations - have frequently drawn up tender specifications in such a way as to exclude effectively Australian- manufacturers. This is probably due to the pathetic habit that has formed in the minds of some Australians; they are so used to buying overseas equipment that they cannot think beyond that, and when writing tender specifications they lean almost subconsciously towards ordering overseas equipment.

I believe clause 4 of this Bill is worded sufficiently clearly to prevent that happening. I believe that is its intention, and I compliment the Government on doing that. In these circumstances, it is very hard for Australian companies to break into the field and to develop the technology and know-how which would enable them to compete. This is notwithstanding the instructions given to Commonwealth authorities in 1 977. Senator Gietzelt referred to this aspect in his speech. He said that this was the policy in 1977, and I agree with him. While commending the Government for including this provision in the Bill, I wonder, together with Senator Gietzelt - I am not being uncharitable - why it has taken three years to patch up the loophole that is palpably there.

In his second reading speech the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) said that in 1977 authorities were instructed:

  1. to draw up tender specifications so as not to exclude Australian supplies suitable for or reasonably adaptable to their needs.

Clearly many statutory authorities have taken advantage of that loophole, and clause 4 is being brought in to close it. Also according to my information these instructions are not always observed, and therefore a further strengthening of the instructions is appropriate, as is provided for in clause 4 of the Bill.

One matter that perhaps needs more discussion is the exact basis of preference for Australian goods; that is, how much higher in percentage terms can an Australian tender be and still be preferred. The figure of 20 per cent or such other percentage as is prescribed in the Bill is concerned with the adjustment of tender prices according to whether the goods are or are not of Australian origin. From my reading of the Bill and the advice that I have had on it since it has been on the table, there is some doubt as to whether this 20 per cent preference is designated specifically enough in the Bill properly to protect Australian manufacturers. 1 understand that Telecom Australia already uses an allowance of 20 per cent bias in favour of Australian goods. Perhaps the Bill should be more specific on the whole question.

Finally, I should like to refer to the question of State preferences. This is a matter about which I feel very keenly. Although 1 have been in politics for 20 years, it was only recently that I discovered a rather pathetic parochial practice which is carried on in this country by State governments. That is the practice of virtually placing a penalty on some firms which tender for a State project from interstate. This to me is the ultimate in parochialism and certainly motivates against some manufacturers and, indeed, some States. The Minister mentions in the Bill that some manufacturers, particularly those in Victoria and New South Wales, favour these State preferences. On the other hand, most manufacturers in the smaller States dislike them as this restricts their access to the biggest markets. Why should an efficient manufacturer, say, in Tasmania or South Australia have to suffer a penalty against a manufacturer who might be manufacturing on a larger scale in Victoria or New South Wales and be prevented from tendering for projects in Victoria simply because he is resident in a smaller State? Surely we should remember that Australia is a small manufacturing market and see it as a whole and not further fragment it into different parts. We would like a strong policy for Australian preferences, and we would like the Government to continue to put pressure on State governments to discourage State preferences. In all, the Australian Democrats strongly support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for its support of the measure and I, too, hope that it has a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 463

AUSTRALIA COUNCIL AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The legislation before the Senate tonight makes a number of fairly minor changes to the structure and composition of the Australia Council. In summary, the overall effects of these amendments are these: The power of the boards of the Australia Council is reduced; decision making is centralised in the Council itself; there is a streamlining of the administration of the Australia Council by reducing the size of the Council; and there is an attempt to deal with inefficiencies in administration by creating the option of an executive chairman as well as the present situation of a part time chairman and a full time general manager. There is a provision that a number of the 10 to 14 Council members have some association with the arts. The public lending right is removed from the Council; also removed is the requirement for the Minister to approve grants of over $50,000.

With the exception of the last two provisions the Opposition is not uncritical of these changes. We are very critical of inadequacies of funding and administration of the arts under the Fraser Government. The Australian Labor Party has a number of objectives in the arts which are not being achieved under the present structure of the Australia Council. They include the following: We would like to see a redefining of the role and function of the Australia Council to give emphasis to research, education in the arts, the assessment and the cultural needs of local communities and the provision of assistance to community projects, but not so as to end the Council’s role in providing support funds and grants to the arts and artists. We would like to see the encouraging of freedom of expression in the arts, experimentation and the development of new ideas and talents. We wish to ensure that imported performing arts activities do not close off development and employment opportunities for Australian performers. We would like to encourage arts activities in special interest areas, such as those involving children, youth, Aborigines, ethnic groups, work places, pensioners and disadvantaged persons.

Given those objectives and given the extent to which the present Government’s assistance to the arts diverges from those objectives, it is not really appropriate or practical for us to attempt here tonight to move amendments to the legislation to try to incorporate those objectives. However, I would like to make a few general but mainly critical comments regarding the nature of the legislation which is before us. The Federal Opposition is concerned to see the centralisation of decision making power in the Council itself at the expense of the boards of the Council. This will be effected mainly by the removal from the Council of the automatic presence of the chairmen of the boards. There is also a spelling out of certain powers of delegation from the Council to the boards. Those powers were probably implicit in the legislation before it was amended. By the spelling out of these powers it is clear that the Government wishes the Council to be the decision making body in this area.

We are concerned that there be a reasonable participation of practitioners of the arts in the affairs of the Australia Council. Although there is a direction that a number of the appointees to the Council should be people who are concerned and are involved in some way with the arts, the ways in which those nominees may be involved are fairly loose and, I think, in no way guarantee a reasonable degree of worker participation from arts workers in the affairs of the Council.

The Opposition has reservations about the proposal to provide for an executive chairman for the Council. The Australian Labor Party, generally speaking, would prefer to see the Chairman’s role separated from the role of the General Manager so that the Chairman can have a policy role- a publicist role, if you like; I think there is a need for a publicist role for the arts in Australia- and we do not see that bringing together the role of chairman and the role of general manager into one position will assist. It may assist in the efficient operation of the Council, but we do not believe it will necessarily assist in the arguing of the case for the arts in general in public in Australia.

It is the view of the Opposition that the Australia Council has performed very well in recent years, given the difficult circumstances imposed on it by the Fraser Government. The Council has managed to continue to do the job it was set up to do by the Whitlam Government. That job is for the Council to be the agency through which the Federal Government assists the development of the full range of the performing and creative arts, to innovate in the arts in both form and content, and to provide financial support for individual artists. Despite internal administrative problems, for which the Council itself must accept some blame, the main difficulties faced by the Council have been imposed by the Fraser Government. There has been the very familiar difficulty that many public agencies and corporations are suffering from throughout Australia - cuts in funds and staff.

Funding for the Australia Council has decreased in real terms every year under the Fraser Government until this year. Last week’s Budget gave the first increase, but that increase was a mere 1 .7 per cent, which is an increase on a very low base figure indeed. Staff resources have been similarly restricted. What has been the effect of these cutbacks? The main and the most damaging effect in the view of the Opposition has been that the Australia Council, because of the reduction in its resources, has been locked into maintaining support for major established companies and activities at the expense of innovation, alternatives, activities more broadly based in the commuuity and activities more accessible to larger numbers of Australians. I would like to make it quite clear that we favour ongoing support for the major arts companies in Australia, but we also see the need for ongoing support for innovation, experimentation and for the future of the arts in Australia. it is also the case that arts education is still a poor relation despite the appearance some 18 months ago of a major report which was produced jointly by the Australia Council and the Schools Commission which documented in a very telling way the abysmal state of arts education in Australia. While ever we have inadequate arts education in Australia appreciation of the arts will be, to a very large extent, an elitist activity. In my view, an activity is elitist, if very few people have access to it. Access can be denied in a number of ways. It can be denied due to a geographical problem. Certainly people in many parts of Australia do not have access, for geographical reasons, to the performances of our major companies. It may be a financial obstacle, lt is the case that, heavily subsidised though companies such as the Australian Opera are, they are still too expensive for many people and, to that extent, they are elitist.

There is another form of inaccessibility which we ought to be dealing wilh but which we are not dealing with very effectively at the moment; that is, the inaccessibility of the arts to those people who have not, during their educational years, learned to respond, recognise and experience the arts in a positive and enjoyable way. While ever the ability to recognise and respond to the arts is limited to a fortunate few in our community, appreciation of the arts can be justly criticised for being an elitist activity. Consequently their call on public funds will be less than it might otherwise be. While I am dealing with the subject of elitism, what constitutes it and how we should overcome it, I would like to refer to a very interesting survey which was documented in the recent report inquiring into the Australian Opera. The survey was conducted by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd on altitudes in the general public towards the need for government subsidy of opera and music theatre. In relation to opera and light opera the report said:

The key finding showed quite clearly that despite opera and light opera commanding only minority regular patronagefewer than … (38 per cent) had ‘ever’ been, and about . . . (1 1 per cent) had been in the last 12 months, and only a very small percentage (3 per cent ) could be classed as regular attenders over the last 12 months- nonetheless a large majority of the Australian community sampled favours the principle of government subsidy of opera and light opera.

Some 3 in 4 . . . Australians (74 per cent) support the principle that government should provide financial assistance to opera and light opera.

This support for government subsidy is almost universal (94 per cent) among regular attenders of opera and light opera, but importantly clear majorities of both irregular and light attenders and non-attenders are likewise in favour of government subsidy. More than . . . (84 per cent) irregular attenders support the principle of government subsidy. And perhaps the survey’s most significant findings is that two thirds … of those urban Australians who have never had any contact with opera or light opera . . . nonetheless support government subsidy of these activities. 1 think this high level of community support for a national art form which the supporters may or may not take advantage of is very interesting. I think these findings constitute a serious criticism of the Government’s approach to subsidising these major art forms. What I am attempting to say is that there is a wide demand and support in the community for substantial government subsidy of major art forms and the Government is not responding to this view. The Australia Council, because of inadequate funds and inadequate resources, is being forced into an establishment position; that is, funding only those companies and activities that have already been successful. One might ask what is wrong with this. This will inevitably and quickly lead to stagnation.

There is a false complacency in some areas - and, I imagine, amongst Government members - about the recent revival of the arts in Australia. For example, people are constantly talking about the revival of the Australian theatre. Certainly the Australian theatre was greatly stimulated during the Whitlam era. Let us look at established playwrights today, playwrights such as Williamson, Buzo, Hibbert, Alma DeGroen and Dorothy Hewitt. All of these writers were assisted at early stages of their career by Literature Board grants. Their equivalents today, that is, the people who are attempting to start a career in drama, are finding it much harder to attract support and subsidy and to get assistance than people did a few years ago. For example, the number of literary fellowships offered by the Literature Board of the Australia Council has now dropped to the low level of the last year of the McMahon Government. So instead of being complacent about recent successes in Australian theatre, 1 think we should be asking ourselves where the new writers will come from, how will they exist, what sort of support they will get and what the future of theatre in Australia is to be.

On the topic of funding to theatres and theatre companies, another example is the outstandingly successful Nimrod Theatre Company in Sydney. When the Nimrod Threatre first attracted subsidies from the boards of the Australia Council, it did so as a new fairly experimental alternative theatre, an alternative at that time to establishment Sydney theatre which was epitomised in the Old Tote Company, since defunct. In the intervening years the Nimrod Theatre has become so successful that it is, in itself, an established Sydney theatre and attracts a major regular grant.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Do you ever go?

Senator RYAN:

– Senator Baume asked whether 1 go to it. Whenever the opportunity presents itself I do but, unfortunately, those opportunities are not frequent enough. However, I do not wish to criticise the Nimrod Theatre by saying that it has become an established theatre; it is not bad to become established. Other small experimental new companies are trying to start in Sydney - the Nimrods of the future - and no funds are available for them. 1 think this is a serious problem. New talent, new theatre companies and new writers will not be assisted to flourish and burgeon in the same way that their equivalents a few years ago were. It is crucial to the continuation of the vital and responsive arts scene in Australia that more resources be made available for new talent.

The arts is one area of human endeavour where one cannot rest one’s laurels; the individual artist cannot, a society cannot. If this happens, the result is stagnation. I do not believe it is necessary in this debate this evening to advance a philosophical justification for federal funding of the arts. I hope the view that a healthy, independent, secure society needs the opportunity to explore and reflect its values, aspirations and experiences through a diversity of art forms is accepted in a bipartisan way. What is not bipartisan is the priority given to assisting the arts. I believe the Fraser Government is attempting to withdraw, to some extent, from direct support of the arts and to redirect arts practitioners to corporate sponsorship. In contrast, a Labor government regards the provisions to Australians of access to the arts as basic as the provision of education or health services. The Fraser Government is prepared to allow elitist establishment values to intrude and pervade the arts scene. On the other hand, the Labor Party, through education and improved opportunity, wants to increase the number of participants and the quality of their experiences. The Fraser Government, preoccupied with selling off Australia’s capital, overlooks the employment potential of the arts and has done nothing to develop it. On the other hand, the Labor Party recognises that employment in the arts is economically and socially sound and individually satisfying. For example, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, in its submission to the Crawford Study Group into Structural Adjustment said that the entertainment industry has provided an increasing number of jobs since 1974 whereas manufacturing,’ construction and the wholesale and retail trades were providing fewer and fewer jobs.

The arts, as well as their accepted social and individual benefits, could contribute significantly to economic activity. In economic terms creative activities are not merely a drain on the public purse. The commercial possibilities of films, paintings, craft works, et cetera, are well established. Such activities ought to attract more support from government, particularly during an economic recession. While not opposing the amendments to the Australia Council currently before the chamber, I express on behalf of the Opposition our disappointment at the downgrading of the activities of the Australia Council by the Fraser Government, a downgrading which, 1 am sorry to say, these amendments will do nothing to repair.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– Not everyone realises the very extensive government support for the arts which is now being provided. In this year’s Budget no less than $360m is being provided for broadly defined cultural activities, which is a very large sum indeed. Admittedly, that sum includes appropriations for the National Library, the Archives, and the Australian War Memorial and a very large amount for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and associated broadcasting activities - no less than $243m - but the ABC provides substantially towards our culture, particularly with its six symphony orchestras. The principal means through which arts funding gets to the community is the statutory body, the Australia Council. It is the principal arts adviser to the Government and the principal arts administrator for the Government. Successive governments have followed what is called an arm’s length policy with regard to the arts, trying to keep the detail of arts administration out of the bureaucracy and out of the responsibility of the Minister, thus keeping decisions there broadly to how much can be provided to the arts- and leaving the detailed decisions to an expert body such as the Australia Council. In my view, this is good administration and good politics. Occasionally Ministers like to think of themselves as latter-day Medicis patronising the arts, but they speedily realise that for every one friend one makes through arts patronage one makes 10 enemies, which is bad politics by any standards. In my view, it is vital - I will make some remarks on this in a moment or two; I think I am diverging a little from the direction 1 should be going- that we keep arts administration at arm’s length from political and bureaucratic control.

The Australia Council Amendment Bill makes four substantial changes to the Australia Council Act. Firstly, it reduces the size of the governing body of the Australia Council- the Council itself- from a range of 1 5 to 1 9 to a range of 1 0 to 14. 1 think this is a wise reduction. A council of 19, the present strength, at its maximum now, is too large for efficient administration. A council of 10 to 14 is, in my view, adequate for the purpose for which it is intended. Secondly, the Bill removes the automatic right of board chairmen to be members of the Council. As the Australia Council is structured, the Council has under it seven boards of experts dealing with particular arts activities. The seven boards at the moment are the Music Board, the Theatre Board, the Literature Board, the Visual Arts Board, the Aboriginal Arts Board, the Community Arts Board and the Crafts Board. Under the Act as it was, the chairmen of those seven boards were ex-officio members of the Council.

It has been represented, I understand, very strongly to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) that the presence of these seven board chairmen on the Council without any deliberate collusion created a situation where there was a very strong defence of the status quo on the Council. If that is so in an area such as the arts, which should be flexible and innovative, it is undesirable and I can accept the removal of the right of these board chairmen to be automatically members of the Council. The Bill provides that no fewer than two board chairmen should be members of the Council. I accept that, but there is the danger, which I think the Minister will have to watch in his appointment of members to the Council, that one might easily get a first eleven and second eleven among board chairmen. The Minister will, therefore, have to be very careful in appointing people to the Australia Council from among the board chairmen to see that these board chairmen are rotated between the various art forms and not fixed in one particular art form indefinitely.

The third change provided by the Bill is the possibility of a full time chairman. In a moment 1 will come to a possible problem there. Finally, an important area, the Bill removes the administration of the public lending right. This has never sal very happily in the Australia Council. All concerned agree that it would be very much better administered by the Department of Home Affairs than by the Australia Council. 1 mentioned some problems that will occur with the implementation of this Bill. I am not saying that there were nol problems before. I think the Bill cures some of the problems, but it has implicit in it the possibility of some new ones.

If the Council is to have the confidence of the practitioners in the various art forms they must be satisfied of two things. Firstly, they must be satisfied that the Australia Council is professionally expert in what it is doing. Secondly, they must be satisfied that there will be someone on the Australia Council who understands their art form. I have no doubt that the Minister will go to great lengths to ensure that that is so. But as I think many people are aware, many negotiations were carried out during the winter recess to try to get a form of words that would satisfy practitioners in the arts that their interests would be properly recognised in the composition of the Australia Council. The form of words that the Minister has finally produced are an amended version. In the earlier version there was an attempt to define exactly which art forms should be represented on the Australia Council and how. The earlier form was not in fact a very happy solution. For instance, it lumped together the performing arts - dance, theatre and music - and provided for one representative on the Australia Council for that group. There is no way that a musician, for instance, would accept an actor as being an adequate representative on the Australia Council for him and his art form.

In the version which has come out now I think the Minister has hit on a happy compromise. The legislation provides that the Governor-General shall endeavour to ensure that a majority of the members of the Australia Council are persons who practise or have practised the arts. I draw Senator Ryan’s attention to the fact that this provision does not refer to four members, as she said in her speech. A majority of the members of the Council must be persons who practise or have practised the arts. Secondly, the legislation provides that the membership of the Council should include a reasonable balance of persons who practise or have practised the various arts. That refers to the arts represented by the various boards. I think we can rely on the Minister to ensure that those criteria are met, and 1 am confident that practitioners in the various art forms will feel that their interests are being adequately protected. That is the first of the problems. I think it has been overcome by the wording of the Bill.

If the Council is to have on it a majority of people who are practitioners of the art forms, they must be very carefully selected. There will be a great temptation for them to start to interfere in the artistic judgments of the various boards. This would cause, in my view, catastrophic conflict between the boards which have a role to play in doing what might be called the detailed or professional assessment and the Council, which should be content with dealing with overall policy. The members of the Council who are professional artists in the various art forms will have to be carefully selected so that they do not start to interfere in the professional judgments of the various boards. There is also a danger -and I have heard it talked about in art circles that in some way this new Council will impose an arts policy on the community. That would be a totally unsuccessful attempt. If the arts are to thrive they must grow from the community. They cannot be imposed from the top. 1 hope the Council will not attempt anything in that direction. If it attempts to do so it will be a fiasco.

I mentioned earlier the importance of having the two board chairmen who are members of the Council rotated between the various art forms to ensure that there is obvious fairness between those different art forms. But the solution to the proper running of the Council is the selection of people for it by the Minister. He has certain constraints on him. In our Federal system it is always necessary to watch State representation. He is obliged by the Act to be careful to ensure that the various art forms are all represented. I think that the Bill as it is now before us gives him an adequate chance to select suitable people to ensure that the Australia Council can work with optimum efficiency. That is another possible problem. I think that with wise appointments by the Minister it will not be a real problem.

Another possible problem is the provision for the possibility of the appointment of a full time chairman. If one were appointed, without doubt he would become managing director. 1 do nol want to go too far with this matter but the Australia Council is getting a somewhat quaint structure. Previously it had an executive officer. In the last reorganisation a general manager was put over the top of the executive officer. This reorganisation appears to be opening the possibility of appointing what might be called a managing director over the top of the general manager over the top of the executive officer. Al some stage, fairly soon 1 think, the Australia Council has to rationalise its administrative structure, the origins of which are historical rather than administrative.

On a more general point, I am concerned about a tendency we have- and this was not done by this Government in particular, it was done even more markedly under the previous one to drift away from the arm’s length policy with regard to the control of the arts. Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) contains the provisions for the various arl forms. The Australia Council has a provision of $29m. The Australian Film Commission receives $1 Om the National Library of Australia $I7m; the Australian National Gallery, Slim; and the Australian Heritage Commission, $639,000. In my view that breakup is an appropriate role for the

Minister and the Government advised by departments but it does not stop there. Instead of the Australia Council having, as I believe very strongly it should and must have, a one-line appropriation, the Australia Council appropriation is broken up as follows: The Australian Ballet Foundation, the Australian Opera, the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust Orchestras, the Public Lending Rights Scheme - that is coming out now - general support for the arts, and administration. Elsewhere in the appropriations one will find a provision of $425,000 for Artbank - that is for acquisition of works of art- and $250,000 for the International Cultural Corporation of Australia. I do not believe that that breakdown of individual amounts should be done by the Minister advised by his department. That allocation should be done by the Australia Council if we really believe in our arm’s length policy. Anyway it is necessary for proper administration. In my view a reversal of the decision of the Whitlam Government is long overdue. We should put the opera funding, the ballet funding, the Elizabethan Trust Orchestras funding back under the control of the Australia Council.

Let me take one example. This is particularly obvious in regard to opera. I know of no reason why the opera people should be able to come to Canberra and do their own deal or argue their own case as to how much they should get. That should be considered by the Australia Council against all the other demands of the various art forms. This is particularly necessary because the Australian Opera is not the only opera supported by the Federal Government. There are four other operas in Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia, with talk of a fifth in Canberra. If we are to have a coherent national policy on opera, all the funding must be decided by the same body. I repeat that in my view it is quite wrong for this type of detailed allocation of funding to be made partly by bureaucracy in Canberra and partly by the Australia Council. Of course, it is obvious why the opera and the ballet and the trust like to come to Canberra. They think they will get more than the Australia Council would give them. That may well be right. The probability is that they would be getting more than they should get considering the competitive demands of other art forms for the same money. I think that as a matter of principle and political necessity we should restore the system of an arm’s length policy in regard to arts administration. The Australia Council, the expert body set up for this purpose, should take control of funds and the allocations to the various bodies.

Of course, if we have an independent body such as the Australia Council we have to accept that sometimes it will do things we wish it had not and at other times it will not do things we wish that it would. That is the very nature of an independent body. What we must not try to do is impose our political direction on decisions of an independent statutory body set up for this purpose. We have done that in a couple of cases. I understand the Minister’s motives with regard to the Artbank and with regard to the International Cultural Corporation. Those two organisations have been set up by government decision. But now that they have been set up, the allocations they receive out of the available arts resources should be decided by the Australia Council and should not continue to be decided in Canberra.

I think those points are very important, not only to the proper administration of the arts but also to the confidence of the arts community that the arts are being administered properly. But that is a somewhat different issue. These are essentially matters for the future, though I hope they will be tackled in the very near future. The immediate issue is the changes to the Australia Council which are implicit in the Bill before us. f have certain worries about how this legislation will work. It will have to be very carefully controlled. But I am satisfied that these changes will improve the working and the composition of the Australia Council. I give the legislation my full support.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate for its support of this measure. I believe that the comments made in the debate have been interesting, but I do not think they affect in any way the principles of the Australia Council Amendment Bill or the fact that it should have a speedy passage. I trust that the Senate will give it a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 468

MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I wish to speak very briefly on the Museum of Australia Bill 1980, mainly to indicate that the Opposition supports the legislation. If we can agree on nothing else in this Parliament, we seem to be able to agree on museums.

Senator Durack:

– And the Australia Council.

Senator BUTTON:

– That is regarded by some people as a museum too. Much will depend on the money which is allocated for the Museum of Australia in determining how rapidly this institution develops. One hopes that it will be well under way by the time of the bicentennial. Of course, much will depend on the composition of the Council of the Museum and on the willingness of a vast number of other individuals and organisations throughout Australia to contribute to the concept of what might appropriately be regarded as the first national museum, apart from the High Court of Australia building.

We suffer the disability of having in each of the major State capitals a museum of one kind or another which described itself as a national museum and which, over many years, has purported to cover a wide range of interests other than the history of the State or colony in which that museum is situated. Importantly I think, the proposal of the Pigott Committee, which recommended the establishment of a national museum in Canberra to be known as the Museum of Australia, recommended that the Museum deal with three main themes, namely: The history of Aboriginal man—

Senator Ryan:

– People.

Senator BUTTON:

– The history of nonAboriginal persons and the interaction of persons with their environment in Australia. The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) in his second reading speech congratulated the Committee on what he described as an exciting and unique concept. He went on to set out the development of the three themes which were referred to as the basis of the establishment of a museum. If I might put it in these terms, the proposed Museum is very important in the context of the whole matter of Australian identity and culture. When one looks at the Scandinavian countries, for instance, by way of comparison, one finds that there is a very big museum culture in most Scandinavian countries which plays a unique part in the educational, recreational and cultural life of each of those countries. I suppose the importance of that is that it helps the people of those countries to understand their history and development as societies. In that sense, those museums make a unique contribution as a unifying factor in terms of national identity and national purpose. 1 think it is quite tragic that in Australia - this is not in any sense a partisan comment - the sort of way in which the national capital was allowed to develop was so unbalanced conceptually and culturally. The important institutions which were developed in the national capital of Canberra were, sadly, the Parliament and the Australian War Memorial. The War Memorial is symbolic of a great period of Australian history, but one which, in a sense, has warped the whole nation in respect of the development of an Australian culture and identity. The War Memorial in a physical form represents the sort of rhetorical comment that the original Anzac Day was the day that Australia became of age as a nation. That has been a very damaging concept to the development of Australia in a great variety of ways. Apart from anything else, it is not true.

The very fact that over many years now tourists, particularly children, have come to the national capital of a country like Australia and the sights they have been shown have been this Parliament and the War Memorial, in my view is only calculated to give them a sense of total imbalance about the identity of this society, how it has developed and what it stands for. To that extent, we are all guilty, I suppose, in the sense that we have not much earlier than this concerned ourselves with the establishment of a national museum which would in a very real way depict the history of Australian society in the three aspects suggested by the legislation now before the Senate.

Other honourable senators probably have visited the Smithsonian Institution museums in Washington. Those museums are very relevant because the United States of America, by comparison with Scandinavia, which I mentioned earlier, is like Australia in that it is a relatively young society in terms of European culture in that society. The Smithsonian Institution is tremendously important in America’s national life. Millions of people who go to Washington every year see in the Smithsonian museums not only the great achievements of American society - the Aeronautical and Space Museum, for example, is a monument to American achievement- but also in the other historical museums of the Smithsonian Institution, in a sense, the things which made American people what they are today in terms of inventiveness, in terms of their society being a frontier society, but most particularly in terms of the creative spirit of American society.

If one goes to some sections of those museums, one will see extraordinary examples of the inventiveness, knowhow and so on in the nineteenth century which is still a source of great pride and achievement to Americans, not only as an historical matter but also as a springboard for future endeavour and initiative. America has gone to great pains to emphasise its historical antecedents, its developments and, more particularly, the developments of ordinary people in American society enshrined in that museum concept in Washington and in a great variety of other museums throughout the United States.

The museum concept in terms of depicting the history of a country is not only vitally relevant to its past, to its students who are interested in historical and cultural aspects of the development of the society, but also it is vastly relevant to the present and to the future of a country such as Australia or the United States. I hope the museum will not remain purely an institution in Canberra but will be a source of travelling exhibitions of the important exhibits which we hope will be accumulated in that museum and will reach out to the furthest parts of Australia. 1 particularly congratulate the Government on this initiative because there has been no government which has wasted more taxpayers’ money in concerning itself in all sorts of superficial ways with what the Australian identity is about. It is very sad that a government has to spend money on encouraging so-called patriotism, spend millions of dollars on a television concept like Project Australia which is not really in any sense contributing anything to a picture of the Australian identity - what it is, what it has been and more particularly what it might be. That is a vast waste of taxpayers’ money which could be readily diverted into an important concept like this. I regard it as very sad that all those initiatives have been taken by the Government with a degree of desperation which would not have been necessary if the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections had reported much earlier and the importance of this venture which is enshrined in the legislation now before the Senate had been seen and appreciated much earlier.

We are very happy with the concept of the Bill. We will be supportive of efforts to carry out the concepts because in contradistinction to all other initiatives of the Government in this area - concerning the same sort of problem but totally misdirected - we think that this will be money well spent in the interests of the great majority of Australians and in the interests of national identity, pride and concern about the past, present and future of Australia. We commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– The Museum of Australia Bill 1980 is a direct consequence of the recommendations of the Pigott Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National

Collections which reported in 1975. It recommended the establishment of a Museum of Australia in Canberra with a board of trustees charged by Act of Parliament with the collecting, preserving, study and display of material relating to three themes - the history of Aboriginal man, the history of non-Aboriginal man and the interaction of man with his environment in Australia. The Bill provides for an interim council to be established immediately pending the appointment of a permanent council. The interim council, as the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) pointed out in his second reading speech, will exercise all the powers and the functions of the permanent council, but it is envisaged that it will be concerned primarily with developing the concept and preparing a program of construction and costs. It will also, I hope, prepare an acquisitions policy for the museum and implement that policy with whatever funds are made available to it.

With regard to funds, I point out that $30,000 has been allocated in this year’s Budget to allow the immediate establishment of the interim council. It is, I believe, of the utmost importance that the members of this council should be chosen with extreme care. The Bill, as i am sure all honourable senators will have noticed, is extremely open in its references to the style, philosophy and structure of this final Museum of Australia apart from, of course, advocating the three themes in the Pigott report. The Government hopes that the council, which will consist of people with vision and business and practical experience, will be able to look again at the whole Pigott Committee report and put its imagination towards turning this really very exciting concept into reality. One of their key problems, of course, will be to recommend a site for this museum. There is a site, I understand, which has been set aside - 90 hectares- near Black Mountain. The Minister mentioned the possibility of a site being located in the Parliamentary Triangle. I was astonished to hear it; that was the first time I heard it. There are now suggestions that there should be buildings along either side of the approaches to the lake in front of Parliament House. If that plan eventuates, I suppose a site for the Museum of Australia could be found there but it would be difficult, I think-, to combine that unless there were separate buildings, with the concept of the interrelationship of man with his environment in which a nature park reserve is thought to be part of the museum in that area. I do not know that we would want to have kangaroos hopping on the steps of Parliament House. That would reinforce the illusion that some people have of Canberra being a bush capital. Nevertheless, the selection of the -

Senator Button:

– It is funny that they should think that.

Senator HAMER:

– Many Australians think that we live with kangaroos in our gardens. Maybe Senator Button does - I do not know. Nevertheless, this new museum is some way off. What do we do in the meantime? In Canberra at the moment there is a museum building, the Institute of Anatomy. A large part of that building, I have been told, is taken up by activities of the Department of Health which have nothing to do with the museum. I think the Government should give very serious consideration to resuming the whole of the building as a convenient interim site for the council of the national museum pending the completion of the museum which inevitably will be some years off.

Senator Button:

– And retain a few fossils, too, Senator?

Senator HAMER:

– They would be an appropriate part of the museum, yes, certainly. I would like now, Mr Deputy President, to go through very quickly the recommendations of the Pigott report from which this Museum of Australia stemmed because many other recommendations were made and I would like to see where we stand with each of them. Many of them have been implemented, some have not. The reasons some have not need to be examined by the Senate. The Committee in fact made 16 recommendations. I would like to deal with each in turn. The first recommendation was:

To assist in co-ordinating federal expenditure on museums and art galleries, and to foster the development of museums generally in Australia, we recommend the creation of an Australian Museums Commission, a statutory authority employing its own small staff and enlisting, whenever possible, the advice and specialized services of other government agencies.

There is no doubt that there is need for such a body, perhaps modelled on the Australian Heritage Commission. Such a body could carry out the role of identifying collections which have national significance, give guidance on the export control of cultural material - I will say more about that in a moment - and give advice and information on improving display and conservation. 1 would like that body to be purely advisory. The Pigott Committee envisaged it to be a funding body as well. One has to remember that the Pigott Committee reported in 1975 during the time of a government whose approach to all these problems was to try to smother them with money and concentrate everything in Canberra. That is not our approach. We would like to see this type of activity decentralised. The national museum should be funded by the Federal Government. Others should be funded by State and local governments. Responsibility and control should be delegated to them and funding provided, as it has been, by an assured amount of tax revenue both to local and State governments. That, I think, is a philosophical and sound administrative approach to the provision of museums in Australia. The Museums Commission, if it is set up, should be an advisory body in the areas I have mentioned, but not a funding body. The second recommendation of the Pigott Committee stated:

For the purposes of defining the level and range of government financial support, we recommend that the Australian Museums Commission divide museums into the categories of major museums, associated museums and local museums. For local museums, government support can be given most efficiently if the museums form themselves into regional networks or associations.

For the reasons I have already advanced, I do not think that is an appropriate activity for the Federal Government or one of its agencies. The third recommendation stated:

As museums have unique advantages as a means of education, and as a large proportion of school children rarely visit them, or visit them without adequate preparation or proper briefing, museums should be used more as a source of formal education and by universities. If necessary, this development should be funded at the expense of certain other facets of the Australian Government’s education program.

It might be difficult to prise much funding out of the Education Department. It has certainly made no move in this direction yet, nor do I think it is likely to do so. But I do not think it will be necessary for the Education Department to move in this matter because many museums are, in fact, accepting this role themselves. For instance, the Australian War Memorial includes two teachers in its education section. This section has close links with the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. It prepares things such as guide pamphlets to enable visiting school children to participate in the learning process in the whole Memorial. This is a way of linking a museum to the formal process of education. It is one which other individual museums are following and whose development should be encouraged. The fourth recommendation of the Pigott Committee stated:

As rational acquisition and preservation represents a vital function of museums, and as Australian museums are often outbid by overseas buyers for objects of unique importance to this country, we recommend that a national fund should be set up to facilitate emergency acquisitions of collections in history, the fine arts, sciences and other areas of strong Australian interest.

There are problems with this recommendation. There is great difficulty in identifying an emergency acquisition and distinguishing between the various types of acquisitions we might make. Emergency funding is already available to the

Council of Australian Museum Directors but this, I admit, is very limited. There may be a case for the proposed Australian Museums Commission, the co-ordinating body, to investigate how this might be achieved. It might be possible to reach some agreement with the Finance Department for truly crisis situations. That would have to be handled very gently. The fifth recommendation stated:

As public funds can easily be squandered on ineffective museums, and as requests by museums for finance are multiplying, we recommend that public funds not be used unless the museums will meet a community need, will use a building suitable as a museum, will adequately display and catalogue and conserve their collections, and will hold collections of historic significance.

I hope that will be adhered to by all concerned - Federal, State and local governments. The sixth recommendation stated:

As many agencies of the Australian Government at present assist museums, we recommend that this funding be coordinated and conform to agreed principles; we recommend that funds not be granted to museums which are so strongly directed towards tourism and entertainment that their standards of historical accuracy are violated.

Nothing has been done about this recommendation yet, primarily, of course, because the Federal Government is not funding museums in this way. I think it is important that we should not allow funding intended for museums to go to organisations such as Old Sydney Town which, although admirable for tourist purposes, is not in any way a historical restoration of Old Sydney. It is a tourist entertainment project which 1 believe to be of considerable merit, but it is in no sense a museum. Projects such as this should not divert museum funding from its proper purposes. The seventh recommendation stated:

We recommend that responsibility for all the Australian Government’s own museums should be placed under one Ministerial portfolio and that these museums, while receiving their basic funding from that Ministry, should have the same access as State or municipal museums to the special assistance programs of the Australian Museums Commission.

Those museums have been put under one Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs. The eighth recommendation stated:

As the deterioration of valuable collections in Australian museums, great and small, has reached the proportion of a crisis, conservation should have high priority when additional funds are provided by the Australian Government. We recommend the creation of a Cultural Materials Institute to study and disseminate ways of preventing deterioration of fragile and perishable museum objects, especially under Australian climatic and other conditions.

There is no present plan for the institute as recommended, but there have been many moves towards concerned awareness of the whole question of conservation. There are two new buildings at Mitchell in the Australian Capital Territory for the purposes of conservation. One acts as an annexe to the War Memorial and the other houses conservation laboratories. The deterioration of collections and the need for conservation are of very great importance and considerable urgency. The ninth recommendation stated.

We recommend the establishing of a post-graduate course to train professional conservators at a degree-granting institution, a system of training technical staff for museums on an apprenticeship basis, and special training programs in those aspects of Australian social, economic and technological history which are increasingly central to museum collections and displays.

This recommendation has been carried out. There is an excellent training course at the Canberra College of Advanced Education. Sydney University has a diploma course in museum studies which includes extensive training in conservation. Other institutions such as the National Library have set up their own training courses and archivists all receive conservation training.

Senator Peter Baume:

– ls that an adequate arrangement?

Senator HAMER:

– I think it is adequate. Of course, we have an enormous backlog to overcome, but on my information the existing institutions are now turning out conservators at an appropriate rate to meet our needs. The problem is if we turn out large numbers very quickly all the positions will be taken and we will have a blockage in future promotion in the area. I think the problem has been very largely overcome, but there is still an enormous backlog of materials which have been badly stored for many years and which require a great deal of conservation treatment. The report of the Australian War Memorial has recorded some of the ways in which very valuable materials have been deteriorating very seriously. The tenth recommendation stated:

We recommend that a Museum of Australia be established in Canberra . . .

That is what we are talking about today. The eleventh recommendation stated:

While many proposals were put to this Committee–

That is the Pigott Committee - for the creation of a variety of specialist national museums, we recommend that no more than three themes merit special museums. We recommend that early priority be given to a national maritime museum in Sydney and to a national aviation museum at a growth centre such as Albury-Wodonga, and that later consideration be given to locating a Gallery or Museum of Australian Biography within the Parliamentary Triangle in Canberra.

Both the national maritime museum and the national aviation museum have considerable merit. They are actually outside the scope of this debate, but I would like to say something about the proposed Museum of Australian Biography. I cannot say that I think it is a very good idea. A better idea would be to establish perhaps a political and judicial museum. The building we occupy at the moment could be a suitable site when we move further up the hill in 1988.

Senator Evans:

– It already performs that function.

Senator HAMER:

– I would not like to call it a museum at the moment. It is too active to be a museum. Perhaps it is too lively. Perhaps I should not say that when I am talking on a Museum Bill. 1 hate to think that they are not lively places.

Senator Evans:

– Perhaps you could think of it as a nature park.

Senator HAMER:

– A nature park would be very appropriate. I will not identify the various species that are represented. 1 think one of them is endangered. The twelfth recommendation of the Pigott Committee stated:

We recommend that those Australian universities which operate museums or hold important collections should either safeguard those collections adequately or with the cooperation of the Australian Universities and the Australian Museums Commission, or arrange to transfer them on longterm loan to major museums.

This is a continuing problem. The very famous Macleay Museum at Sydney University has been permitted to deterioriate lamentably. It is now in a very old science building. I think one of the urgent tasks for the Australian Museums Commission which 1 spoke about earlier - the establishment of which I think is important and should be done soon- will be to take on the role of giving advice on conservation and upgrading of displays. The state of some university museums is very alarming.

Senator Puplick:

– A great coin collection was stolen from the Nicholson Museum at Sydney University.

Senator HAMER:

– Yes. That was poor custody. This is a real problem. The state of university collections is far from satisfactory. The thirteenth recommendation is as follows:

In view of the indiscriminate looting of historic shipwrecks along the Australian coast, and the danger to historic sites on land, we recommend that protective legislation be drawn up and enacted. While the protection of historic sites on land and sea is at present even more important than application of archaeology to those sites, the Australian Museums Commission should encourage marine and historical archaeology and provide special help to the pioneering work of the Maritime Museum at Fremantle.

This recommendation has been carried out with the passage of the Historic Shipwrecks Bill. Special help has been given to the Maritime Museum at Fremantle. I am told, on good advice, that that museum is in excellent condition. The fourteenth recommendation reads:

To retain rare Australian cultural material, we recommend that the Australian Government introduce specific legislation to regulate or prohibit the export of particular items or categories of items. We recommend that the protection of cultural relics would be furthered if Australia ratified and implemented the UNESCO Convention of 1 970 on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.

A lot of work has been done in recent years on this problem but there are still very serious difficulties. The Department of Trade and Resources feels that legislation would be an infringement of free trade agreements. I must say that I do not find that argument very convincing. There would be a heavy administrative burden, of course, and I understand that there would be legal problems, which is where the real difficulty lies. The Commonwealth cannot pass effective laws to control the export of cultural items because the control - the licensing of antique dealers and so on - is firmly a State responsibility. I am told that various types of legislation have been proposed but that they would be too broad to be effective unless it were possible to arrange for complementary State legislation to be enacted, which I think everyone understands is very difficult to achieve. I think we must emphasise that we are losing valuable cultural material every day, though I must say that it is difficult to define exactly what is cultural material. But there is an urgent need for effective national legislation in this country to control cultural exports. I hope that the Government will press ahead with resolving this problem because the damage being done is real and substantial. The fifteenth recommendation reads:

To assist in the conservation, display, study and the retention within Australia of museum objects of national significance, we recommend that a National Register be compiled.

I agree with that. 1 feel that that should be an early task when the Government sets up the coordinating museum commission. The final recommendation is as follows:

We recommend that consideration be given to changing legislation in order to provide tax incentives to those who donate valuable items of national significance to public museums, libraries and archival authorities in Australia; an independent board, we recommend, should be set up to assess gifts, and decide whether they merit a tax rebate on the grounds of their national, historic and cultural and scientific importance.

The first part of that recommendation, as I am sure honourable senators are aware, has been carried out in the form of the tax incentives scheme for gifts to museums or art galleries. 1 am sure that everyone will be delighted to know that permanent legislation is now being drafted to extend the scheme beyond the present cut-off date of December 1980. The second part of the recommendation has been achieved, but not quite in the way suggested by the Committee. There are registers of accredited valuers for all types of arts and crafts and cultural items, and these are lodged with the Department of Home Affairs. There is a small independent advisory committee which selects the valuers to be included in the registers. I think we can see that the setting up of the Museum is not the only problem that we have to tackle. I think we can say that the Government has a very impressive record of acting on the recommendations of the Pigott Committee. Some areas are still incomplete, but they are being tackled. I hope that they will be dealt with quickly. The Bill to establish the interim council for the Museum is very welcome. The Museum will be of the most important historic, cultural and educational addition to Australia. I welcome the Bill.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– 1 join Senator Button in expressing the Opposition’s wholehearted support for the Museum of Australia Bill. 1 wish to mention one matter which Senator Button perhaps inadvertently omitted to mention; that is that this concept of a Museum of Australia is the product of another imaginative initiative of the Whitlam Labor Government, to the extent that it was that Government that established the Pigott Committee which has produced the recommendations which we are beginning to implement tonight. We are very glad indeed that, albeit that it is five years down the track, the Government is now at last doing something about this concept.

I wish to speak only very briefly on this Bill, indeed, on only one aspect of it. That is the question of the siting of the Museum once it comes to fruition. Senator Hamer made a passing, somewhat bemused reference to the question of the location of the Museum, noting the passage in the speech of the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) in the House of Representatives which stated that consideration was now being given to the siting of the Museum in the Parliamentary Triangle mall rather than, ac originally contemplated, on a very large site near Black Mountain. Senator Hamer found it rather odd that the Museum should be located in this area. Perhaps he is right, at least as regards that part of the complex which it is contemplated will involve a nature park or some other area requiring a substantial tract of land. In fact, there are very good reasons for siting at least the Museum’s centrepiece buildings in the Parliamentary Triangle. Let me try to identify them quickly. The first reason is simply the desirability, which I strongly feel, of establishing the nation’s major cultural institutions in a central location. We will, of course, have the Australian National Gallery in the Triangle along with the existing buildings - the National Library of Australia, the High Court of Australia and Parliament House, the latter two of which I suppose hardly justify description as cultural institutions but which are important national buildings attracting targe numbers of visitors nonethless.

I believe that it is important for us to think very much in terms of developing for Canberra the kind of concept that has so vividly evolved in Washington in the United States of America. The nation’s great cultural institutions, along with the political institution of Congress, line both sides of the great mall leading from the Capital to the Lincoln Memorial. There is, of course, the Smithsonian Institution with all its various buildings including the most recent addition, the Aerospace Museum, the Hirshhorn Museum and the National Gallery, plus the Archives building and other major cultural institutions of that kind. As a result the mall in Washington is the focal point for an enormous amount of tourist activity and is a very accessible and convenient set of locations for people finding their way around the key institutions of the national capital.

I believe it is a very attractive concept to think of siting our major buildings together in an accessible way. This would be accomplished by putting the Museum and the archives building, which at the moment is still proposed to be put across the lake but which is also the subject of reconsideration, together in a central mall location. The other reason for thinking in terms of siting the Museum in the mall relates to the civic design of Canberra and its architectural aspects which I will explain in just a moment.

This is a matter in which 1 became personally very absorbed in my capacity as one of the six assessors of the recent new and permanent parliament house competition. The assessors made an informal recommendation to the Minister for the Capital Territory about the siting of future buildings in the mall. I suspect that that has been something at least of the inspiration for the Minister’s passing reference to the possibility of the Museum’s being located in the area. The particular civic design problem is posed by the design of the Parliamentary Triangle is concerned very much with the proposal to put a new Parliament House on top of Capital Hill. When one looks across at Capital Hill from anywhere in the mall, but more particularly from the opposite side of the lake in the vicinity of the war museum, one sees - as I said in the debate on the motions concerning the new Parliament House the other night - nothing but a sea of greenery occupied in the centre by the horizontal white block of the existing Parliament House.

When the new Parliament House is built on Capital Hill behind the existing Parliament House one will be faced with a rather odd impression of two buildings superimposed one upon the other rather like, as I. M. Pei, the international architect who was one of the assessors of the Parliament House design put it, a man with two hats. It is a very odd and difficult design problem to overcome. lt was a problem, of course, for every competitor in the Parliament House competition. In fact the winning design overcame the problem of integrating a new Parliament House with the existing Parliament House in this environment far more effectively than perhaps could possibly have been imagined. One of the most attractive features of the design of the new Parliament House is that it makes a much less odd juxtaposition of the two buildings than would otherwise be the case.

However, it still was felt very strongly by the assessors- and I feel very strongly - that a much better integrated vista of buildings would be created were each side of the mall down from the existing Parliament House to be built in a form of architecture that was basically complementary to the existing Parliament House. If there is a line of buildings stretching down each side of the mall from the lake to the existing Parliament House, broken up by trees and softness of that kind, there will be an integrated base, as it were, on which a building as large and as spectacular as the proposed new Parliament House will sit much more sympathetically than would be the case if it were sitting simply on top of one existing building with, in fact, no other building in sight.

The concept of developing the mall in this way, with an integrated architecturally complementary series of buildings down each side of it, is one that was absolutely integral to the original Burley Griffin town plan for Canberra and is in all the designs and sketches that he drew of the central area, of the Parliamentary Triangle and the mall. The area, of course, was quite central in Griffin’s thinking about how the final planning would shape up. Mr President, without putting it in any more detail than that 1 simply make the point, as the assessors made the point very strongly to the Minister, that as a civic design matter the future architectural and design development of Canberra would be very much assisted by the development of a set of appropriate buildings in the mall area. I add to that the obvious point that one could hardly think, bearing in mind particularly the Washington example, of a more appropriate national institution to locate in the Mall in this way to serve among other things that civic design purpose than the new Museum of Australia.

It appears that there is plenty of time for these matters still to be debated, discussed and resolved in all the relevant places and a sensible decision reached. I simply add my voice in support of the idea that the Minister has floated in this respect and hope that it is a concept that will appeal to other members of parliament and to the public. A national museum is a magnificent concept and I, along with the rest of the Opposition, wish it all speed in coming to fruition.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I will speak briefly in support of the Museum of Australia Bill 1980. 1 congratulate the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections and its chairman, Mr Pigott, for the results of its inquiry and for the report that is before us. I am very interested in history, not only of the world and of nations but also, and more particularly, of our own people. Along with other speakers tonight I feel very strongly that we have to act quickly before it is too late. Even this report is some five years old.

When one compares what is left of Australia with what Australia was like some three, four or five decades ago, one becomes fearful of what is happening. 1 cannot understand why Australia has not had a national museum. Different speakers tonight have mentioned the Smithsonian Institution in Washington and what a wonderful place it is. lt contains a living history not only of America but also of the world. If one wishes to spend some days there- and one can easily do so if one has the time -one can see the history of America and of other places. One can even see, to quite a degree, the history of Australia. 1 suggest, if one wants to see aspects of Australia that perhaps cannot be found here a visit to the Smithsonian Institution. I congratulate ‘the management of the Smithsonian Institution. When I look a! such a place 1 feel sorry and wonder why one has to travel so many thousands of miles to learn the history of one’s own country. I have not seen anywhere in Australia exhibits of the history of our homeland such as are in the Institution.

I think not only myself but also many other Australians regret that action has nol been taken on the establishment of a national museum before now. The fact that action has not been taken is no reason why we perhaps should be downhearted and prepared to throw up our hands and say: ‘All is lost! It is too late!’ It is getting too late but it appears that the Museum of Australia Bill is to be passed in perhaps the last days of the Parliament. As we know, an election must be held before

December. We have only a short time - perhaps two or three months - to deal with the legislation that is before the Senate. But that does not matter. I n the life of a museum, two or three months is nothing. I hope that the Government will ensure that the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections will be acted upon as soon as possible.

In Australia - other speakers have mentioned this point also - we have various museums. We have our State museums which are very fine buildings.

Senator Peter Baume:

– You are being charitable.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– They have very little attraction for me. I think they are fine buildings, but I find the way in which the exhibits are presented to the public is not particularly attractive.

Senator Tate:

– Have you been to Hobart?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I have been to many States, and perhaps 1 am a little over-critical. What I am saying is that I think museums can be living museums. Their exhibits can be better presented. If honourable senators want an example of what I mean they should look at the Smithsonian Institution where the exhibits are presented in such an interesting and lifelike way. But we cannot be too critical of the efforts of the various small museums around Australia, of which there are many. There is Sovereign Hill which displays the phases of the seeking of gold in Ballarat, and there are the various museums along the Murray at Swan Hill and other places. In their keenness, these museums have endeavoured to retain the history of their particular area. If one wants to go further afield, in the north Kimberleys the old homestead which was owned by the Duracks has been used as a museum. It has been lifted up from what is now Lake Argyle. It is a very fine old homestead, full of history, in which the Duracks lived. They left New South Wales and took some two years to trek across the country to where Lake Argyle is now located. That is Australian history, and that is the history of which we should be most proud. I was at the opening of the homestead last year. It has been resited on a hillside overlooking Lake Argyle. It is a very fine monument to the pioneers of that time.

We have other areas of history. I mention as an example the German settlers from the Barossa Valley. I understand, Mr President, that some of those people are your family and ancestors. The Barossa Valley is rich in the history of the people who came to Australia in the early days. Ultimately, as a mark of respect and thanks for the country which had adopted them they made a long trek from the Barossa Valley to a place called Hermannsburg on the Finke River in Central Australia. That trip actually took two years. During the trek they struck a fearsome drought and they had to remain at a spring for almost one year, and there they lost many of their animals and stock. But with the breaking of the drought and the coming of the rains they continued on to what is now known as Hermannsburg. As an act of thanksgiving to the country which had adopted them they set up the mission at Hermannsburg to look after the people in that area. Once again that is history, and it is history that we are talking about tonight. It is this history that we are endeavouring to retain before it is too late.

One could speak for ages about the European settler, but as time is going on I think we should look briefly at the Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal people have been in this country a long time - some say 20,000 years, some say 40,000 years.

Senator Bonner:

– Fifty thousand years.

Senator KILGARIFF:

- Senator Bonner believes it is 50,000 years. But when it comes to the Aboriginal people, what is 1,000 years here or there? Perhaps one could even say: What is 10,000 years here or there? The fact is that they have a very rich culture, a culture which has been retained for thousands of years.

Let us look at what has been lost in the last 100 years from that culture which is thousands of years old. I have lived in the centre of Australia for 50 years, which is not a very long time in history. I look back to when I was a child, when the Aboriginal people in that part of the world were more nomadic than they are today. Many of them were nomads 50 years ago, and they lived as such. I can remember even when I was a young man in the 1940s that these old men would come to me believing that their heritage and their culture was being lost. Because I was their friend and believing that I would look after their ceremonial objects they endeavoured to give them to me. It is one of my biggest regrets that when they did this I did not realise what they were offering me. It was just sheer ignorance that I did not. I suggest that what we are doing today–

Senator Georges:

– What maudlin rubbish at this time of day!

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I can see that there is little history in the honourable senator. With his background I would have thought he would have a little more history in his veins. I suggest from the illustration that 1 am giving to the Senate tonight I am showing that whether we are talking about

Aboriginals or Europeans, Australia has a rich history.

Senator Georges:

– I have even ridden a camel.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I could believe that too, that the honourable senator has ridden a camel. I understand that he was born in Darwin, and no doubt he has very good memories of what Darwin was like in his years as a child there. He should have some knowledge of the history and beginnings of Darwin. I should not say the beginnings of Darwin; he is not that old, nor am I suggesting that he is a museum piece. I am just suggesting that with his knowledge he should have some feeling for history in that part of the world.

I support the legislation. I, like many Australians, am endeavouring in a small way to retain or assist in retaining the history and culture of Australia. I hope that this legislation will be passed and that a board of directors will be appointed so that the museum may commence its work. I congratulate the previous Government for setting up the inquiry into these matters. The inquiry is now some five years old. In matters such as this politics should not be involved. We are all interested in Australia and our heritage. Surely in legislation such as this we can work together. I have great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– The hour is late and I do not want to speak for very long. The Senate is debating the Museum of Australia Bill 1980. Many people have waited a long time to see this Bill emerge and be approved by the Parliament. The report on which the legislation is based has been already described in some detail in the debate by Senator Hamer. I want only to record in the Senate the stature which this report has attained. The report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections in Australia 1975 was put down by a very eminent and distinguished group of Australians. I will talk about its Chairman, Mr Pigott, in a moment. Professor Geoff Blainey, Mr Boswell, Mrs Clayton and Professor John Mulvaney were members of the Committee.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that Professor John Mulvaney is present in the Senate tonight in order to see the passage of this legislation. I am sure he has a lot of pleasure in seeing his work come to fruition. Dr Talbot, Dr Waterhouse and Mr Waters were also members of the Committee. The Committee has produced a report which has achieved world acknowledgment for the quality of its recommendations. It has been sought all over the world, as Senator Hamer already described, because of its recommendations and the details which it proposes.

It is a landmark document of great quality. I believe it is an appropriate document on which the Parliament can base this most important legislation. I would like to pay tribute to the members of the Committee for the work they did, and particularly to pay tribute to Peter Hugh Pigott, the Chairman of this Committee, whose name is associated with the report.

Mr Pigott has been a family friend since 1958. 1 had the pleasure in years gone by of caring, as a doctor, for both his parents. In fact, I went through medical school with his brother. It was in the early 1960s that I first became aware of his burning interest in conservation, his commitment to conservation issues in Australia. Some honourable senators may know that Mr Pigott, who was a very successful businessman, has put a lot of his own resources into developing at Mount Wilson, west of Sydney, a unique property where he has put some of his commitment to conservation into effect in a practical way. He has there the homestead Yengo which is one of the great old homes of the Blue Mountains. On the property he has built from 40 to 50 acres of reserve where he has demonstrated what people can do themselves. Mr Pigott has been able to breed in captivity some species of animals thought to be becoming extinct. The parma wallaby, for example, he has reintroduced into continental Australia. This man, who has been able to do so much for the development of conservation, has been the driving force behind the Museum Bill. 1 simply want to pay tribute to him for this work, his work in relation to the saving of the Lord Howe Island woodhen, his work at Lake Mungo, his work for the Australian Museum and the work that he is still doing as adviser to several Australian governments. His background, vision, capacity and commitment have led to the production of a very great report. I s.ay to him, to Professor Mulvaney and to the other members of the Committee that they can be well content and well proud of the work they have done.

This legislation will do a number of things. One is to enable a site to be selected. I had the privilege of actually walking over the site near Black Mountain which the Committee thought most appropriate for the siting of the Museum of Australia. It is an absolutely stunning place for a museum to be situated. On one side the ground falls away to the mountains and that is the side where the Museum of Aboriginal Australia has been planned to go. The other side of the hill looks down on to Canberra and on to the Parliament. I think it would be most inappropriate for the National Capital Development Commission to enforce the placement of this museum in the Parliamentary Triangle. I think it would be most inappropriate if the site that has been selected as most appropriate by a whole group of people - a site which is being fought for and held over by the Government- were not used for this museum. It is the site which will best put the vision of the Pigott Committee into practical effect. Having walked over the site, I simply ask the Government to give a commitment as soon as possible to its development in the next few years for this great project.

This legislation will enable a beginning for the Museum of Australia. It will establish the Museum of Australia as a legal entity. In this legislation we will establish a council of the museum, provide for a director, provide finance and make the establishment of the museum inevitable. We will begin the process which will lead to the creation of a reality in Australia. It will be a much needed asset which will be a credit to all those who were associated with its genesis, and particularly those who took part in producing the report on which it is to be based.

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

(10.56) - The Government thanks the members of the Senate for the way in which they have dealt with the Museum of Australia Bill 1980. As we have heard on numerous occasions, it is welcomed by all members. It makes provision for the establishment of a national museum of history in Canberra. As has been said, it will be known as the Museum of Australia. In listening to the debate I found little dissension or criticism of what is proposed under the Bill. It would seem to me, with gmodwill breaking out all over the place, that I should simply thank the Senate for the speedy passage of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 478

ADJOURNMENT

Representation of Aborigines in Parliament

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I wish to raise a matter tonight in the adjournment debate. Before I do so I want to say that I was unable to contact Senator Coleman, who had made some allegations last night during the adjournment debate, to inform her that I would be speaking on this matter tonight. Last night in the adjournment debate during the course of her remarks on matters pertaining to Noonkanbah, she made a statement which I take exception to. Before I mention the matter that she raised last night I want to say first and foremost that I am very conscious of the fact that 1 am a senator representing the State of Queensland. I am not a senator representing in this place members of my race; I am a senator representing all the people of Queensland. Consequently, because I am in the Federal Parliament 1 am representing all people of Australia. Because I am an Aborigine - fiercely and proudly so - I have a special feeling and concern for matters that involve members of my own race. In the course of the adjournment debate last night Senator Coleman said:

I am concerned also that the Aborigines in Australia are not being properly represented in this place or in any other house of parliament. It is therefore incumbent on white people to endeavour to put across the points of view which Aboriginals would be putting if they in fact had proper representation in the houses of parliament.

Senator Georges:

– That is true. There is only one of you. That is what it means.

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND · LP

-I take strong exception to that. Despite what Senator Georges might be saying, or any one else might say, I have represented all my constituents in this Parliament and more particularly so at my own expense. I have represented in this Parliament on many occasions the Aboriginal people. I have met with a great deal of criticism. As a matter of fact, I came in conflict with the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on many occasions because of the stand I took in relation to improving the treatment of Aboriginal people in this nation. It is horrible for anyone to say what was said last night. I am not the only Aboriginal member of Parliament. A very fine young Aboriginal person is a member of another Parliament in this nation, that is, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. 1 speak of none other than Neville Perkins who happens to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. He has been a good representative of the Aboriginal people. For anyone to say in this Parliament that only white people represent Aboriginal people is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Neville Perkins has made representations on behalf of the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. He is a member of the Labor Party. I have a great respect and admiration for the young man. For Senator Coleman to say in this Parliament that only white people represent Aboriginal people is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

On many occasions I have represented Aboriginal people. I will represent all people regardless of their nationality, religion or anything else. That is what parliaments are all about - a place where people can represent all people. That is what I have endeavoured to do since I have been a member of this Parliament. I have tried to represent all the people of Australia because that is my duty as a parliamentarian. For someone to say in this Parliament that only white people represent the Aboriginal people and put forward the problems of, and necessities for the advancement of, the Aboriginal people is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I am very disappointed that a member of the Labor Party, which is supposedly the champion of the underdogs, the Aboriginal people and other people, did so. It is an indictment on the whole Labor Party when someone says things like that. Surely its members know the position.

Senator Coleman has been here when I have stood up in this Parliament for Aboriginal people, particularly on the controversies over the Aurukun and Mornington Island people. I have represented the Noonkanbah people to the best of my ability. The Prime Minister will confirm that. The Premier of Western Australia will also confirm that 1 have made many representations to him and have sent him many telegrams which have spelt out my feelings with regard to the people of Noonkanbah. I make it clear that as far as I am concerned, the Aboriginal people are represented in this Senate, not only by white people but also by a good black Australian, and that is I.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

-I claim to have been misrepresented.

Senator Georges:

– Not only misrepresented; misunderstood.

Senator COLEMAN:

– Misunderstood would be a better word. I respectfully suggest to Senator Bonner that he read my speech in Hansard in the context in which it was made. I said that the Aboriginal people were not properly represented, meaning that they did not have the numbers they should have to represent the vast number of people of that race. One person Senator Bonner has forgotten to mention - it was not my intention to preclude either the member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly whom Senator Bonner mentioned or Mr Ernie Bridge - is Ernie Bridge, whom I did not mention last night. 1 simply make the point that we have three Aboriginal members of 14 houses of parliament in the whole of Australia, representing what should be a very loud and vocal voice on a number of issues including Noonkanbah and the report which I endeavoured to have debated in this chamber yesterday. I am sure that if Senator Bonner reads in the clear light of day the Hansard of last night’s adjournment debate he will acknowledge that I was not decrying the representation that he has made in this chamber or in any other place on behalf of the Aboriginal people or on behalf of all people of Australia; nor was I denigrating the activities of Mr Perkins or Mr Bridge. I simply made the very valid point that, in actual fact, there is not true representation of the Aboriginal people in the many houses of parliament that we have by the number of parliamentarians that we have.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned 1 1.7 p.m.

page 479

PAPERS

The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute:

Audit Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 234, 235.

Australian Bureau of Statistics Act - Proposal No. 2 of 1980 - Survey of the Victorian Pig Industry, dated August 1980.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act - Ordinances 1980 - No. 3 - Education

Customs Act and Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act- Regulation- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 236.

Defence Amendment Act - Interim Determinations - Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 238, 239.

Seat of Government (Administration) Act - Regulations 1980- No. 12- (Fire Brigade (Administration) Ordinance).

Variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (Seventieth Series), dated 27 August 1 980.

Wheat Marketing Act- Regulations - Statutory Rules 1980 No. 237.

page 480

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Television: UHF and VHF Wavebands (Question No. 2397)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 19 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated cost to a citizen of: (a) fitting an adaptor to a VHF television set in order to receive UHF; and (b) purchasing and installing a new aerial to receive UHF.
  2. How many channels will become available in the UHF wavebands.
  3. How many channels have been committed for use as translator stations, and what will be their cost.
  4. How many channels will be needed in Sydney and Melbourne to give total UHF coverage to the residents of those cities.
  5. How will Melbourne receive the signal from Sydney when the Independent and Multicultural Broadcasting Corporation (IMBC) is broadcasting, having in mind that the Australian Broadcasting Commission uses the bearer line.
  6. Will the IMBC programs be received in Canberra.
  7. What research has been carried out into the feasibility of (a) UHF in Sydney and Melbourne, allowing for the comparatively restricted nature of the signal; (b) cable TV for possible use as a community and ethnic channel: and (c) the desirability that the existing channels carry more ethnic content in a similar way to the manner in which they now carry C classification programs for children.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. (a) $75 to$100.

    1. $75 to $100. This cost would increase by 30 per cent to 40 per cent if a new aerial mount and coaxial cable downlead were required.

  2. Current plans, which are still in a formulative stage, provide for a total of thirty-seven channels with the present frequency bands assigned to television broadcasting. However, in practice the maximum number of channels that can be used to serve a particular area is reduced to approximately one third of this number because of technical constraints arising out of the practicable imperfections of domestic television receivers and the need to provide for services in adjoining areas. The number of UHF services that can be operated in any one area is further reduced by the necessity to use some of the available channels for translators to fill in holes in the coverage of both VHF and UHF services. Current expectations are that no more than 4 UHF programmes could be possible in major metropolitan areas.

This estimate is based on the current allocation of UHF spectrum to Broadcasting. Following the recently concluded World Administrative Radio Conference the allocation of spectrum to all radio services (including broadcasting) is being reviewed. The results of this review may alter the above position.

  1. Eight channels have been committed for the translator stations at King’s Cross and North Head, Sydney; four channels for the translator stations to serve the Adelaide foothills; two channels for the translator stations to serve East Devonport, Tasmania; one channel for the translator to serve Northam, Western Australia.

The approximate costs of establishing translators in the above areas are as follows:

King’s Cross: $500,000

North Head: $500,000

Adelaide foothills: $325,000

East Devonport (Tasmania ) : $80,000 to $ 1 00.000

Northam (Western Australia): $60,000.

  1. Planning for the provision of UHF television services in Melbourne has not yet reached a stage where it is possible to say with any degree of certainty how many channels are necessary for total coverage. What can be said is that the terrain in Melbourne is less difficult from the point of view of UHF propagation and that whatever provision is made in Sydney will be more than adequate to cater for Melbourne.
  2. IMBC or SBS will use the standby bearer line between Sydney and Melbourne.
  3. Not at this stage.

  4. (a) From the aspect of technical feasibility investigations of a general nature into the use of UH F for television have been made over many years based mainly on overseas experience. Specific field investigations have been conducted in the Sydney area into the use of UHF for translator services and to a more limited extent into the use of UHF for the IMBC or SBS service. No field investigations have been conducted in Melbourne as the terrain is comparatively favourable for UHF transmission and no serious difficulties are envisaged.

    1. Because the introduction of cable television has wide ranging implications. I have directed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to conduct an inquiry to examine a wide range of matters pertaining to the introduction of cable services into Australia. However, the Government seeks to provide as much diversity of choice in programming services as market forces indicate is required. When cable television services are introduced, consideration will certainly be given to the use of cable for community and other types of program services.
    2. Refer to Second Report of ETRP which recommended, and Government has accepted, that the IMBC be established as the most effective means of meeting multicultural and multilingual needs in Australian society.

Answers to Questions (Question No. 2472)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) When can a reply be expected to Question No. 1 686 which was placed on the Senate Notice Paper on 5 June 1 979.
  2. What is the reason for the long delay in providing an answer to this question.
  3. Is the delay the responsibility of the Minister, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal or the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. to (3) 1 refer the honourable senator to my answer to his Question on Notice No. 1 686 (Senate Weekly Hansard, 23 May 1980, page 2862).

Proposed Telecommunications Satellite System (Question No. 2480)

Senator Mason:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 27 February 1980:

  1. From whom and when has the Minister received representations regarding the proposed national telecommunications satellite system.
  2. Are these representations predominantly against the establishment of the system.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Since 1978 following the establishment of the Task Force and the Working Groups, the Minister has received a large number of representations about the national communications satellite system from individuals and groups. These representations were from the trade union movement, broadcasting interests, people in remote areas, providers of educational services, the computer data industry, members of parliament, and other sectors of the community.
  2. The Minister has informed me that the clear majority of these submissions have favoured the establishment of a domestic satellite system.

Bomb Scare: Australian Government Centre (Question No. 2614)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 27 March 1980:

  1. Was there a bomb scare at the Australian Government Centre, Chifley Square, Sydney, on Thursday, 13 March 1980.
  2. Did officers of the Property Section of the Department of Administrative Services proceed to the second floor and expeditiously evacuate Commonwealth personnel at potential personal risk; if so, have the officers of the Property Section who speedily responded, for the welfare of their fellow workers on 13 March, been suitably commended? If not, will the Minister ensure their actions are properly acknowledged.
  3. What procedures have been adopted to counter future bomb threats?
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. Standing instructions which have been in force since 17 December 1976 include procedures for handling bomb threats.

Australian Force in Antarctica (Question No. 2720)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 23 April 1980:

Are members of the Australian Force in Antarctica not entitled to vote in Federal and State elections because the isolation precludes them from voting as reported in the Bulletin dated 25 March 1980; if so, what action can the Government take to ensure these people are not denied their rights in the 1980 Federal Election.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The position is as set out in my answer to Question No. 5744 in the House of Representatives on 19 August 1980 (Hansard, page 408).

Moslem Burials (Question No. 2769)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 30 April 1980:

  1. Has concern been expressed by funeral directors throughout Australia al the practice of burials of Moslems without caskets.
  2. Is this practice contrary to public health regulations.
  3. What are the implications to public health of this custom and the possible spread of the custom to other religions.
  4. Will the Minister list this item for discussion at the next meeting of Commonwealth and State Health Ministers.
Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes. Concern regarding the burial of Moslems without a casket has been expressed at a national level by representatives of Australian funeral directors.
  2. Burial of deceased persons is regulated by Stale, Territory and local government legislation. In general there is a requirement for bodies to be buried in caskets but in some instances this may apply only to the burial of victims of infectious disease.
  3. Provided that burial sites used for bodies nol enclosed in caskets are located so that they do not contaminate water supplies and death has not been caused by an infectious disease, unfavourable effects on public health are unlikely. However, it is usual for legislation in the Slates and Territories to require that bodies be buried only in designated cemeteries. Health hazards are therefore unlikely to arise.

I am not aware of any likelihood of spread of this custom to other religions.

  1. Not at this time as I understand that some discussions are taking place between members of the Islamic faith and State authorities which may lead to a compromise acceptable to all parties concerned.

Legal Publications (Question No. 2803)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 May 1 980:

  1. What has been the value of legal publications purchased by or for the High Court of Australia in each year since 1964.

  2. What proportion of this amount was paid for material published by:

    1. Butterworths Pty Ltd:
    2. CCH; and
    3. the Law Book Company, in each of these years.
  3. What proportion of legal publications was provided by each publisher for all courts other than the High Court in each of these years.
  4. What is the usual procedure followed in the purchase of legal publications for courts.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

Records relating to accounts for library purchases for the High Court are available only from 1972 onwards. Similarly, records for other courts are available only from 1973 onwards. The following answers are based on those records.

1 ) 1 972-73 - $43,287; 1 973-74 - $50,928; 1974-75- $70,533; 1975-76- $73,608; 1976-77- $80,531; 1 977-78- $97,905: 1 978-79-$ 1 02,420.

(2)-

The High Court has an overseas exchange scheme with 27 countries through which it provides Commonwealth Law Reports in return, in most cases, for copies of overseas reports. The Commonwealth Law Reports are published by Law Book Company.

  1. Each legal publishing firm issues periodically catalogues listing details and prices of publications available. The bulk of expenditure each year is for law reports, legislation and journals which are available on an annual subscription from the publisher or the publisher’s agent. When a particular legal publication is sought, the current catalogues are examined, and if the publication is available from the publishing firm or agent and funds are available, an order is placed. If the particular legal publication is not listed, enquiries are made of publishing firms as to where the publications can be obtained, and if it is available, an order is placed with the supplier. The above procedures are followed where the cost of the item or set of books does not exceed $5,000. If the cost is in excess of $5,000, public tenders are invited, unless there is only one supplier in which case a Certificate of Inexpediency, as required by Finance Regulations, is obtained before placement of an order. Some publications, particularly those not currently available from legal publishers, are purchased secondhand.

Health: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2872)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 5 May 1980:

What are the names, dates and terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Health.

Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The full-time Director, **Dr N.** J. McCarthy, was appointed on 19 September 1979. His appointment expires on 19 September 1984. He receives a remuneration of $47,500 and an allowance of $2,800. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Remuneration is as specified in the Remuneration Tribunal 1980 Review effective from 1 July 1980. 1. Officer of the Commission. No additional remuneration is involved. 2. Paid according the Remuneration Tribunal determination (reviewed each year)- presentley $40 for meetings of less than three hours or $80 for meetings of three hours or more. 3. Members elected by the House of Assembly. Term of appointment is from date elected until the date of first meeting of Assembly after the Assembly's next election. {:#subdebate-44-7} #### Recovery of Money Overpaid to Pharmacists (Question No. 2946) {: #subdebate-44-7-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston:
QUEENSLAND asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Attorney-General advise the Minister for Health that there was no way that money overpaid to pharmacists could be recovered. 1. Did the Attorney-General receive a letter seeking an explanation of why money overpaid to pharmacists could not be recovered when the Department of Social Security could withdraw money overpaid to pensioners from their bank accounts without their knowledge; if so, did the AttorneyGeneral refer the letter to the Minister for Social Security, and if so, why. {: #subdebate-44-7-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The moneys paid to pharmaceutical chemists, which **Senator Colston** refers to as 'money overpaid' were as a matter of law payments made to those chemists in accordance with determinations made under the National Health Act 1953. They were not in excess of legal entitlements under that Act. A statement made by the Minister for Health in another place on 2 April 1 980 explains the basis of t he matter. The Department of Health sought from my department advice concerning the operation of the National Health Aci 1953 in the matter that had arisen. That advice was provided by the Crown Solicitor's Office in 1979. I do not propose to disclose details of the legal opinion expressed by my department to the Department of Health. In this regard I refer the honourable senator to Standing Order 99. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. A letter was received referring to the payments made to pharmaceutical chemists, and also to the recovery from Social Security pensioners of amounts that were paid in excess of legal entitlements. In view of an emphasis in the letter on Social Security overpayments, it appeared appropriate that my colleague should consider the representations. Accordingly the letter was referred to the Minister for Social Security. Australian National University: Student Association Fees {: #subdebate-44-7-s2 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, without notice, on 15 May 1980: >Since the ANU has been extraordinarily tardy in this matter and has discriminated against and acted coercively towards some students at the ANU, will the Government now complete its consideration of the matter? {: #subdebate-44-7-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government has considered carefully the question of membership and financing of student activities at the Australian National University. > >It has been the Government's wish that following the passage of the 1 979 amendments to the University Act, the university would use those provisions to ensure that students opting to join student organisations would pay a membership fee to finance activities that could not be met from collections from the compulsory fees which, of course, are available only for amenities and services for all students. If this were done there would be a clear distinction between the students who choose to join a particular organisation and those who do not. > >The Governor-General in Council has approved the relevant statutes made by the university to provide for the collection and use of compulsory fees for amenities and services. The university is able, therefore, to proceed with the disbursement of fees moneys in 1 980 and to develop arrangements for 1981. > >I have informed the university, through the ViceChancellor, that the Government will review the position early in 1981 in the light of the experience with amenities and services for students during 1980 and of the action taken by the university and by student organisations in respect of the total range of activities for 1981. This will be done at the earliest convenient time next year and the Government will then consider whether it should introduce further amendments to the University Act. Telecommunications: Pilbara and Kimberley Regions {: #subdebate-44-7-s4 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- On 21 May 1980 *(Hansard* pages 2560-1) **Senator Rocher** asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, the following question without notice: ls the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of problems with the coaxial cable and landline telephone services in the Pilbara and Kimberley regions of Western Australia? Have breakdowns occurred which could not be repaired for periods of up to three working days? As broadband services to the east Kimberleys are not planned for completion until December 1983, will the Government consider improving maintenance procedures as well as installing back-up radio telephone equipment until the broadband system is available? The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Abnormal cyclone and thunderstorm activity during the recent 'wet' season was primarily responsible for the unusual number of interruptions to both the coaxial cable system from Perth to Port Hedland and to the open wire trunk line system to and within the Kimberley region. The honourable senator would be aware that three severe cyclones in a five-week period from January to March 1980 caused major disruption to other infrastructure services, eg road, water supply and power, as well as communications, and the resultant flooding placed great obstructions in the way of speedy restorations. Telecom has initiated action to substantially reduce the risk of communications failures by providing additional protection against lightning damage to the coaxial cable system and by rectifying weaknesses in the open wire system. Upgrading work on the open wire system at the major crossing over the DeGrey River, 150km east of Port Hedland, the scene of a breakdown caused by Cyclone Dean which reduced services in the Kimberley area for up to three days, has already been brought to finality. > >The protection program for the coaxial cable is expected to cost in excess of $400,000 and the upgrading of the open wire into the Kimberley area has been budgeted at $36,000, both projects having a target date for completion before the onset of the next wet season. > >A broadband service to the Kimberley area is planned to be operational to Broome and Derby during 1982; and to Wyndham and Kununurra during 1983 al a cost of $10m. Action is in hand, in the meantime, to improve and extend emergency HF type radio communications between Derby and Perth by employing modern equipment with an increased number of frequency options. This system is scheduled to be in operation prior to the next wet season. Investigations are also proceeding for the provision of similar equipment to Wyndham before the 1981-82 cyclone season commences. Whilst these backup systems have limited capacity, they do provide a substantial measure of additional telecommunication security for the region.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 August 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800827_senate_31_s86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant