Senate
21 March 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Honourable Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 687

DEATH OF FORMER SENATOR

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

Mr President, I regret to inform the Senate of the passing on 9th March 1972 of the former senator Roy Kendall. As a senator for Queensland, Roy Kendall gave distinguished service to the Senate for 16 years from 1949 to 1965. He was elected to the Senate at the general elections of 1949 and 1951, the Senate election in 1953 and the general election in 1958. He was a respected figure in this place. He was a member of the Library Committee from 2nd March 1950, of the Serrate Standing Orders Committee from 11th November 1953, of the Senate Select Committee on Payments to Maritime Unions in 1958, and of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory from 14th August 1962.

Roy Kendall had a varied and interesting background. He was born in London in 1899 and educated at HMS ‘Worcester’, the merchant navy training establishment for officers. During the First World War he served in the Royal Navy Transport Service from 1.914 to 1918 and was mobilised as a lieutenant commander in the Royal Navy in 1939 at the outbreak of World War II. He gained rapid promotion, being appointed to the rank of captain in 1942, and was attached to General MacArthur’s headquarters as Admiralty representative in charge of intelligence services in the Southwest Pacific Area.

When he settled in Queensland at the end of the war he quickly became prominent in community affairs and was well known, amongst other things, as Sea Scouts Commissioner for Queensland and New Guinea. Sir, those who sat with him here in this place and knew him, liked him and regarded him as a friend, and we mourn his passing. On behalf of all honourable senators I express condolence to the widow, family and relatives of the late Roy Kendall.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I would like to add my voice on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to the words of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Kendall was elected to this Parliament in 1949 and was with those of us who took our seats here in the period from 1950 to 1965. He was one of the forty-niners, who are starting now to be remembered by only a few. He had, as Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson pointed out, a lifetime in the Navy and in the Merchant Marine. He spent about 7 years of that time in China and about 5 years in New Guinea. To the affairs of those 2 countries, which were not canvassed So much in those days as you, Mr President, well remember, Senator Kendall brought a very fresh mind to bear and he talked about them when a lot of us were not thinking about them as deeply as we do today.

He was very incisive in debate; he was a very intent listener and was quick to grasp points and to react to them. But he was always a very fair debater. I remember one occasion when he said something that brought quite a lot of public criticism upon him. The criticism on that occasion came from members on his own side as well as honourable senators on this side. He handled the criticism in a very dignified manner by saying on the next occasion he spoke that he appreciated the letters he had received and the criticisms he had received and he hoped that the criticisms he offered would be received in the same way by all those people who had been criticising him. That impressed me very much at the time. All of us who knew him remember him as a very sincere man. I met him when he visited Canberra a few years ago. Even then, although he was aging, he did a lot of community work. He was devoted to the Sea Scouts. He told me that he was unable to drive his car, but that he was making arrangements to keep up his responsibilities to the Sea Scouts. He was devoted not only to parliamentary life but also to all those things associated with it. On behalf of members of the Australian Labor Party, I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and convey to Roy Kendall’s widow and all those in mourning for him our very deepest condolences.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– On behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and the Deputy

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in extending our condolences to the widow and family of the late Senator Kendall. I had the pleasure of serving with Senator Kendall in this place for some years. As has been said, he was a quiet man who had 2 particular interests. At all times he projected and sustained them in this chamber. He had an abiding interest in the future of Papua New Guinea on which he was particularly well-informed and to which he directed his attention and the attention of the Senate on many occasions. By virtue of his love of the. sea and his association with it he was intensely interested in the maritime industry of Australia. In a field in which there is perhaps not enough knowledge and energy Senator Kendall always brought to deliberations on that matter his knowledge, experience and interest. He acted virtually as assistant Whip in this place for many years. He was a man of quiet dedication and high principles. He served his country with great distinction in the Navy in war and sustained that interest in peace. I feel that Senator Kendall’s passing is the severing of one of those links which become more precious as the years go on. On behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party and for myself personally I convey to those who survive him our deepest sympathy.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I would like to associate myself with the expressions of condolence to the wife and family of the late ex-Senator Roy Kendall. My association with him dates back to his entry to the Parliament in 1949. As was mentioned, at one time he carried out the duties of Assistant Whip to Dame Annabelle Rankin. He was one of those co-operative and thoughtful members of the Parliament who always had the interests of the Senate at heart. We can say that he was a member of a very distinguished association of Whips who have graced the Senate. We very much regret his passing. I would like to mention the balance that he brought to debate on matters in which he was closely interested, particularly maritime matters which demonstrated his long experience. The value of the contributions that he made to the debates in the Senate will always be appreciated. He was a man of great sincerity with a very friendly personality and a kind nature. He never held a grudge. As a mat ter of fact, I was very proud on one occasion when I raised a matter in the Senate. He rose from the Government side and agreed entirely with all I said and praised my remarks. That was almost a miracle and I have always had reason to remember him for that. I wish to convey to his widow and to his family my personal sympathy in the loss of a very fine citizen. I hope they have the strength and the fortitude to overcome what must be a tremendous loss to them.

The PRESIDENT:

– As a mark of respect, I ask honourable senators to rise in their places.

Honourable senators stood in their places.

page 688

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

Senator Drake-Brockman, the Minister for Air, is temporarily indisposed and will not be present during the sittings of the Senate this week. Mr President, I suggest that honourable senators direct questions which relate to Senator Drake-Brockman’s own portfolio of Air and to the portfolios of the other Services to Senator Wright. Questions in relation to the portfolio of Repatriation should be directed to Senator Greenwood, in relation to the portfolio of Supply to myself and in relation to the portfolio of Primary Industry to Senator Cotton. Honourable senators should not hesitate to ask questions on those portfolios. Whilst my ministerial colleagues and I may not be able to answer every question instantaneously we will certainly do our very best to ensure that answers are supplied to all questions. I hope honourable senators will continue to ask questions which would normally come within Senator DrakeBrockman’s responsibility.

page 688

PETITIONS

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable the President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree to which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received and read.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable the President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public Interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all dosing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a Joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree to which It should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable the President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to ali closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree to which it* should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmanser General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the Public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster General’s Department, to assess the degree to which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extentits unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition:

The Honourable the President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree to which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

Postmaster-General’s Department

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

The Honourable the President, and Senators in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Postmaster-General’s Department Central Office policy, of centralising Post Office affairs and activities under the various titles of Area Management, Area Mail Centres, Area Parcel Centres and similar titles is resulting in both loss of service and lowering of the standards of service to the public, directly resulting in the closing of Post Offices, which is detrimental to the public interest.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to:

Call a halt to all closing of Post Offices and reorganising within the Post Office until full details of the proposed savings and all details of alteration to the standards of service to the public are made available to Parliament, and

Initiate a joint Parliamentary, inquiry into the Postmaster-General’s Department, to assess the degree to which it should be run as a normal business undertaking and to what extent its unprofitable activities should be subsidised as a public service charged more correctly to National Development.

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

Petition received.

page 690

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator CAVANAGH:

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

That the petitions relating to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, presented to the Senate this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Environment for investigation and report.

page 690

QUESTION

UNION AMALGAMATIONS

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: 1. Did the Industrial Registrar of the Arbitration. Court on 16th March refuse financial assistance, under the terms of legislation passed by the Chifley Government, to 2 rank and file unionists who have taken action to oppose the amalgamation of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society of Australia and the Sheet Metal Workers Union? 2. Is the Registrar empowered to determine whether financial assistance be granted even though the proposed action may call into question his own decision of 10th January supporting the amalgamation? If so, does not this raise an important question of propriety? 3. Has the Registrar determined, as the regulations provide, that there are not responsible grounds for the proceedings and that they are not taken in good faith? Does not this contrast with the separate decisions of Mr Justice Dunphy and Mr Justice Kerr granting orders nisi for these very actions to be heard on 26th April?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I am aware that applications have been made under regulation 138 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Regulations for financial assistance in 2 proceedings which have been brought under section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, relating generally speaking to the enforcement and observance of the rules of organisation. Regulation 138 under which the applications have been made is a regulation which empowers the Registrar, if it appears to him that the proceedings have been brought on reasonable grounds and have been brought in good faith, to direct that financial assistance be given. I understand that under section 141 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act orders nisi have bee,n granted by judges of the Commonwealth Industrial Court at the instance of 2 applicants with a view to those applicants testing whether certain rules of the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society of Australia and the Sheet Metalworkers Union have been carried out and observed.

The applications for financial assistance were considered recently by the Deputy Industrial Registrar who, in these areas, is equally competent with the Industrial Registrar. I understand that the Deputy Industrial Registrar has decided not to grant financial assistance. I” understand also that the Deputy Industrial Registrar has received from the solicitor for the applicants who were refused financial assistance a letter seeking a reconsideration of the matter. I understand that that reconsideration is currently being given.

page 691

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WILLESEE:

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation currently considering proposals that Trans-Australia Airlines should be permitted to broaden its activities to include areas such as tourist facilities and hotels, ground transport where it would assist passenger and freight operations, and obtaining outside engineering contracts for its large facilities at Melbourne? Does the Minister regard yesterday’s announcement of the substantial buying into Ansett Transport Industries by Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd as being a good reason for allowing TAA to broaden its economic base so that it can maintain its competitive position?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The question is a long one. I shall do my best to answer the points as I heard them. Trans-Australia Airlines, which is operated by the Australian National Airlines Commission, and the scope of its activities are part of a general study that is being conducted by the Department of Civil Aviation and myself of all the ramifications, of the 2- airline policy. One should have regard to what might be called the public interest, the economic viability and possibilities of both operators in the system, and the necessary changes that might be called for in time to serve the public interest better. The second part of the question, which dealt with the change in shareholding in Ansett Transport Industries, is really a matter for that company. As far as I can judge, what has happened is that 2 Australian shareholders have sold their shares to another Australian shareholder. I do not think I can comment beyond that at present, except to say that the matter is being kept under close observation.

page 691

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I ask a question of the Minister for Health. I refer to the reported import of 88 horses which have been placed in quarantine near Penrith because of an outbreak of strangles on the ship. Is the Minister confident that this airborne virus horse disease can be contained? In view of the large concentration of horses from all over Australia at the Sydney Show and for the Sydney Cup racing carnival, is there not a big risk of the disease spreading? As there has not been a major outbreak of strangles in Australia for many years and as the horse population has thus become vulnerable, will every precaution be taken to prevent an outbreak of the disease and so minimise the economic loss which this would cause?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONOn Friday last, I think, I issued a Press statement in which I advised what action had to be taken in relation to the horses that were due to arrive in Australia. I am sure that everybody would agree that action had to be taken. If the system works as it should, a copy of the Press release should have been put in the honourable senator’s mail box ere this. There is no clinical evidence of disease in the horses other than strangles. In my statement I did point out that strangles is a complaint which is not unknown in Australia. The concentration of horses in the Sydney area at present is realised. It was for the protection of those horses, among other things, that action was taken. Very strict quarantine has been imposed on the imported horses. The object of the quarantine is to ensure that there is no risk of the spread of the disease, strangles. The quarantine has taken place, not because the disease, strangles, might have been present or because there might have been evidence of it, but because behind the strangles might have been implications of some other disease which could be subject to quarantine provisions. I make it abundantly clear that I completely confirmed the action taken by the Department of Health and agreed to it, not so much because of the strangles but because of the possibility that behind the complaint some other notifiable disease could be lurking. The property at Penrith has been declared a temporary quarantine station and all movements onto and from the property have been and are being strictly controlled in accordance with the requirements of the animal quarantine regulations. Every precaution has been taken to prevent any further outbreak of the strangles disease or any other disease which could possibly emerge.

page 692

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science aware that the Australian Constitution has been set as a text for social studies in Victorian schools but that many hundreds of students have been unable to obtain a copy of the document? Will the Minister take the action necessary to overcome the situation?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– If there is any difficulty in providing that text for study in schools I have no doubt that the Minister for Education and Science will afford whatever assistance is possible to enable that to be done. The honourable senator’s question surprises me. I should have thought that a copy of the Constitution was readily available to any citizen of Australia who cared to call at Commonwealth library offices or records offices, or for that matter at any State government office. I should have thought that educational schools would have ready access to copies of the Constitution.

page 692

QUESTION

EYRE HIGHWAY

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– On 22nd February, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport for details of any Commonwealth financial involvement in the sealing of the Eyre Highway in South Australia following a proposal from the South Australian Government. The Minister advised that the matter was then before the Government. I now ask: Does he know whether there has been any decision and, if not, will he ascertain details of the situation as it now stands and advise the Senate?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– No decision has been communicated to me to give to the honourable senator, but I shall make further inquiries from the Department of Shipping and Transport and let him have an answer in writing.

page 692

QUESTION

EGGS

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the extreme crisis which exists in the egg industry, due to massive over-production and unsatisfactory export markets, and the fact that producers will receive only 26c net per dozen eggs this year as against a cost of production of 32c, will the Government use emergency measures to conduct an Australia-wide poll of commercial egg producers in order to ascertain their views on a scheme of controlled egg production which at present has the approval of all States except Victoria?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– When it was suggested that I might answer questions on behalf of my learned friend and colleague, Senator Tom Drake-Brockman, I was hoping that no-one would ask me about eggs. I listened with great care to the question and I gather that there is only one outstanding State which is not in agreement with a scheme to keep production within the bounds of consumption. What I could do is find out from the Department of Primary Industry what the departmental views are on the whole situation and what the Department sees as being the finalising date for this matter. I shall let the honourable senator have that information as soon as I can get it.

page 692

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask Senator Cotton a question in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Does the Minister agree that all citizens of the Commonwealth over the age of 21 years should be afforded a vote in the Federal elections? In these circumstances, what steps, if any, have been taken to enrol several thousand Aborigines in the Northern Territory so that they may participate in the forthcoming Federal elections?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– When the honourable senator asks ‘does the Minister agree’, surely he is referring to the Minister for the Interior and not to me. I have my own views on the question of the voting age, but I have not been asked to give these. I will have to ask the responsible Minister for a full answer to the range of questions which the honourable senator has asked.

page 693

QUESTION

TASMANIAN HYDRO-ELECTRIC COMMISSION

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As most of the money involved in the Hydro-Electric Commission’s undertaking in Tasmania is Commonwealth money, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise the Senate whether he is aware of the strong feeling of many Australians against the projected flooding of Lake Pedder which is claimed to be Australia’s most beautiful lake? Secondly, in view of the spate of bombings that are almost everyday occurrences in other areas of the world, is he aware of the vulnerability of the dam involved in the Pedder scheme and of suggestions by some radical people that it be blown up? Thirdly, will be ask the Tasmanian Government to take immediate steps to protect the dam and the very considerable Commonwealth investment?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Even the Leader of the Government in the Senate hears of certain happenings on the perimeter. I have an idea that an election is to be held in Tasmania shortly and I have heard some of the elements of this matter referred to. I would have great reservations about bombings in Tasmania. However, this is a serious question and I will refer it to the Treasurer.

page 693

QUESTION

HEADACHE POWDERS

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Will the Minister for Health tell the Senate whether the placing of warning labels on packets containing proprietary headache powders or tablets has reduced consumption? Is it a fact that despite the legislative action in relation to labels supermarkets have continued price cutting wars on aspirin, phenacetin and caffeine preparations? As these preparations are potential killers, linked particularly with kidney disease, will the Minister legislate to restrict sales to pharmacies in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and have the warning labels printed in red?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAs I understand it, the honourable senator’s question referred to drugs. I wish to give a considered reply to the question. I have some comprehensive material on this matter which I propose to place before the Senate. Rather than do it at question time when I would perhaps be a little inadequate in terms of time and background information, I will respond to the question by giving a considered written reply in the next several days.

page 693

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that in the Commonwealth Public Service furlough is not paid to the legal representatives of a single person whereas it is paid to the representatives of a married person? If so, will the Minister undertake to examine and remove this strange anomaly?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

This is a question that should properly be referred to the Prime Minister’s Department for examination. As we know, the Public Service Board, which has a big responsibility in this matter, is under the control of the Prime Minister’s Department. I will have the question referred.

page 693

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Is it a fact that a recipient of sickness or unemployment benefits loses the dependant’s allowance of $4.50 a week when the eldest child reaches 16 years of age and continues at school thereby remaining a dependant? If so, despite the fact that this question involves policy, will the Minister confer with his colleague for the purpose of examining this anomaly and as quickly as possible bring the dependant’s allowance for recipients of unemployment and sickness benefits in line with dependant’s allowances payable, to age, invalid and widowed pensioners who continue to receive the dependant’s allowance for student children over 16 years of age?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 regret that I am not able to give an answer which would be satisfactory to the honourable senator. There are aspects of the question which I know are correct. There are other factors which counterbalance the consequences to which he has referred insofar as if a person is still at school after he reaches the age of 16 years he can receive no allowance. But on the broad issue, what I will undertake to do is to refer the question to the Minister for Social Services and ask him to expedite a full reply to the honourable senator.

page 694

QUESTION

OPERATION EARTH DAY ‘72

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts aware of the project known as ‘Operation Earth Day 72’ - an imaginative undertaking launched yesterday by a number of organisations and aimed at concentrating public attention upon the need for balanced development and conservation of the environment? Will the Government commend and study this project with a view to encouraging similar educational promotions towards a continuous and growing public understanding of the vital problems of environment and ecology?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Speaking for myself, I certainly am aware of the project Operation Earth Day ‘72’ which, I understand, has been promoted by a Sydney newspaper in order to bring about a greater consciousness amongst a wider group of people of the problems of conservation to which the honourable senator has referred. I can only say that it represents a wholly desirable activity in which persons who can wield a tremendous amount of influence are utilising that influence in a valuable way. It is like the programme of which you, Mr President, would be aware, which was run by a Melbourne newspaper and named ‘1034’. It was designed to bring to attention the need for road safety and it has proved tremendously effective in Victoria. Whether the attention of the Minister for the Environment. Aborigines arid the Arts has been drawn to this matter, I am unable to say; but I am quite sure that he will be interested in it. In any event, 1 certainly will bring the honourable senator’s question to his attention.

page 694

QUESTION

AIR CHARTER SERVICES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a question. In view of World Airways being granted permission to operate charter flights into Australia next year, can the Minister say in what aspect its application differed from those of other operators in order to obtain permission? What efforts were made to obtain reciprocal guarantees for Qantair or any other Australian operator which may be interested? Did the Australian Government have discussions with the United States Civil Aeronautics Board prior to granting World Airways approval to operate the charter flights?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The World Airways application was the one of the longest standing in the many applications from people who wanted to operate charter flights to Australia. The World Airways case was a particular one which could be identified because the company had a clearly captive market of Americans who would come to Australia that way but not any other way and who, if they could not so come, would go somewhere else. Therefore it looked to be a sensible experiment to let them do this in the interests of generally generating a much bigger traffic over the Pacific which would be to the benefit of all the scheduled carriers including Qantas Airways Ltd. The positions of Qantas and its subsidiary. Qantair, were fully taken into account. The opportunity for them to take part in charter flights already exists in their affinity groups charter programme, and without doubt will exist in due course in a specially organised programme. The net result of all this will be to bring many more people to Australia and a net gain in the foreign exchange earnings of this country, without any loss at all. The general situation of other, charter operators will be considered in the light of the Australian position, the Australian interest and the amount of this activity which it is sensible and wise to allow as an experiment for the time being.

page 695

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Attorney-

General inform the Senate whether he has had any indication, following the Australian Labor Party Federal Executive meeting in Adelaide last week, as to the official ALP attitude towards continuing support for the draft resisting ALP candidate, Mr Johnston?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I personally have not received any intimation from any member of the Australian Labor Party Federal Executive following its meeting last week; nor have I read any statements made by either the Federal Secretary of the ALP or any of its many leaders as to what decisions were taken at the conference last week. I am aware, of course, that certain apologists for the ALP Federal Executive meeting who wrote regularly in the Press suggested that all the controversial issues were shelved and that no decision was taken which might cause controversy. However, I was interested to read that the statements made by these persons were in the nature of apologia because today a letter appeared in the Melbourne Age’ which was written by Mr Hartley, a member of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party. He said that the Executive was not afraid to discuss the issue of whether it supported Mr Johnston, who is a Labor Party candidate and who is also a person who will not appear in court to answer a charge of whether he is a draft resister. Mr Hartley thought fit to write to the newspapers. He said:

The decision was not made because of a warning that ‘they could come under strong criticism for their support of Mr Johnston if the matter was raised on the Executive’.

He went on:

Rather, discussion with other executive members indicated that the excellent declaration of support made by the Federal executive at Launceston last June, prior to Mr Johnston’s endorsement, could not be bettered.

The official text of that declaration reads:

H. Hartley moved, R. J. Hawke seconded: “That the Federal executive declares its support of Victorian Australian Labor Party members Barry Johnston and Tony Dalton, due to face court proceedings on Friday, June 18, for breaches of the National Service Act which could result in 2-year terms of imprisonment.

This executive again emphasises the ALP’s opposition to the principles of the National Service Act, and declares its support for all those young men who have refused to be conscripted for the undeclared war in Vietnam.

This executive asks all members of the party in Victoria to protest in their own way in favour of Barry Johnston and Tony Dalton and others who are refusing to comply with the provisions of the Act.”

One can only assume in the light of that letter from a member of the Federal Executive who was present and who participated in the decisions of the Federal Executive that he views the attitude of the Executive as fully in support of the Victorian Branch’s endorsement of Mr Johnston. I emphasise that it must follow also that he regards the Federal Executive indecision as supporting Mr Whitlam’s statement that draft dodging is not a crime and as generally supporting the attitude of the Australian Labor Party in seeking to give support to a person who defies lawful processes. One can only say that the current attitude of the Federal Executive seems to emulate the person of whom it was said that he never said a foolish thing nor ever did a wise one.

page 695

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of the current rationalisation policy of the airlines which has led to considerably reduced services and the consequent achievement of the objective of much higher passenger loading can the Minister say when it might be expected that some of the considerable financial benefit flowing to the airlines from this policy will be passed on to the travelling public by way of lower fares or improved services in some other direction?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– -The speculation about considerable financial benefit is pure speculation and, I think, quite inaccurate. These rationalisation procedures were adopted in a situation of heavy rising costs with market- growth being quite slender.

Senator Devitt:

– Nonsense.

Senator COTTON:

– It is not nonsense. If the honourable senator had any useful information on this subject I would ask him to let me have it. But he does not have any so I ask him, please, to listen to me. The situation is quite clear. The rationalisation proposal which is sensible and wise is continually under study. It is designed to try to keep fares from rising.

page 696

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is supplementary to that asked by Senator Lawrie about horses with strangles. In view of the fact that the vessel carrying these horses arrived in Fremantle on 10th March when the disease was manifest, why were plans not made with the various animal quarantine stations throughout the Commonwealth to take a quota of horses rather than utilise a private establishment at Castlereagh? Why were local veterinary surgeons in the vicinity not advised of this emergency action?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The short answer to the honourable senator’s question is that that very thing was done. There were 137 horses loaded and the normal quarantine facilities were used at all ports. If I remember my statement correctly, the fact is that the ship was diverted to Melbourne to enable some of the horses to be put into the normal quarantine areas there. What the honourable senator suggested in the first part of his question is exactly what was done. All the normal resources throughout Australia were used to handle these horses and put them into quanrantine. In the final analysis, having used all that space, it was very convenient to keep them on the ship as long as we could.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about Brisbane?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI am talking about the trip coming round from Fremantle. I repeat that the reason for putting them in quarantine is the risk of spreading some exotic virus which is not evident at the moment, rather than the strangles.

page 696

QUESTION

COMPANY TAXATION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that there is a reported change in the attitude of the

Commissioner of Taxation in relation to the granting of reasonable days of grace to companies which encounter financial hardship in meeting income tax assessments, in total, on the one due date? Is it a fact that the Commissioner of Taxation currently is requiring assessments to be paid promptly without the benefit to taxpayers of a spread of payments? Due to that which may be described as and found at this time to be a tight liquidity problem in many companies, will the Treasurer give attention to this matter with a view to assuring the Senate that the attitude of the Commissioner of Taxation will not be varied from that which obtained previously?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I am not aware of a variation of acts of grace, or indulgences or judgments. I would think that the Commissioner of Taxation would make judgments in relation to the circumstances with which he is confronted. However I will refer the question to the Treasurer so that he may reply.

page 696

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it a fact that notwithstanding recent negotiations between the Australian Government and major Asian exporters to Australia of textile and clothing goods, for voluntary restraint, imports from these countries are accelerating? Does the Minister realise that the Australian textile and clothing industries will be threatened with massive unemployment unless immediate and decisive action is taken to protect them? Is he aware that in Victoria alone at least 6 major country towns are facing economic disaster unless urgent measures are taken to sustain these decentralised industries?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I cannot accept any proposition made by the honourable senator to be a fact or not a fact. I know that the Minister for Trade and Industry has stated that he has negotiations proceeding with the countries spoken about with a view to voluntary restraint and that he expects progress. He is quite satisfied with the outcome of his talks. I cannot go beyond that except to direct the question to the, responsible Minister.

page 697

QUESTION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Senator McMANUS:

– Has the Minister for Health noted that the Chairman of the Mental Health Authority in Victoria recently presented to the State Parliament the most scathing report in history pointing to the inadequacy of mental health services and the near bankruptcy which in the near future will cause many private institutions in this field to close their doors? Will the. Minister arrange at the earliest possible date for the Senate to debate the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare on the provision of suitable help for mentally handicapped persons - a report for which, we all know, Senator Fitzgerald deserves a lot of credit - because there is grave concern among interested bodies lest this important matter be forgotten?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI have no objection to a debate on the Committee’s report. I was largely influential in having the matter referred to an inter-departmental committee for investigation. That was done at my instigation. The matters which relate particularly to Victoria should be directed to the Victorian Minister for Health and I commend that course to the honourable senator if he wishes to do so.

Senator McManus:

– Finance affects the matter.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONFinance affects everything and everybody. The truth of the matter is that the Commonwealth makes a contribution to the States in relation to patients in mental institutions. It could be argued - I suppose it always will be - that the amount could be greater. That argument is not necessarily peculiar to the health problem. Over the whole perimeter of Commonwealth-State relations a situation exists where it is always said that the Commonwealth, no matter how generous it may be, is not providing enough finance. The matter of the Commonwealth’s contributions in this field was raised at the recent Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers for Health which I attended about a fortnight ago. I suggest that the question be referred to the State authorities through the Victorian Minister for Health. Dealing with the question of a continuing debate on the tremendously important report of the Senate Committee, we can look at that as a Senate to see whether provision can be made for a further discussion of it.

page 697

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator McLAREN:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service whether Aborigines are required to have a work history before being eligible to register for unemployment benefits? If so, does not this requirement discriminate against Aborigines living in remote areas of Australia where little or no work is available? Who determines a person’s work history and what standards are applied in reaching a decision on the matter?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The term ‘work history’ requires a little definition. I had better ask the officials of the Department to give a precise answer.

page 697

QUESTION

COAL

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Development aware that the recent closure of collieries in the Gunnedah district of New South Wales has thrown 120 miners out of work? In view of the Government’s stated concern over rural unemployment, will he give consider?ation to the allocation of special funds through the Joint Coal Board to enable recommencement of mining operations at these collieries?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I remember Senator Douglas McClelland asking a question like this earlier this session or late last year. I have a little knowledge of the particular problem of the collieries in the Gunnedah area. I am not sure that the problem is not caused by the big development of the Liddel power station. This is a problem of interest not only to the Department of National Development but also to the New South Wales Government. I will obtain whatever information I can for the honourable senator, but I do not think we can do a great deal.

page 697

QUESTION

CANCER SERVICES

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI will have a look at the question and its implications. Of necessity, arrangements would have to be entered into between the Commonwealth and the States concerned. However, that is not unusual. A tremendous amount of co-operation exists between the Commonwealth and the States in fields such as this where it is not normal to provide constantly a service in one particular area and where there has therefore to be a degree of mobility. I will give urgent consideration to this matter and respond to the honourable senator’s question as early as possible.

page 698

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a report in the January-February 1972 edition of ‘Postal News’ that at a meeting at Beaumont on the South Coast of New South Wales to protest against the closure of the local non-official post office a spokesman for the Postmaster-General said that all post offices not operated by PMG employees would be shut down and that the closure was necessary because non-official post offices were no longer economical? Was that statement actually made? If so, is it correct? If it is not correct what action, if any, has been taken to correct the false impression which it has created in the minds of several thousand non-official postmasters and the public which they serve?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral’s attention has been drawn to that report. The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is no, the statement was not made. The answer to the second part of the honourable senator’s question is no, the statement is not correct.

The Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs has advised the General Secretary of the Non-Official Postmasters Association of Australia that the statement attributed to a departmental spokesman is incorrect and that the Department does not intend to close all non-official post offices. The Director-General has asked that his rebuttal be published in the next issue of the Association’s journal.

page 698

QUESTION

SYDNEY SPORTS COMPLEX

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the announcement last week by the Minister for Lands in New South Wales of a new sports arena complex for Sydney, which involves land occupied by the Commonwealth. Is the Leader of the Government, who is a Sydneysider, able to give a clear cut picture of the points in dispute? Further, is he able to state whether Premier Askin is still refusing to respond to the Prime Minister’s latest overtures and whether the points of conflict are of a monetary or geographic nature?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI cannot give the information that the honourable senator has sought from me. I must admit that I read in the newspapers his reference to this matter and this gave me some warning that I might be asked a question by him about it. The honourable senator will recall that when he asked me about this matter before I said that it was clearly in the field of Prime MinisterPremier relationships - something that we all understand here - and was confined to that field. I am sure all New South Welshmen, particularly those who like to see sport at its best - which is of course what is to be seen in New South Wales - read with great excitement about the latest proposals. The Army installation at Moore Park, which is occupied by Regular Army and Citizen Military Force units, covers an area of some 8 acres. In 1969 the Premier proposed that all or part of the Commonwealth land at Moore Park be transferred to the State for the purposes of developing the sporting facilities at the Sydney Cricket Ground and the Sports Ground. The Commmonwealth’s reply stressed the continuing need of the Army at Moore Park especially to provide accommodation for some of the units required to move from the parts of South Head to be released to the State for recreational purposes, but the Commonwealth agreed to review the position carefully if details of the State’s proposals were provided. Sir, I know of the recent publicity which has been given to this matter, but my understanding is that to date there has been no further approach to the Commonwealth by the Premier. However, I would not like to be categorical on that because it may be that there is in transit some communication between the Premier and the Prime Minister. At the time of my last seeking information, which was a few days ago, there had been no new developments.

page 699

QUESTION

FILM CENSORSHIP

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Film Censor has banned for showing to persons other than members of the medical profession a film entitled ‘Beyond Conception’, which was to have been shown in Perth tonight by the Abortion Law Repeal Association? Will the Minister make a statement to the Senate as to the reasons for the Commonwealth Film Censor banning this film?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I know nothing about this matter and it would be quite impossible for me to make a statement this afternoon which might allow the film to be shown tonight. That is obvious. I will try to find out from the Minister what the position is. My own experience is that the banning of films by the Department of Customs and Excise is done with great care and with regard to the public interest.

page 699

QUESTION

AIRLINE TIMETABLES

Senator DEVITT:

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation, lt follows a question 1 asked him earlier about passenger loadings on commercial aircraft. I took his answer to be confirmation of the view which I expressed that, in fact, the airlines were attempting to achieve the objective of higher loadings. In view of the difficulties being experienced by a number of people, not the least of whom are members of Parliament trying to get to Canberra for meetings of committees on Monday morning, what set of cir cumstances does the Minister see as being necessary, or what conditions or . changes must take place, to enable the restoration of discontinued services, which are causing quite considerable difficulty to a great many people?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Had the honourable senator asked me that question in the first place, I would have told him quite clearly that the problem of schedules to and from Canberra, which has been causing trouble, is under total review with the objective of improvement.

page 699

QUESTION

CHEMISTS’ FEES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister for Health, by reminding the Minister that since 1961 chemists have received an increase of less than 6 per cent for dispensing prescriptions under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Will the Minister inform the Parliament why additional fees have not been granted and why chemists have not been granted the same percentage increase as doctors since the national health scheme was introduced?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It is true that there has not been an increase in pharmacists’ fees in relation to the national health scheme since the 1961- 62 period with the exception of a 2c increase in 1970. It is equally true that I issued a Press statement some weeks ago in which I pointed out that an area of disputation existed between the Pharmacy Guild and the Government as to the form of a survey which the Government offered to undertake but which the Guild found it was not prepared to accept. The Guild, for its part, has another proposed system which it believes should be applied to determine what increase, if any, there should be in fees. In that Press statement and in answer to questions here I have said that in the offer made by the. Commonwealth Government - it was before my time as Minister for Health - retrospectivity in relation to the adjustment of the fees was proposed.

That is the history of the matter. The current situation is that discussions have taken place with the Guild and, indeed, with the President of the Guild. I am aware that members of the Guild have visited Parliament House and put points of view to all honourable senators and honourable members. All I can say at this point in time is that, as Minister for Health, I am in communication with the Guild. The matter currently is under examination by the Government and the Guild. I am not in a position to make any further comment.

page 700

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator JESSOP:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Has the Minister seen the statement attributed to the former Leader of the Australian Labor Party Opposition and former Labor Minister for Immigration, Mr Calwell, in which he is alleged to have said that there are some people in the Labor Party today who are quite prepared to allow 27,000 coloured migrants into Australia each year? Will the Minister say whether there is any substance in his prophesy that in time this policy would jeopardise the jobs of Australian born people and Aborigines?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have noticed, as I imagine a great number of Australians have noticed, the statement which was made by Mr Arthur Calwell and to which the honourable senator has referred. Mr Calwell stated that a number of people in the Labor Party expressed the view to which he referred. I imagine that there is no person better qualified in the Labor Party to have a real appreciation of what Labor Party people think about immigration and whether or not there are people in the Labor Party who hold that view. Whether the entry of 27,000 non-European migrants in each future year would prejudice the jobs of Australians, including Aborigines, is something which one cannot really say in advance. It must depend on a number of factors including the demand for workers in different categories at different times, the availability of Australians in those categories at those times, the inflow of other migrants and the qualifications of other migrants both European and non-European. The current Government policy has permitted the influx of 9,000 to 10,000 persons of non-European and partly European descent in recent years. They have been permitted to enter on the basis either of their relationship to residents in Australia or of the qualifications which they have being in demand in Australia.

That bi-partisan policy in regard to immigration had been followed since Mr Calwell initiated the programme in 1948 and until there was a change in policy in the last year or two.

page 700

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. Was an English woman quarantined for 14 days in Melbourne recently because she had not been inoculated against smallpox before leaving England to visit a sick relative in Australia? What were the circumstances in which this woman was permitted to travel from England to Australia without the required inoculation and without correct advice as to her eligibility to enter Australia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The circumstances were that a Mrs Patricia May Brazil, aged 28 years, and her son Matthew Edward, aged 2 years, were quarantined in Melbourne on 7th March 1972 by Qantas Airways Limited when they arrived at Tullamarine by Qantas flight 742. Mrs Brazil was not vaccinated against smallpox because vaccination was considered inadvisable in her case as she was approximately 2 months pregnant. Her son was vaccinated. The background, which 1 understand the honourable senator asked for, was that in the United Kingdom Mrs Brazil made a booking for travel by air to Australia for her son and herself through the Chiltern Travel Agency in Buckinghamshire. She was /told by the agency that vaccination was required, but the doctor whom she consulted considered that vaccination against smallpox could cause complications in her case. He gave her a certificate to this effect. Apparently she accepted that certificate.

Her ticket and medical certificate were checked at London airport by British Overseas Airways Corporation on behalf of Qantas. The medical certificate was accepted. She was not told by BOAC that she would be detained in quarantine if she arrived in Australia without a valid certificate of vaccination. It is interesting to note that until she arrived in Australia Qantas was not aware that she was not vaccinated. Qantas was not informed that she was travelling without a proper certificate. Section 59 of the Quarantine Act 1908-1969 provides that the master, owner, and agent, of any aircraft from which any person is removed to perform quarantine, shall severally be responsible for all quarantine expenses incurred. Therefore, Qantas is liable for the costs involved in the detention of Mrs Brazil at the quarantine station at Portsea in Victoria. It is proper to recall that since 1961 there have been 9 outbreaks of smallpox in the United Kingdom, resulting in 145 reported cases. The last outbreak occurred in February 1968. It is against that background that our quarantine requirements are, very properly, rigid. They have to be. We cannot afford to vary those requirements for entry of persons from the United Kingdom. It was distressing to me, when I heard about it, as it would be to the honourable senator who referred to it, that this should happen.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– We let them in from the United States.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The situation in the United States is not the same. In the United States there has been a change of attitude in relation to the implications of smallpox. The fact is that it is at the point at which a person boards an aircraft that medical certificates with details of inoculations should be checked. That is why the responsibility remains with Qantas to meet the expenses involved in the quarantine. But that does not help a person who is quarantined. Through the Department of Customs and Excise and other proper agencies we remind all people who are engaged in the travel industry that it is important that these details be examined.

page 701

QUESTION

CHEMISTS’ FEES

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question to the

Minister for Health is supplementary to the one I asked a few moments ago. Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether it is a fact that one aspect of the survey carried out in 1964 was a time and motion study of a chemist dispensing a prescription? Is it a fact that chemists are required to hold a degree, or an equivalent certificate, to practise their profession? Does the Minister admit that the chemist qualifies for payment for know-how as the chemist is the last person to check a drug before it goes into someone’s blood stream? In the Minister’s opinion, does the chemist qualify for the responsibility consideration?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt is obvious that the honourable senator does not appreciate the brief given to him. The physical check is not of their skill but relates to the time factor. We all acknowledge that one of the main areas of disputation has arisen from the physical examination of various pharmacies. The area of disputation has not arisen from the totality of the check as the honourable senator imagines; it is related rather to this one aspect which is a peripheral matter I thought I had made it clear that this matter was currently under discussion between the Commonwealth and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. In replying to the question I do not want to get into that area.

page 701

QUESTION

ECONOMIC SURVEYS

(Question No. 1380)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Will the Government undertake regular sur veys of the type conducted in a number of overseas countries, to determine areas of depression in the economy and enable measures to be taken to induce a better balance in the economy.
  2. Does the use of overall percentages to express undesirable economic patterns tend to overlook serious economic problems that can arise in regional areas which may, be vulnerable to seasonal or market variations.
  3. What is the Government doing to anticipate and assess economic problems such as those which are now causing great concern in the State of Tasmania.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The statistical and other information collected by the various Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities, as well as that made available to the Government from other sources, is not restricted to conditions in general but extends to particular industries, sectors, and regional areas.

In assessing and applying economic policies, the Government does not rely only on overall averages, but takes account of conditions in particular regional areas as well as in broad sectors of the economy and particular industries. This has, for example, been evidenced by the Commonwealth’s provision of funds to the States for employment-creating activities in non-metropolitan areas. This scheme is a specific response to a particular problem having significant associated social and economic aspects.

A further example of this kind of action has been the measures implemented through the rural reconstruction scheme. In addition to these measures, an apple and pear stabilisation scheme has, with Commonwealth assistance, been brought into operation.

At the same time, it needs to be recognised that there are constitutional limitations on the extent to which the Commonwealth is empowered to adopt policies which could be construed as discriminating in favour of particular States or parts of States.

page 702

QUESTION

FISHING

(Question No. 1790)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Has the Prime Minister noted the apparent success of the policy adopted by the Government of Ecuador in assuming sovereignty of fishing waters up to 200 miles off-shore.
  2. Does Ecuador require fishing licences costing $US10,000 from vessels of other nations operating in her territorial waters.
  3. When does the Government intend to prevent continued depredation of Australian fishing waters by foreign vessels.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. I am aware that the Government of Ecuador claims jurisdiction over fisheries in waters up to 200 miles off-shore and frequently takes action against vessels operating without its approval in those waters.
  2. There are two fees charged by the Government of Ecuador, an annual registration fee of $US350 and a licence fee of$US20 per nett registered ton.
  3. The Government has no knowledge of any present fishing activities by foreign vessels in Australian waters likely to cause depredation.

page 702

QUESTION

IMPRISONMENT OF TODDS

(Question No. 1845)

Senator WHEELDON:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Will the Australian Government inform the British Government of the concern felt in this country at the imprisonment and solitary confinement imposed by the Rhodesian Government on the former Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, Mr Garfield Todd, and his daughter, Judith Todd.
  2. Will the Australian Government use whatever influence it has in an effort to prevent the continued persecution of Mr Garfield Todd, Miss Judith Todd, and other political opponents of the Rhodesian Government.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. The Australian Government is confident that the British Government, which has already expressed its concern to Mr Smith at the detention of Mr Garfield Todd and Miss Judith Todd, is aware of the widespread concern in this country and elsewhere for their welfare.
  2. As. the honourable senator will be aware, the Todds have now been transferred from prison to their farm where they are under house arrest It is to be hoped that the Rhodesian Government will afford the Todds an early opportunity to answer publicly any charges that may be preferred against them.

page 702

QUESTION

PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT

(Question No. 1850)

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister repre senting the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Is it Government policy not to employ persons who have committed a misdemeanour during their youth and have served a prison sentence or a term of probation?
  2. Are persons who apply to join the permanent defence forces also precluded on these grounds?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. The Prime Minister has been advised by the Public Service. Board that Section 34 of the Public Service Act states, in part, that a person is not eligible for permanent appointment to the Commonwealth Service unless the Public Service Board is satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to be an officer of the Commonwealth Service. In its administration of that section, the Board determines, on its merits; each case of an applicant who has been found guilty of an offence against the law. The Board has regard to such factors as the nature, recency and circumstances of the offence, the conduct of the applicant since the offence was committed, and any other relevant matters. There is no policy of refusal to employ persons who have committed a misdemeanour in their youth and have served a prison sentence or a term of probation.
  2. Advice has been received from the Department of Defence that each case is considered on its individual merits. Normally a conviction for a crime of violence or serious dishonesty would debar acceptance for enlistment in the Forces. A conviction for a minor offence may not.

page 702

QUESTION

DESTITUTE NATIONALS

(Question No. 1928)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What is the maximum amount permitted to be advanced by Embassies of High Commissions to Australian nationals who are destitute and seek repatriation to Australia.
  2. In the case of Mr Chester Harris of North Manly, New South Wales:

    1. was the formula applied by the High Commission in Bombay, and
    2. was any special consideration given to Mr Harris in view of the limited financial resources of his invalid father.
Senator WRIGHT:

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. Australian citizens who are destitute may be advanced up to $60 without reference to Canberra. In cases where repatriation is approved, assistance is given to the amount required for a tourist class fare but a guarantor living in Australia should be nominated and some contribution made. In either case, a signed undertaking to repay the Commonwealthis required.
  2. In the case of Mr Harris: (a) he did not seek financial assistance for living expenses and (b) a friend in Bombay telephoned Mr Harris’s father who purchased a ticket and there was no application from Mr Harris for financial assistance.

page 703

QUESTION

VICTORIAN BENEFITS ASSOCIATION

(Question No. 1522)

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Has the Victorian Benefits Association committed contributors’ funds to the newly-formed Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia.
  2. Is this new association a political organisation whose aim is to wage a political campaign against the introduction of a governmentsponsored universal health scheme.
  3. What is the general position regarding the right of health funds to commit contributor’s funds to political organisations.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. I assume the honourable senator means the Hospital Benefits Association. I have been informed that this Association pays an annual subscription of $300 to the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia.
  2. No. The stated objects of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association of Australia are:

    1. To provide an Association for the purpose of considering matters affecting organisations registered under Part VI of the National Health Act 1953-1970, as amended from time to time, with special reference to the interests of contributors.
    2. To foster and promote the principles, practice, development and philosophy of voluntary health insurance as the best method of financing the costs of health care.
    3. To make representations and submissions where deemed necessary or desirable to the appropriate persons or authorities in respect of any matter affecting the interests of members or any member of the Association, subject to prior consideration by the members.
    4. To provide a medium through which opinions of members may be ascertained or expressed. ‘
    5. To formulate a code of ethics for adoption by members.
    6. To do all such things as may be incidental to or conducive to the promotion or carrying out of these objects or any one of them, and to exercise all such powers as are contained in the Third Schedule of the New South Wales Companies Act 1961.
  3. The use of contributors’ funds for political purposes is not considered a legitimate charge against management expenses of registered organisations.

page 703

QUESTION

ANTARCTIC SEALS

(Question No. 1793)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What Commonwealth department provided the officer or officers who attended the recent conference in London which adopted a convention aimed at protecting Antarctic seals.
  2. Does the Australian Parliament need to enable any legislation following the signing of the convention.
  3. What penalities are provided for non-compliance with the convention.
  4. What form of supervision is envisaged to combat the poaching of seals in the Antarctic.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. The Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Primary Industry.
  2. The text of a Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals was adopted by the conference on 11th February but the Convention has not yet been opened for signature. If it is decided that Australia should become a party to the convention, both signature and ratification will be necessary.

Ratification of the Convention would involve acceptance of a number of obligations, the implementation of which would require legislative authority. It is normal practice in such cases that any necessary legislation be enacted prior to ratification.

  1. Each contracting party is obliged to adopt for its nationals and for vessels under its flag such laws, regulations and other measures as may be necessary to implement the Convention. National legislation thus provided for would cover such matters as penalties.
  2. There is at present no commercial sealing in the Antarctic. The Convention provides that at any time after commercial sealing has begun, a Contracting Party may propose that a meeting be held with a view, inter alia, to establishing an inspection system. This provision is supplemented by provision for an annual exchange of information among Contracting Parties on action taken to implement the Convention andon biological data from any seals killed or captured by their nationals and vessels.

page 704

QUESTION

NARRABRI HIGH SCHOOL

(Question No. 1798)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister open the Narrabri High School science block.
  2. Was a car sent to Armidale to borrow academic gowns for staff participating in the ceremony; if so, who met the costs involved.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. My understanding is that the arrangements for the opening were made by the school. I have no knowledge of from where or by what means the staffs’ academic gowns were obtained nor who it was that met any costs. I did not authorise the payment of any such costs.

page 704

QUESTION

POLISH CONSULATE AND WOOLLAHRA COUNCIL DISPUTE

(Question No. 1800)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representingthe Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

What role did the Department of Foreign Affairs play in the dispute between the Polish Consulate in Sydney and the Woollahra Council over a development application, and what was the final outcome of the dispute?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

In April 1971 the Woollahra City Council rejected an application by the Polish authorities to construct a new complex containing both office and residential sections on the site of their former Consulate-General at51 Wunulla Road, Point Piper. Representations were made to the Department of Foreign Affairs by the Polish authorities aimed at securing Commonwealth assistance in overcoming the Consulate-General’s difficulties. The Polish Consulate-General was reminded that diplomatic and consular missions in Australia were expected to consult local and city councils when constructing new premises or remodelling old ones, in order to ensure that they did not contravene planning and other ordinances and regulations. It was suggested that the ConsultateGeneral obtain legal assistance in its discussions with the Council.

In September 1971, in order to be able to meet the requirements of the Woollahra Council, the Consulate-General of Poland acquired a site at 10 Trelawney Street, Edgecliff, an area in which other Consular offices are established. The Polish authorities understood there would be no objections to a Development Application for this site.

In January and February 1972 the Polish ConsulGeneral apprised the Department of further difficulties in ascertaining the requirements of the Woollahra Council in relation to the proposed building. He was informed that as building permits and approvals are the responsibility of the State Authorities, the Commonwealth Government would not seek to influence the New South Wales Government unless this became necessary under international obligations. He was counselled to pursue negotiations with the Woollahra Council in the first instance, and these are understood to be continuing. The Department of Foreign Affairs hopes that any difficulties which have arisen will be resolved in the near future as a result of mutual agreement between the parties concerned.

page 704

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE, NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Question No. 1806)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What staff are employed by the Commonwealth Employment Service in the Northern Territory, and what are their classifications.
  2. Where are such staff located.
  3. Which major contractors in the Northern Territory have used the Commonwealth Employment Service.
  4. How many placements did the Service make in Gove in 1969 and . 1970.
  5. Would it be possible for a person to be registered with the Service for a position at Gove for 14 months as claimed in ‘The Review’ of 19th February 1972.
  6. What liaison exists between the Commonwealth Employment Service in the Northern Territory and the Department of Immigration in order to control movement of recently arrived migrants to the Territory.
  7. What is the backlog of applications with the Commonwealth Employment Service for positions at (a) Gove, and (b) other mining projects in the Northern Territory.
  8. What consultation is there between the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Northern Territory trade unions, and how frequent is such consultation.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2)-
  1. Fifty-seven major contractors have used the Commonwealth Employment Service in the Northern Territory. As a matter of principle the Commonwealth Employment Service does not reveal the names of clients, either persons seeking employment or employers seeking workers.
  2. Placements at Gove by the Darwin Officeof the Commonwealth Employment Service were:

1969 .. .. ..996

1970 .. .. .. 1,178

  1. No person at present registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service at Darwin for employment at Gove has been registered for 14 months. I have been informed that the person referred to in ‘The Review’ of 19th February had revisited Greece during the 14 month period. To be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service a person has to be available for employment.
  2. There is very frequent liaison between the Commonwealth Employment Service in the Northern Territory and the Department of Immigration, but not for the purpose of controlling the movement of migrants. Migrants have the same right to freedom of movement within Australia as other citizens and are not subject to control.
  3. (a) There are 86 persons currently registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service in Darwin who have expressed interest in working at Gove.

    1. None.
  4. There is regular, i.e. not less than weekly, consultation on subjects relating to the work of the Department.

page 705

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

(Question No. 1812)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. How many males and females made application for unemployment benefit in each of the States in the months of November and December 1971, and January 1972.
  2. How many males and females received assistance.
  3. How many applications were rejected.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. Statistics of claims made for unemployment benefit according to the sex of the claimants are not maintained. However, regular statistics are maintained of the total number of unemployment benefit claims lodged in each State, and the table below shows figures for the months of November and December 1971 and January 1972.

The figures for November 1971 and January 1972 cover a four-week period, whilst those for December 1971 are for a five-week period. It should also be noted that the figures for January 1972 are not strictly comparable with those for previous months because new procedures for the issue and lodgment of unemployment benefit claims were adopted on 17 January 1972.

Under the new procedures claim forms are not accepted from claimants until the seventh day after registration when some entitlement to benefit has accrued. However, claims are accepted immediately when there is no waiting period to be observed. The effect of these new procedures is to eliminate considerable unproductive work resulting from the significant proportion of unemployment claims previously processed in which no payment was made because the applicant either failed to report with an income statement or secured employment within the seven day waiting period.

page 706

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION

(Question No. 1820)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What forms of cadetship, if any, have been made available in recent years by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to young men and women who have recently completed their schooling and intend going on to a university, a college of advanced education, a technical college or similar educational institution.
  2. What forms of cadetship have been made available this year by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The Commonwealth Banking Corporation has provided the following information:

In recent years the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has made available a limited number of cadetships. These take several forms and are awarded to young men and women who have recently completed schooling who seek (and appear suited to) a career in the Commonwealth

Banking Corporation and who wish to proceed to tertiary studies. These cadetships are made available to young people for attendance at Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and Technical Colleges to enable the recipients to follow study courses that meet the special needs of the Corporation. University courses are normally taken in the Faculties of Economics, Commerce or Arts. For attendance at Colleges of Advanced Education and Technical Colleges, bursaries are granted to enable the recipients to follow courses with a commercial orientation. The following forms of cadetship have been available over recent years:

Cadetships for full-time study at University.

Outstanding matriculation examination results are a pre-requisite to qualify for consideration for one of these cadetships.

Cadetships for part-time study at University. These are usually granted for evening courses only.

Cadetships for study at Colleges of Advanced Education. It is usual for these courses also to be undertaken on an evening study basis.

Cadetships for evening study courses at Technical Colleges.

The Corporation has continued to make available these forms of cadetship this year. Each form of cadetship is also available to young people who have already partially completed an appropriate tertiary study course and who wish to embark on, and appear suited to, a career in the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Further, officers in the Service of the Corporation who have been pursuing University courses on a parttime evening study basis, and who have good study records, are eligible for the award of a cadetship to allow them to complete their studies as full-time students.

page 707

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 1821)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What are the most recent figures available for unemployed married males, single males and females in each of the Dubbo, Coonabarabran, Narrabri, Gunnedah and Moree districts of New South Wales.
  2. Are figures available of the number of married males, single males and females who, in fact, are employed in the above-mentioned districts.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following information to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Commonwealth Employment Service statistics are collected on a District Office area basis and are not available for individual local government areas. The areas of Gunnedah and Moree are included in the Narrabri District Office area while Coonabarabran lies within the Dubbo District Office area. Consequently only statistics relating to the Narrabri and Dubbo District Office areas as a whole can be supplied.

There is no breakdown available by marital status of unemployed males registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service, but such a breakdown is available for unemployed females.

Statistics of persons registered as unemployed with the CES in the DEO areas of Narrabri and Dubbo, dissected by males, married and single females, as at end-January 1972 are shown in the following table.

  1. Persons who when registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service claimed that they were not employed and who were recorded as unplaced at the Friday nearest the end of the month. Includes those referred to employers and any who had obtained employment without notifying the CES. All recipients of Unemployment Benefit are included.

    1. Statistics of employment in local government areas are collected by the Bureau of Census and Statistics only at Census time, and are not cross-classification by marital status. Figures for the 1971 Census are not yet available. The latest figures are those of the 1966 Census, and are set out below:

page 707

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

(Question No. 1834)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has any survey been made by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics of the number of (a) married males, (b) single males, (c) married females, and (d) single females, who are holding two jobs?
  2. Has any survey been made of what the average earnings of these people would be if they only held one job?
  3. Has any survey been made of the number of married couples, both of whom are working?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth Statistician has supplied the following information in reply to the honourable senator’s question.

The results of a survey carried out by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics in May 1971 showed that of the 199,300 persons holding more than one job (at least one of the jobs being as a wage or salary earner) 162,400 were males and 36,900 were females. Married males numbered 133,000 and not married males (including widowed and divorced) numbered 29,300. Married females numbered 18,700 and not married females 18,200.

No information is available as to the average earnings of multiple jobholders in either their main or second jobs.

The 1966 Census revealed a total of 686,334 married women in the Australian labour force. A further tabulation revealed that there were 628,348 couples enumerated in private dwellings where both were in the labour force. This total excludes cases where husband and wife were not enumerated at the same dwelling due to the temporary absence of one or the other and cases where both were resident in non-private dwellings at the time of the Census.

page 708

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 1872)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

How many passengers have been carried on the Perth to Darwin route by MacRobertson Miller Airlines during each of the last 24months.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The following table shows for each of the 24 months February 1970 to January 1972 inclusive, the numbers of passengers embarked at Perth for Darwin and embarked at Darwin for Perth respectively by MacRobertson Miller Airline Services on the Perth to Darwin route:

page 708

QUESTION

HEATHROW AIRPORT INCIDENT

(Question No. 1888)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

When will the Prime Minister supply me with the detailed implications of the Heathrow Airport incident involving the New South Wales AgentGeneral, Sir Jock Pagan,

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

A letter to Senator Mulvihill concerning the incident involving Sir John Pagan was signed on 15th March 1972.

page 708

ABORIGINES

(Question No. 1913)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on notice:

When considering Senator Turnbull’s request for increased status and prestige for Senators and Members on overseas visits, will the Minister take into account Senator Turnbull’s desire that the Aboriginal Embassy’ be removed. If so, will the Minister request Senator Turnbull to reconcile these attitudes.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

The question of the removal, or otherwise, of the ‘Aboriginal Embassy’ is not under the administration of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator Turnbull’s attitude to this and other matters, such as his status when overseas, are, in the main matters of his personal opinion.

page 708

QUESTION

DECCA NAVAID

(Question No. 1925)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Was the Decca Navaid installed at Port Hedland at the insistence of Japanese shipowners of vessels proceeding to the area? If so, what efforts were made to seek a Japanese contribution to the cost of installation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Regulation 14 of Chapter V of the 1960 Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea reads thus: “The Contracting’ Governments undertake to arrange for the establishment and maintenance of such aids to navigation, including radio beacons and electronic aids as, in their opinion, the volume of traffic justifies and the degree of risk requires, and to arrange for information relating to these aids to be made available to all concerned.’

The decision to install a Decca Chain to cover the waters in the Port Hedland area, and thus to provide precision guidance to and from Port Hedland, was taken having regard to the difficult waters involved and the size of ships to be operated. It was not a question of ‘insistence’ by any shipowners, but one of meeting a specific Convention obligation.

No capital contribution was sought from anyone, because the obligation on the Commonwealth was clear. Along with all aids to navigation, however, the full commercial cost is taken to account in fixing the rate of ‘light dues’. The ships to which the honourable senator refers do, of course, pay light dues.

page 709

QUESTION

STATE TRANSPORT REQUIREMENTS

(Question No. 1927)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Following the urgent request by the Minister at Perth in July 1971, to each State for reports on their transport requirements -

Which States have reported.

What is the substance of each report so far received, and

What action is being taken to obtain the remaining reports.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

The Australian Transport Advisory Council at its meeting in July 1971 instructed its advisers to undertake urgently a report on the investment needs of urban public transport in this decade.

The report was to be compiled with the assistance of the Bureau of Transport Economics.

Council at its meeting in February 1972 noted the progress made on this study and the information given by the States. Ministers sought further detailed information and noted that the report, which was still in the course of preparation, would be submitted for further discussions to be held in July 1972.

page 709

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS

(Question No. 1929)

Senator JESSOP:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Has the Minister received a report from the Commissioner of Commonwealth Railways following a conference, held at Port Pirie in February 1972, which was called to consider the transfer of Commonwealth Railways crews to Port Augusta? If so, will he furnish details of the report, together with the Minister’s comments on this matter?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

The Commonwealth Railways Commissioner has reported to mc on a meeting organised by the Council of Port Pirie on 9th February 1972 to discuss matters in relation to the stationing of Dining Car crews with the standardisation of the Port Pirie-Adelaide line.

So far as Commonwealth Railways Is concerned the meeting was informed that with the possible exception of a few female car cleaners no good purpose would be served by transferring any other employees from Port Pirie provided there are no major alterations in existing timetables.

It should be borne in mind that the project will not be completed for another 5 years.

page 709

QUESTION

PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION AND TESTING OF DRUGS

Ministerial Statement

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a statement which relates to a question asked by Senator Byrne about the drug impramme and drug evaluation procedures generally.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as fallows):

Procedures in Australia for Evaluation and Testing of Drugs and Australia’s Activities in Exchange of Information at an International Level

Legislative Control

Commonwealth controls over drugs and other therapeutic goods are embodied principally in the Therapeutic Goods Act and relevant items of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. The Therapeutic Goods Act is specifically concerned with the quality of therapeutic substances and goods, their labelling and packaging and the establishment of both general and specific standards for goods which are imported, subsidised by the Commonwealth as pharmaceutical benefits, sold to Commonwealth authorities (such as Armed Services and Territory hospitals) or are tha subject of interstate trade. The Therapeutic Goods Act is not primarily concerned with toxicology, pharmacology etc. of the active ingredients.

  1. Amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Import) Regulations enacted in June 1970 provide for comprehensive controls over the quality, safety and efficacy of ‘designated therapeutic substances’. A designated therapeutic substance is denned as a substance of a kind that the importer has not imported during the 2 years immediately preceding the importation of tha substance, and includes each new form, formulation, strength, combination and indication for use.
  2. In brief, Regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations provides for licencing of all importers of therapeutic substances by the Commonwealth Director-General of Health, comprehensive controls over all imported new drugs, and in addition entitles the Director-General to declare other products as ‘designated therapeutic substances’ should the need arise. Once designated a substance is subject to all controls of a new drug. Thus its use may be suspended pending production of certain data, its release may be on the condition that it be used only in animals or used by certain clinical investigators with the facilities to ensure safety.
  3. Prior to 1970, totally comprehensive legislative controls over imported products existed only for drugs of biological origin or their synthetic equivalents such as antibiotics, vaccines, hormones, sera toxoids etc. Pending the introduction of comprehensive legislation some pharmaceutical companies, but by no means all, cooperated in a voluntary capacity and submitted data to the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee for evaluation prior to clinical trials with or marketing of a new drug.
  4. Should a completely new chemical compound be developed locally and intended for therapeutic use, then it is the State Health authority which is initially legally responsible for assessment of its quality, toxicity or safety, pharmacology and efficacy. The Commonwealth has no legal powers other than those provided under the Therapeutic Goods Act. However, development of truly new drugs in this country is rare and the only cases known have been referred by the State Health authority to the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee for evaluation and advice.

Evaluation of New Drugs

  1. Under the present system, a person who wishes to import a new drug for marketing or clinical trial must provide samples together with a submission containing detailed comprehensive information about the product. A guide to the information required by the Department and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee is contained in a document entitled NDF3 which is circulated to all pharmaceutical companies and prospective importers. The information is submitted in duplicate and in several sections as several people with expertise in different areas are involved in the evaluation. (See Appendix I).
  2. The first section includes a general description of the drug - its generic, proprietary and other names, chemical formula, history and relation to other drugs, physical and chemical properties, pharmaceutical form and nominal content of active ingredients, quarantine information, marketing or investigational status in other countries, proposed usage and dosage, anticipated adverse effects or hazards, and precautions and warnings necessary to its use. Details of synthesis, manufacturing processes, possible impurities and quality control procedures that ensure the identity, potency, purity, sterility etc., must be provided. Data on shelf life and stability are also expected.
  3. The second section deals with animal and tissue studies of the pharmacology, toxicology, absorption, metabolism and excretion of the drug. The importer is required to furnish all the evidence upon, which it was decided that the drug was safe for human administration. The duration of the toxicity studies in animals will vary depending on the type of drug and its proposed clinical use, but generally acute, subacute and chronic studies are required. (At one end of the scale there are anaesthetic or muscle relaxing agents which may be used on an individual no more than once or twice in a life-time. At the other end there are systemic contraceptives which can be used by ‘healthy’ females for a considerable proportion of their lifetime. Obviously the toxicity testing of the latter will need to be of much longer duration than the former before proceeding to human usage). Animal studies designed to measure teratogenic potential and effects on reproduction must also be provided on all drugs. Carcinogenicity studies are also required on many drugs. All documentation must be presented in sufficient detail to enable quite independent evaluation.
  4. The third section considers human pharmacology, information on human absorption, metabolism excretion, half life, toxicity and other pertinent actions of the drug. Reports of clinical trials (controlled and uncontrolled) are presented in this section together with documentation of all suspected adverse effects observed and the results of haematological, biochemical and other laboratory tests.
  5. The fourth section is a summary of the entire submission. In addition, copies of labelling, package inserts, prescribing and promotional literature are required.
  6. Adequate documentation of most drugs means several thousands of pages of detailed scientific data. The task of critical assessment of this data is shared by appropriate officers in the Therapeutic Substances Branch and the National Biological Standards Laboratory. In addition, selected experts outside the Department such as University staff are involved in the evaluation of new drug submissions. Package inserts and product literature are included in the assessment to ensure that it describes with reasonable veracity the usefulness or efficacy of the drug and accurately presents information on dosage, adverse effects, precautions, drug interactions, contraindications and other information necessary for the proper use of the drug.
  7. In addition to data submitted by the company, the Department undertakes its own literature searches and utilizes Medlars facilities. Medlars is an international computerised information retrieval system. Quite often pertinent information comes to hand which has not been included in a company’s submissions. Communication and exchange of information with overseas Committees and Government authorities is virtually a daily occurrence.
  8. Having examined all available data, detailed evaluations are then presented to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, which makes its recommendations to the Minister.
  9. The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee is established under Regulation 19 of the Therapeutic Goods Act to make medical and scientific evaluations of therapeutic goods and advise the Minister regarding their importation into and dis tribution within Australia. It is comprised of 8 permanent members who are experts in medicine and/ or pharmacology. It was established in 1963 following the thalidomide incident and much of its time was devoted to adverse drug reactions. However, over the years, so much time was required for examining new drugs, that a Sub-Committee was established to specifically consider adverse drug reactions. This Committee first met in May, 1970 and since has met at monthly intervals. Committees co-opt additional expertise as required. The membership and terms of reference of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee and the Adverse Durg Ractions Advisory Comittee are attached as Appendix II.
  10. Only a small percentage of new drug submissions considered by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee are approved in the first instance. In most cases amendments to product literature or additional data to substantiate claims for safety and/or efficacy are required. In some cases the product is rejected outright because the data submitted indicates insufficient safety margin for the proposed use or alternatively the claims for efficacy cannot be substantiated.
  11. Approval to market a new product is granted subject to certain conditions. Briefly the company is required to forward a report to the Department 3 monthly for the first year, 6 monthly for the second year and annually thereafter. The report is required to contain details of the distribution of the drug together with published and unpublished data relating to new uses, toxicity, pharmacology etc., generated after marketing approval.
  12. Proposed amendments to product literature, changes in recommended dosage etc., are to be submitted for approval prior to distribution. All suspected adverse reactions reported to the company must be communicated to the Department without delay.
  13. Such is the path followed by a new drug. It has been subjected to intense scrutiny before marketing involving many weeks of expert man hours and supervision is continued after marketing. The reasons for the latter will be amplified later under monitoring of adverse drug reactions.

Clinical Trials

  1. Testing of drugs for therapeutic efficacy and safety in man is often undertaken in Australia prior to companies submitting a marketing application. The work of Australian investigators is regarded highly in international spheres particularly in regard to human pharmacology and efficacy studies. Prior to embarking on such trials, safety is carefully evaluated and a strict protocol is followed in conducting clinical investigations. These trials are usually part of co-ordinated multicentric trials conducted on a world wide basis. In this way experience is gained with a drug under carefully controlled conditions. On their conclusion detailed reports of trials are required to be submitted for evaluation.

Review of Old Drugs

  1. Sometimes during the course of evaluating a new drug, data become available which suggest that a drug that has been on the market for years and widely accepted by the medical profession or the public (in the case of non-prescription medicines) may not be as efficacious or safe as commonly believed. In such cases every effort is made to obtain relevant data but often it is simply not available. The type of studies which are expected on all new drugs today, were not undertaken when many of the older drugs were marketed. Even if unlimited finance were available to support further studies on older drugs in most cases there is no one interested in doing the work, particularly the double blind controlled studies generally accepted as the method of demonstrating efficacy. In such cases there is little choice but to leave them as they are unless they are harmful by virtue of adverse effect or else are being used to treat significant disease which could be more effectively treated with other drugs of proven efficacy. Thus there are many drugs available which have not had to overcome the same hurdles as new drugs, as they were introduced before legislative controls and their use continues because clinical experience has shown them to be efficacious and safe in the short term.

Monitoring of Adverse Drug Reactions 2:1. To assess the long term safety of all drugs and to facilitate early detection of serious adverse reactions the Registry of Adverse Reactions to Drugs was established in 1964. As indicated previously, a considerable amount of data on animal toxicology is required before a drug is permitted to be marketed. However, this information cannot be simply extrapolated to man because of the biological differences which exist between species. Experience with the use in man of any therapeutic substance prior to marketing is necessarily limited. While commonly occurring side effects will be noted, uncommon ones may not become evident until it has been in clinical use for a considerable time and has been administered to a large number of individuals under a wide variety of conditions. The need for continued surveillance is obvious where a specific reaction has an incidence of 1 in 10,000 or 20,000.

  1. The Registry of Adverse Reactions to Drugs accumulates information from the following sources:

    1. spontaneous reporting by doctors and dentists on reply paid forms; pharmacists have recently been asked to participate in this scheme; (Appendix III
    2. Hospital discharge summaries - for some 2 years a number of hospitals throughout Australia have been providing copies of discharge summaries of patients experiencing adverse reactions whilst in hospital.
    3. Compulsory reporting by pharmaceutical companies and clinical investigators when a drug is undergoing clinical trial.
    4. Compulsory reporting by pharmaceutical companies following marketing of a new drug.
    5. Reports received from the World Health Organization and other countries as part of the international exchange of important information.
  2. The information collected is used in several ways by the Department and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. It has been the basis for amendments to product literature, the publication of warning statements and information notes in journals, (Appendix IV) the withdrawal of several drugs from the market, the withdrawal of specific batches of a product from the market and restrictions on the use of others. It has been the basis on which companies have been requested to provide additional information or carry out further pharmacological or toxicological studies on a product.
  3. It was as a result of this system that the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee initiated an in depth investigation into antidepressants and tranquillisers some 18 months ago.
  4. A further means of information feedback to persons participating in the reporting Scheme is provided in the form of a booklet entitled ‘Reports of Adverse Reactions to Drugs’ as well as an Information Bulletin on Adverse Drug Reactions, which is currently being distributed to hospitals.
  5. The Registry of Adverse Drug Reactions is also the means whereby Australia participated as one of ten countries in the World Health Organisation Pilot Research Project on International Drug Monitoring. This Project has now moved into its operational phase. The countries currently participating are Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark. Eire, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom and United States of America. Other countries are being encouraged to join. The main aim of this project is to provide an early warning system of new reactions to drugs and to widely disseminate the information and warnings. It is obvious that the greater the pool from which information is forthcoming, the greater the chances of early detection of new reactions, especially those cf very low incidence.

Testing and Analysis of Marketed Drugs

  1. The Commonwealth operates a continuous programme of sampling and analysis of raw materials and formulated products which are available under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, supplied to Commonwealth authorities (Armed Services, Repatriation, Territory Hospitals), or imported into Australia. Eventually it is hoped’ that all drugs will be sampled and analysed, although at present, drugs in categories other than those mentioned ‘ are tested only in the event of a complaint or a specific request. This is not infrequent. In general, the frequency with which a drug is sampled relates to some extent to the volume of use, potency, difficulty of manufacture, cost and also to whether repeated previous analyses have been satisfactory.
  2. The testing of drugs is undertaken primarily by the National Biological Standards Laboratory of the Department of Health. Customs Laboratories assist in this programme by testing certain drugs imported in bulk at the port of entry into Australia. Shipments are held in bond until a certificate of analysis indicating that the product is of satisfactory standard is available.
  3. Australia is one of very few countries which undertake such extensive testing.

Code of Good Manufacturing Practice

  1. In addition to testing of drugs, the National Biological Standards Laboratory has been largely responsible for the development of a Code of Good Manufacturing Practice. This Code has been negotiated with State Health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry and is the basis of licencing of manufacturers, wholesalers and importers by appropriate State and Commonwealth authorities. Licensing on this basis has not yet been fully introduced throughout Australia, largely due to lack of enabling State legislation.

Drug Recall Procedures

  1. Stringent precautions during manufacture as outlined in the Code of Good Manufacturing Practice will reduce errors but it is still inevitable that mistakes or faults will occur. These errors may be discovered before distribution to the patient or as a result of sampling and analysis, but in some cases the first indication of serious errors may be the reporting of an unusual or serious adverse effect or several minor effects to the Registry of Adverse Drug Reactions or else complaints, to State Health authorities. All complaints must be investigated before any action can be determined. When an error is detected, appropriate action must be taken and the urgency and nature of the action will depend on the nature of the error. To cope with these situations, the National Therapeutic Goods Committee agreed on a Uniform Drug Recall Procedure. Coordination of Drug Recalls is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Department of

Health which in each case of a recall works in close liaison with the State Health Department where the manufacturer of the product is located. After withdrawal of the faulty batch from circulation (this may be at wholesale, retail or rarely doctor and patient level), an essential part of the system is an investigation into the cause of the failure, so that recurrence can be prevented. These investigations are carried out jointly by trained inspectors from State and Commonwealth Health Departments.

Standards

  1. The official standards for therapeutic goods in Australia at the present time are contained in the British Pharmacopoeia, the British Pharmaceutical Codex and the British Veterinary Codex. Additional Standards are currently being drafted to include certain aspects not currently covered by the official Compendia referred to above. All proposed Standards will be submitted to the Therapeutic Goods Advisory Committee, the Therapeutic Good Standards Committee and the National Therapeutic Goods Committee prior to adoption. In this way all therapeutic goods whether they be subject to Commonwealth or State control will be required to meet the same standards.
  2. The National Therapeutic Goods Committee comprising representatives of the Commonwealth and all State Health Departments is also actively examining labelling and advertising of therapeutic goods.

page 714

INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ABOUT DRUGS

Adverse Drug Reactions

  1. Australia has participated in the World Health Organization Pilot Research Project on International Drug Monitoring as one of the initial ten countries to be involved.
  2. As a contributing member of this Project Australia is committed to provide input for the system and this is one of the operational activities of the Registry of Adverse Drug Reactions.
  3. Feedback in the form of computer printouts and specific search reports is available to the participating nations and there is also a considerable amount of direct information interchanging between them.

Drug Evaluation

  1. As was stated in the section of evaluation procedures constant contact is maintained where necessary with overseas drug control authorities during the course of evaluating therapeutic substances.
  2. This contact has included the World Health Organization and approaches were made by Australia sometime ago to that Organization to obtain uniform policy in relation to the toxicity testing of intravenous fluids.
  3. The World Health Organization has recently begun to make decisive moves in the direction of creating an information system on the results of safety and efficacy trials of new drugs and their registration in countries having the necessary facilities.
  4. An initial consultation will be held in September 1972 by the World Health Organization to consider the feasibility of such an information system, on the possible nature of the input from national health authorities and on methods of collection, recording and dissemination of information on new drugs.
  5. An officer of the Commonwealth Department of Health has been invited by the World Health Organization to attend this inaugural meeting. It is envisaged that before such a system could become operative many technical scientific and administrative problems will need to be solved.

Imipramine

  1. With regard to the present concern following disclosures about the possible hazards of imipramine, the following facts are presented:

    1. Imipramine has been marketed throughout the world for some 13- 14 years. It has been widely available in many countries including all those which exercise comprehensive controls over drugs.
    2. Because of reported side effects including isolated reports of congenital abnormalities possibly associated with the administration of certain psychoactive drugs during pregnancy, the Australian Drug

Evaluation Committee 18 months ago initiated an in depth investigation of antidepressants and tranquillisers. This concerned not only possible teratogenic effects but other adverse effects and interactions with other drugs. At that time no cause and effect relationship could be established regarding the reported cases of possible teratogenicity. In an endeavour to elucidate the matter, the Committee requested from all companies marketing the drugs, teratogenic studies in animals together with information on any cases of possible drug associated congenital abnormalities in humans. In addition, the major maternity hospitals throughout Australia were informed of the isolated cases reported to the Registry and requested to report details of any congenital abnormalities which may have been associated with the material intake of phenothiazine tranquillisers and tricyclic antidepressants. Imipramine belongs to the latter group of drugs. No cases of abnormalities associated with use of imipramine were reported by the hospitals approached.

  1. A check of computer printouts from the World Health Organisation and other overseas countries revealed no positive trend.
  2. Discussions were also held with the Australian Regional Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners regarding the general monitoring of congenital abnormalities.

    1. From the above it will be seen that the Commonwealth Department of Health and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, within the powers entrusted to them, have been most active in evaluating drugs and monitoring their safety, and maternal drug intake throughout pregnancy.

Conclusions

  1. Whilst an association between imipramine and limb deformities cannot be disproven, in the opinion of the Australian

Drug Evaluation Committee, there is insufficient evidence of a cause and effect relationship at this stage. In a letter to all medical practitioners the Director-General has conveyed the Committee’s view that the indications for all drugs during pregnancy including non-prescription remedies should be very carefully weighed.

Appendix I

page 715

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Canberra, A.C.T

In reply please quote

page 715

FORM NDF 3

(Revised January 1970)

page 715

INFORMATION REQUIRED ON NEW DRUG FOR INVESTIGATIONAL USE OR GENERAL MARKETING

General Requirements

  1. An application relating to the importation of a new drug should be addressed to the Commonwealth Director-General of Health, P.O. Box 100, Curtin, A.C.T. 2605.
  2. Two identical copies of all information specified in Sections B & C are required in English. Where direct reference is made to relevant published work, reprints or permanent copies should be included. Summaries of these works are not acceptable. Where such material is not in the English language, translations are required. Chemistry and quality control data should be supplied in the original language as well as in translation.
  3. Information in Section Bl, B2, B3 and C should be presented in separate volumes. Each volume should have a durable cover, be adequately titled, subsectioned, tagged and fully indexed. All pages of material supporting an application from the time of first submission are to be numbered. Preferably, numbering should be consecutive from start to finish, but individual numbering of each section would be acceptable.
  4. All applications should be accompanied by two copies of a separate summary containing a concise review of all material included in the protocol. As far as practicable this summary should be in the form specified in Section C and should contain appropriate references to pages of the protocol, so that the original data for any item mentioned may be located rapidly.It is not envisaged that a summary provided at the stage of clinical trials will be adequate at the time of general marketing.
  5. The protocol of a drug intended for general marketing is expected to be largely complete, free from irrelevant material and well organised.It must contain the reports of all clinical trials conducted in Australia.
  6. Each application should be accompanied by an undertaking that all consignments of the product imported will conform to the protocol description and specifications and to any general requirements prescribed under appropriate. Acts. Also that any changes in the protocol information, including the name and address of the manufacturer of the formulation, will be duly notified.
  7. Applications for general marketing are to include a sample of each of the product forms of the drug and fifteen (15) copies or drafts of proposed labels, package and promotional literature for use in Australia.
  8. During clinical trials and for a period immediately following general marketing the importer is required to report all adverse reactions to the drug, to the Secretary of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee, P.O. Box 100, Curtin, A.C.T. 2605. The period of reporting following general marketing will be determined in consultation with the importer. Beyond this period the importer should report any unusual or newly discovered adverse reactions.
  9. Names, qualifications, appointments, and addresses of persons undertaking all studies referred to in Section B2 and B3 are to be supplied.

page 716

SECTION B

Information Required

page 716

SECTION B1

Description

Include as appropriate: proprietary name/s and/or all code numbers; an accepted non-proprietary name and the name of the approving authority (such as the Approved Name of the General Medical Council of Great Britain, the International Non-Proprietary Name of the World Health Organisation, or the United States Adopted or Approved Name); structural formula, full chemical name according to International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry nomenclature, or other such information as may be available concerning the chemical structure;

General physical and chemical properties; history and structural or pharmacological relationship to other drugs.

In the case of finished pharmaceutical products state: pharmaceutical form; nominal strength with respect to active ingredients; number, volume or weight per container as appropriate.

Information for Animal Quarantine

Where the drug or any ingredient or component is derived from animal sources state: the species and part of the animal from which the product, ingredient or component is derived; the country or origin of the animal; details of any processing during manufacture which is claimed to destroy pathogenic microorganisms, including viruses.

When the drug or any ingredient or component is not derived from animal sources, a statement to this effect should be included.

Status in other Countries

Give the official status of the new drug in other countries including the country of origin, in terms of the relevant general classification outlined below: not available for human use; available only for investigational use in humans (specify any restrictions on such use); available for use in humans, only on the prescription of a duly registered medical practitioner; available for free sale.

Indicate countries where new drug applications have been lodged.

Where the name, formulation or use approved elsewhere differs from that proposed for the Australian market provide full details.

Proposed usein Australia

Give the following: proposed use of the new drug in Australia (i.e. whether for clinical investigation or for general marketing); doses and routes of administration; suggested or recommended therapeutic uses, if for clinical investigation, the names of institutions where trials are to be conducted and an outline of each of the proposed trials, including the type of patients to be treated; anticipated hazards, contra indications, drug interactions and incompatibilities; precautions and/or warnings necessary; where general marketing is intended, details of any proposed restrictions on distribution.

Manufacture and Quality Control of New Ingredient/ s

Give the name and address of the manufacturer and an outline of the method of manufacture Exhaustive details are not required, it will be generally acceptable if starting materials, essential stages and conditions of a chemical synthesis, biosynthesis, extraction, purification, etc., are indicated. For sterile products the methods of sterilisation or maintenance of sterility should be stated.

Possible impurities including the existence of polymorphic or isomeric forms should be stated. Methods of detecting and determining impurities in the presence of the active ingredient should be given if known.

Specifications in respect of identity, potency, purity, safety, sterility, physical characteristics, etc., are required with the limits of variability permitted by the manufacturer and full details of all procedures used to establish compliance with specifications and to ensure safety during clinical use. References to pages or sections of an official compendium in English in which any of the methods used are adequately described will generally be acceptable. However, full assay procedures as actually used should be given and any subsequent changes in methods notified Where it is necessary to use a substance as a reference standard in any assay procedure, data on its characteristics, e.g. biological potency, physical characteristics, copies of spectra, etc., should be supplied.

Factors likely to affect the chemical nature of the substance during storage and transport (e.g. susceptibility to light, moisture, oxygen, temperature, etc.,) should be stated. In the case of unstable products breakdown or other compounds formed should be indicated.

Manufacture and quality control of formulation/s

State the following: name and address of manufacturer of formulation; name and address of Australian distributor or agent; names (accepted nonproprietary names where possible) and proportions of all ingredients (including solvents and all inactive exipients, preservatives, colours, flavours, etc.).

Give specifications in respect of identity, potency, purity, safety, sterility, physical characteristics, etc., of components of the formulation including the limits of variability permitted by the manufacturer. If a substance meets the requirements of an official compendium in English, reference to the publication will generally be acceptable. Full assay procedures as actually used should be given if different from those published in an official compendium. Any subsequent changes in the methods should be notified.

Provide full details of all quality control procedures used to establish compliance with these specifications and to ensure safety during clinical use. Reference to pages or sections of an official compendium or other authoritative publication in English in which any of the methods used are adequately described will be generally acceptable.

A brief description of the method of manufacture is required including procedures used to ensure sterility where relevant.

Give specifications in respect of identity, potency, purity, safety, sterility, physical characteristics, etc., of the finished product, including the limits of variability permitted.

Provide full details of all procedures used to establish compliance with these specifications and to ensure safety during clinical use. Reference to pages or sections of an official compendium in English in which any of the methods used are adequately described will generally be acceptable. Full assay procedures as actually used should be given, any subsequent changes in methods should be notified.

Give storage conditions recommended by the manufacturer of the formulation, shelf life when stored under the conditions recommended and stability data in support of the recommended storage and shelf life.

Possible degradation products in the formulation and methods of detection and determination should be stated.

page 717

SECTION B2

Pharmacology, metabolic studies and toxicology

Submit all available information upon which it was decided that the substance is safe for administration to human subjects. Include all data from in vitro studies and investigations carried out in laboratory animals on different batches including pharmacological and metabolic studies, acute and prolonged toxicity tests and studies intended to reveal effects on reproduction and teratogenic properties. Reproduction and teratogenic studies should be performed in at least two species. Document in sufficient detail to enable independent conclusions to be drawn by reviewers.

Safety

Discuss any hazards that might be predicted from the results of studies on the drug or that could be inferred from other sources.

page 717

SECTION B3

Human pharmacology

Provide a full statement of all human pharmacological studies, including, wherever relevant, details of absorption, metabolism, excretion, toxicity, and other pertinent actions.

Safety

Amplify earlier comments on possible hazards in tie light of additional information obtained from human pharmacological studies.

Clinical studies

The result of all clinical studies should be presented in such a manner as to demonstrate coherent and logical progression from preclinical studies to introductory and wider human administration.

Reports of therapeutic studies should be set out in sufficient detail and in such a manner as to allow independent assessment. They should include a detailed design of the study, the key to all drug codes, age and sex ratios, dosage, duration of treatment, primary and secondary diagnoses, concurrent treatment, subjective and objective assessment of effectiveness, details of all adverse reactions and an assessment by the investigator of the efficacy and safely of the drug.

Document all adverse reactions and results of relevant laboratory tests.

Statistical treatment of results should be provided where appropriate.

page 717

SECTION C

Form of Summary

The summary is intended mainly as a guide to the protocol and should be as concise as possible consistent with clarity, and fully indexed. It should include page references to all material obtained during the investigational phases upon which the decision to proceed to clinical trials or to market the drug was based.

The following headings and sub-headings should be used with any additional ones considered necessary.

A new page should be started for each’ heading underlined.

Where information is not available this fact should be clearly stated.

Description

Proprietary name/s.

Accepted non-proprietary names.

Structural formula.

Chemical name.

Code number/s.

Physical and chemical properties.

History and relationship to other drugs.

The nominal strength of each dosage form with respect to active ingredient and the number, volume or weight per container.

Information for animal quarantine Status in other countries

Proposed use in Australia

Proposed therapeutic use.

Intended route/s of administration.

Recommended dosage.

Anticpated hazards, contra-indications, drug interactions and incompatibilities.

Precauations and/or warnings necessary.

Manufacture and quality control of new ingredient/ s (complete for each new ingredient)

Name and address of manufacturer.

Method of manufacture.

Possible impurities.

Specifications

Quality control

Stability

Manufacture and quality control of formulation/s (complete for each dosage form)

Name and address of manufacturer.

Name and address of Australian, distributor or agent.

Complete formulation.

Specifications for ingredients.

Quality control of ingredients.

Method of manufacture.

Specifications for finished product.

Quality control of finished product.

Stability

Possible impurities.

Absorption

Distribution

Metabolism

Excretion

Acute toxicity.

Prolonged toxicity studies.

Effect on reproduction and teratogenic properties.

Other studies.

Safety

Human pharmacology

Pharmacological activity.

Absorption

Distribution

Metabolism

Excretion

Safety

Clinical studies

Tabulate all investigators, academic affiliation, number of cases reported and nature of the study (special, controlled, double-blind, randomised, or not, etc.).

Tabulate age ranges for all studies giving totals in each age group and number of males and females in each age group.

Tabulated various dosage schedules by duration and number of patients.

Summarise evidence of effectiveness separately for each relevant action. Give results either by blending the results of equivalent type s of studies done or by citing the results of the other studies separately and then drawing a conclusion.

Include a summary table/s containing the primary and other relevant diagnoses, the number of patients and controls, the dosage schedule, duration and responses.

Tabulate all side effects or adverse reactions by age and sex, whether or not they are considered to be significant and showing whether or not drug therapy was stopped.

Tabulate total numbers and percentages of individual side effects seen in patients studied in these trials.

All side effects which have occurred intrials that have not been included in the submission must be listed.

Give reason for deciding whether or not adverse reactions are drug-related and the significance of any other reactions recorded. State habit-forming or addiction potential, if applicable.

Concisely compare kind and incidence of beneficial experience With kind and incidence of adverse experience found in all clinical studies.

Appendix II

  1. THE AUSTRALIAN DRUG EVALUATION COMMITTEE

The Committee is established under Regulation 19 of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations and members are appointed by the Minister of Health. The Committee is composed of:

  1. not less than six nor more than eight members;
  2. not less than four persons each of whom is a medical practitioner eminent in his profession and of whom at least three are specialists in clinical medicine; and
  3. not less than two persons, each of whom is a pharmacologist or a person who has been admitted to a degree in science or a branch of science by an Australian university or an overseas university and has specialised in pharmaceutical science.

The present members are:

Arthur William Morrow- Kt. Bach., D.S.O., E. D., M.B.B.S., F.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P. (Hon.), Consultant Physician - Chairman

Stanley Jack Marus Goulston - M.C., M.B.B.S., F.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., Consultant Physician

John Lewtas Frew- M.B.B.S., M.D., F. R.A.C.P., F.R.C.P., Consultant Physician

Robert Ley Hodge- M.B.B.S., M.D., F.R.A.C.P., Reader in Human Physiology and Pharmacology.

Thomas Inglls Robertson- M.B.B.S.. M.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., Consultant Physician

Ivan Stanley de la Lande- M.Ss., Ph.D., Professorin Pharmacology.

Laurence Maurice . Mashford - M.B.B.S., M.R.A.C.P., Clinical Pharmacologist

The functions of the Committee are:

  1. to make medical and scientific evaluations of such goods for therapeutic use as the Minister refers to it for evaluation;
  2. to make medical and scientific evaluations of other goods for therapeutic use if, in the opinion of the Committee, it is desir- “ able that it should do so; and
  3. to furnish such advice to the Minister as the Committee considers necessary relating to the importation into, and the distribution within Australia of goods for therapeutic use that have been the subject of evaluations made by the Committee.

    1. THE ADVERSE REACTIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

This Committee is established as a subcommittee of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee under the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act.

Its terms of reference are to advise the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee on all matters relating to adverse drug reactions.

The present members are:

Thomas Inglis Robertson- M.B.B.S., M.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., Consultant Physician- Chairman

Ian Davies Thomas- M.B.B.S., M.R.C.P., F.R.A.C.P., Consultant Physician

Laurence Maurice Mashford - M.B.B.S., M.R.A.C.P., Clinical Pharmacologist

Annette Marie Walshe- M.B.B.S., (Hons) B.Sc, Assistant Director-General Therapeutic Substances Branch, Commonwealth Health Department

page 721

AGED PERSONS HOMES ACT

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a list of homes subsidised under the Aged Persons Homes Act 1954-1969 as at 31st December 1971.

page 721

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMPANIES (URANIUM MINING COMPANIES) ORDINANCE 1970

Ministerial Statement

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave - On 15th March 1972 the Minister for National Development. (Mr Swartz) and I issued a Press statement indicating that certain amendments would be made to the Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance 1970 of the Australian Capital Territory. Those amendments have now been made by the Companies (Uranium

Mining Companies) Ordinance 1972, which was notified in 1be Gazette on 17th March 1972 and tabled today. I take this opportunity of informing the Senate of the nature of the amendments and of the reasons for them:

  1. To limit to IS per cent of the issued share capital the total number of shares able to be held in either company by persons not ordinarily resident in Australia or by foreign corporations; and (fi) To limit the number of. shares held in either company by any one person not ordinarily resident in Australia or by any one foreign corporation to not more than 5 per cent of the issued share capital.

Subsequently, in December 1970, the Australian Capital Territory Companies (Uranium Mining Companies) Ordinance T97Q was made giving effect to the Government decisions. The ordinance contained provisions protecting from its operation rights that had accrued before its commencement. In February 1971, following the collapse of Mineral Securities of Australia, a business crisis arose of proportions which had very serious implications - particularly for several of the major creditors. The Supreme Court of New South Wales appointed a liquidator who immediately set about the task of conducting the liquidation in an orderly fashion and in a way which would involve the least possible loss to all concerned.

As the Senate will recall, there was considerable public concern at the time of the collapse of Mineral Securities and, although the conduct of the liquidation was not a matter in relation to which the Commonwealth Government had direct responsibilities, I should make it clear to the Senate that, very properly, the Government did take the closest interest in this whole matter. In early February, soon after the collapse of Mineral Securities, it came to the notice of the Government that there was a possibility of a proposed consortium of both overseas and Australian interests mounting a rescue operation to minimise the impact of the Minerals Securities failure by making loan moneys available. The Government noted that the eventual result might be the acquisition of shares by overseas interests in Queensland

Mines and Kathleen Investments beyond the limits prescribed in the Ordinance. The Government decided at the time that if this occurred the Ordinance would be amended. In the event the proposed consortium did not eventuate.

One of the major assets of Mineral Securities was a substantial number of shares in both Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments. The Liquidator arranged for all of the creditors of Mineral Securities who claimed security over shares in these 2 companies to form a syndicate for the purpose of selling the shares in cooperation with the Liquidator acting as their agent. For this purpose the Liquidator obtained an order from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. On 5th March 1971, tenders were called by the Liquidator on a world-wide basis. Tenders closed on 11th March 1971. A number of bids were received and several tenders for comparatively small parcels were accepted. A tender for the major part of the share holdings offered in the 2 companies was made by a syndicate comprised of Noranda Australia, Imperical Chemical Industries of Australia and the Australian Mutual Provident Society. Noranda and ICI are both well known and respected overseas companies, the former from Canada and the latter from the United Kingdom. The AMP Society is a wholly Australian institution. Negotiations were conducted by the Liquidator with this syndicate resulting finally in a sale at what the Liquidator described as a satisfactory price.

At Hie time that the Noranda syndicate was preparing its .bid the total percentage of all foreign holdings in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments was not known. A great many holdings still had to be examined by the Registrar of Companies in the Australian Capital Territory with a view to determining whether they were foreign or not, and until .this task had been completed Noranda and ICI riad no means of ascertaining with certainty whether their proposed acquisition of shares in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments would result in the 15 per cent limit set by the Ordinance for all foreign holdings being exceeded. Inquiries have shown that the syndicate led by Noranda was concerned as to the effect of -their bid, if successful, on the level of foreign holdings in the 2 companies specified in the Ordinance. After thorough investigation the Government is satisfied that this syndicate took reasonable precautions before submitting Us tender on 11th March 1971. The major party in the syndicate was Noranda and this company specifically limited its offer so that its share holdings in both Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments were kept within the 5 per cent limit imposed on a single foreign shareholder by the Ordinance.

In addition, Noranda states that, on behalf of the syndicate, it approached the then Chairman of Queensland Mines and asked whether a bid on the part of their syndicate would be likely to result in total share holdings by foreigners being in excess of the IS per cent specified in the Ordinance. Noranda states that the reply was that from an examination of the share register it appeared that their bid, if successful, would bring foreign share holdings to something of the order of only 13 per cent. Further, through the broking house which was acting as their investment advisers, the then Prime Minister was advised of the identities of the potential tenderers in the Noranda syndicate and of their concern lest their bid bring foreign share holdings beyond the 15 per cent limit. It is stated by Noranda that an indication was given that the Government would not object if, as a result of a successful tender by the Noranda syndicate, foreign share holdings were temporarily reasonably in excess of the limit prescribed by the Ordinance. Such an assurance was, of course, consistent with the Government’s decision to which I referred earlier. I should interpolate here that the Minister for National Development has spoken with the right honourable member for Higgins (Mr Gorton), the then Prime Minister, who, while he does not recall all the details of this conversation, nonetheless agrees that assurances were given to the syndicate and he fully supports the action which the Government has now taken and which I will outline to the Senate shortly.

The Ordinance vests certain functions in the Registrar of Companies of the Australian Capital Territory one of which is to certify whether a transfer of shares is such that if registered it would increase the number of foreign shares beyond the specified limit, namely, 15 per cent. Before a transfer of shares could be registered it was necessary for the Registrar to determine the number of foreign shares as at the date the Ordinance came into force. This lengthy procedure, involving an inquiry into more than 6,000 share holdings covering millions of shares, was only recently completed. As a result it was established that registration of the Noranda and ICI shares, along with others awaiting registration, would bring foreign holdings to almost 21 per cent. Here I should point out that, because of the need to determine foreign share holdings as at the date of the introduction of the Ordinance, no transfers to foreign share holders have been registered since the Ordinance was made in December 1970. The purchase of shares by Noranda and ICI constitutes a substantial portion of the excess above 15 per cent. However, I should make 2 points clear: Firstly, that the outstanding transfers held by the Registrar cover a considerable number of other transactions - some lodged ahead of the Noranda transfers, some between those of Noranda and ICI, and some after that date. Secondly, there had, prior to 15th March 1972, been no official public intimation that the 15 per cent limit on foreign share holdings in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments has been exceeded.

The Government has examined this whole matter exhaustively. It has noted the precautions which the Noranda syndicate took and it accepts that that syndicate acted in good faith and in the belief that the Government would take whatever action was necessary to protect the syndicate’s interests if the 15 per cent limit were exceeded as a result of their bid being successful. The Government has also noted that if the transfers of these shares are not registered the result could well be litigation between Noranda and the Official Liquidator of Mineral Securities. The Government does not express any view as to the possible result of any such litigation, but it recognises, after consultations with the Official Liquidator, that the very threat of litigation would inevitably result in delaying the whole procedures of winding up the Mineral Securities group and would jeopardise seriously the atmosphere of confidence in the plan of liquidation which the Liquidator has been able to build up since his appointment.

The Government therefore decided that, while retaining the basic limit of IS per cent as announced in the Parliament by the former Prime Minister, the Ordinance would be amended so that no foreigner who bad acquired shares in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments before the announcement of this decision - namely, midnight on 15 th March 1972 - will have his transfer refused registration. The amendment applies equally, to all persons who had acquired shares in either of the 2 uranium companies before the announcement. This result has been achieved by amending certain provisions in the principal Ordinance which ensured that it did not operate against rights that had already accrued before the principal Ordinance came into operation. This protection has now been extended to cover rights that had accrued under transactions entered into before the announcement which was released at midight on 15th March 1972, Australian Eastern Standard Time.

I should make it clear to the Senate that the amending Ordinance does not change the existing basic limits for foreign share holdings in the 2 companies concerned. In the result foreign holdings will temporarily exceed the prescribed percentages, but while this situation continues no further sales of shares in either of the 2 companies will be able to be made to foreigners. When the level of foreign holdings falls below 15 per cent the Ordinance will operate as originally intended and transfers will be permitted up to .but not beyond the 15 per cent announced by the Government in 1970. Shares held in excess of 15 per cent higher this special arrangement will have normal voting rights and their holders will be able to participate in any new general share issues by virtue of their holdings of these shares.

The Government decided that it was necessary to amend the Ordinance having regard, firstly, to the importance of ensuring that the Minsec collapse is handled so as to afford the maximum of protection for the creditors of Minsec and to avoid possible litigation which would jeopardise the confidence in the whole plan of liquidation; secondly, to the uncertainty that existed at the time of the Minsec collapse as to the extent of existing foreign holdings in the 2 companies and to the fact that it has taken until now to classify all the share holdings in Queensland Mines and Kathleen Investments into foreign and non-foreign; and thirdly, because the Government is satisfied that the Noranda syndicate acted in good faith and took reasonable precautions. Having considered this whole situation with considerable care, the Government feels that the action I have outlined to the Senate is fair, reasonable and proper. For the future there will be a firm base upon which the Ordinance can be administered as originally intended.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave - I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I seek leave to make my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 724

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7 March (vide page 485), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman :

That (he Bil] be now read a second lime.

Upon which Senator Willesee had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after That”, insert ‘the Bill be withdrawn because it is unselective in ils approach and gives no consideration to balanced economic development’.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

Mr Deputy President, the restoration of the investment .allowance in relation to expenditure incurred on or after 14th February 1972 has been welcomed by industry. The decision to reintroduce the provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Bill for the investment allowance deduction from assessable income, of .20 per cent of capital on new manufacturing plant has assisted manufacturers to plan for future development with greater confidence. The Prime Minister (Mr McMahon), in his opening statement at the Premiers Conference, said that although the major determinant of investment expenditure must be expected growth of demand relative to existing productive capacity, the. Government was persuaded by the force of the views about the influence the investment allowance would have, .in boosting confidence. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has announced that the allowance will be restored in relation to expenditure which was incurred on or after 14th February this year without regard to when the contract under which the expenditure incurred was signed.

The allowance was restored at the same rate of 20 per cent and it applied to the same range of expenditure as it did before its suspension on 3rd February 1971. This supplementary allowance to the normal deductions for depreciation materially assists the cash flow of business in the year of expenditure for new plant. Over the scheduled life of the equipment it results in total deductions from assessable income of 120 per cent of the installed cost of the equipment concerned. To make this point quite clear, I cite the following examples: A public company which is using public company taxation rates of 47i per cent with capital equipment costing $1,000, would receive the initial allowance of 20 per cent and this would result in a taxation benefit of $95. The depreciation of, say, 10 per cent in the first year would amount to $100. In the first year this would give an improvement in cash flow of $195. Over the life of the asset, for example, a 10-year period, the total depreciation of $1,000 at the rate of 471 per cent would result in $475 of taxation benefit. With the initial allowance of $95 in the first year the company would receive a total tax benefit on plant of $1,000 which would amount to $570. This is quite a considerable amount.

The measure of confidence which the restoration will strengthen is referred to in the comments of the President of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia. He stated that the Government could count on industry taking advantage of the allowance in planning and carrying out new capital expenditure now that uncertainty had been removed. Some months ago I spoke about the reintroduction of the investment allowance. At that time I suggested its reintroduction specifically for those industries which were earning export income if it could not be restored for the same range of industry which it had previously covered. The amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party seeks to have the Bill withdrawn on the grounds that it is unselective in its approach and gives no consideration to balanced economic development. I chal lenge the terms of the amendment. The statement that the provisions are unselective in their approach is not explicit. The allowance relates to a range of manufacturing industry which has a need to be competitive and an urgency to be efficient in terms of real productivity. A company which installs new plant which bears a taxation deductibility of this type should show benefits in price and efficiency.

At a time when government may use measures to encourage confidence and future planning, attack unemployment and encourage production it is fitting to recall the statement which the then Treasurer made in 1962 when introducing this legislation. He said:

The Government aims to encourage greater investment in our manufacturing industries and thus ensure in both the short and long term a greater volume of output and employment.

We are competing with many nations in our export trade which use this form of encouragement to manufacturing industries. So it is important that this assistance be given to our cost structure. The assertion that this is a subsidy to industry which is unselective has little application to the intention. The Bureau of Census and Statistics has provided figures relating to capital expenditure by private business in Australia for the quarter ended December 1971. These figures show that expenditure on manufacturing plant and equipment - other than mineral processing - remained static during 1971 despite rising prices for such capital expenditure. This situation should be stimulated by the incentive of the restored allowance. The President of the Chamber of Manufactures of New South Wales has stated to the Government that the encouragement of the more efficient use of resources by the application of the investment allowance could be identified by several matters. He referred to the purchase of new equipment which will lower the costs of labour or materials which are used. He also referred to equipment which will be partly or wholly used for the production of goods for our export trade; equipment which will be used to improve safety; and equipment required to comply with legislation concerned with environmental pollution. The allowance will also be used for equipment which will improve the quality of products by proper testing and equipment which will be used for research, development and decentralisation programmes.

Such an attitude by industry is to be encouraged. The interests of stimulating confidence and buoyancy in the Australian economy are also factors which are very important. Any measure which will assist in real productivity aims will be a weapon which can be used to combat the inflationary trends which continue to develop. I remind honourable senators of the thoughts of the economist F. A. Hayek with regard to inflation. He stated:

Those who wish to preserve freedom should recognise that inflation is the most important single factor in that vicious circle wherein one kind of government control makes more and more government control necessary. There is nothing more disheartening than the fact that there are still so many intelligent and informed people who in most other respects will defend freedom and yet are induced by the immediate benefits of an expansionist policy to support what, in the long run, must destroy the foundations of a free society.

It is regretted that the Opposition does not support this legislation which will act as an encouragement to industry. It is also of concern that the Opposition has sought to be selective about manufacturing industry by suggesting a vague criterion of efficiency. It is remarkable that this Bill is not recognised as one which will assist in economic development. I support the Bill and reject the amendment.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall make a few brief remarks about the Income Tax Assessment Bill. I think it is apparent that this industry investment allowance has become a sort of familiar bellwether of the fortunes of this Government. The allowance was first introduced in 1962 after the Government was frightened out of its wits by its near defeat in 1961. The allowance was suspended a year ago when the Government gave us to understand that the major threat to this country was inflation and that demand must in some way be discouraged. The suspension of the allowance was held out as some sort of antiexpansionary move. Now, with the Government in an even worse position than it was 10 years ago, apparently the panic button has been pressed again and the investment allowance is restored. There is a strange logic in this course of events as we are told in the confused economic pronouncements from Government spokesmen that inflation is running at a higher rate today than it was a year ago when the investment allowance was suspended. Despite what Senator Guilfoyle has said about the dire warnings of Professor Hayek on the effects of inflation it is hard to resist the conclusion from this course of conduct by the Government that, in fact, the fight against inflation has been abandoned. Or perhaps it was a mistake to suspend the investment allowance in the first place.

In any event we are not told how the restoration of this investment allowance (ils in with the Government’s evidently considered opinion a year ago that the maintenance of the investment allowance was some sort of stimulus or encouragement to continued inflation. It is quite clear that the restoration of the allowance is a triumph of pressure from the Chamber of Manufactures. Perhaps we on this side of the House are not being too cynical in suggesting that its restoration is not completely unrelated to the state of the Government parties’ funds.

No matter what it may be called, this investment allowance is a disguised subsidy to manufacturers, a benefit of $S0m to $60m annually to those industries which happen to install any new plant after the commencement of the operation of this measure which, I understand, is the 14th of this month. It certainly is not surprising to me that it has been applauded by the representatives of the manufacturing interests who were referred to by Senator Guilfoyle. The investment allowance is being restored under the guise of being a stimulus to industry but surely it is more appropriate to describe it as a hallmark of the thoughtless, mindless, stop-go economic policies of this Government. It is being restored blindly without any plan and is being applied unselectively. It will apply only to plant, whether in the declining motor car industry, in the cosmetics industry or in the brewery industry. This is not being done on any selective basis or in relation to any proper plan of balanced economic development.

We are told that it is supposed to help to increase employment but there is no discrimination between labour intensive and capital intensive industries in the allocation of the allowance. No evidence is provided to show that it will increase confidence or will increase employment. The Chamber of Manufactures and Bank of New South Wales joint survey issued recently showed that some 66 per cent of manufacturers answered the questionnaire put out to them. The survey indicated that they were producing below capacity. It may be asked: ‘Who will risk planned expansion in the present climate?’

The most serious criticism, of course, is that the Government, in restoring the investment allowance, has shown no notion of priorities. For instance, why was not the allowance made available only if it were for plant manufacture in Australia? Why not only for those industries which substantially are Australian owned? In short, the Government seems to have missed a golden opportunity to use this investment allowance as a tool to secure the sort of economic development we want. No evidence is provided by the Government in support of the restoration of the allowance as to which companies are going to employ more men because of this legislation. Has the Government made any survey in this regard or has it just blindly succumbed to pressure and hopefully introduced this measure because certain people talked about it as being one of the things which might restore confidence? In other words, is this measure just a stab in the dark? Is it the sort of reflex action we are accustomed to getting from the Government whenever it finds itself in trouble? Has this been done with the encouragement or support of the Treasury? We have been told nothing about this.

I believe we are entitled to assume that the Government merely has reacted to its own electoral difficulties and has done something which will please some people upon whom it is accustomed to rely for support and is hoping for the best. This legislation is not an illustration of economic forethought, planning or economic wisdom; it is just the, latest illustration that we have a government which, in economic affairs, is a stop-go government. This Government took away this investment allowance in the hope that that action would cure inflation. Then evidently it forgot about the inflation problem. Now it is reintroducing this allowance in the hope that it will cure unemployment. No evidence has been supplied to this chamber that this legislation has been effective in achieving either objective. For that reason I support the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee).

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The second reading debate on the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1972 provides an opportunity for me to submit for the consideration of the Senate a number of matters in relation to the economic climate in Australia and the various taxation provisions which apply in this country. This is a short Bill but its effects may be considered to be long term. Apparently the legislation has been introduced as part of comprehensive government measures to effect an increase in the number of people employed in the community and to activate businessmen into earlier decision regarding the ordering, receival and installation of plant and equipment than may have applied in current years had this allowance not been available generally to manufacturers.

The Bill eventually will re-establish the taxation concession which was available to manufacturers who install and operate plant used in the production of assessable income. The concession was withdrawn on 4th February 1971 and is to be reinstituted as and from 14th February 1972, on a similar basis to that which existed previously. The, Bill refers particularly to section 62AA of the Income Tax Assessment Act.

At the time that this allowance was withdrawn the main concern of the Government - I should imagine it was the main concern of the Australian public - was the inflationary situation. I believe that at that time there existed sound reasons for the Government’s action. The effect and wisdom of the withdrawal of the concession was questioned at that time and I believe that the history of the past 2 years establishes the level of wisdom of that particular decision. Australian businesses in general have found a very sound economic climate in which to work in this country. The nature of that climate and the type of administration which we have in Australia are by no means unrelated. The economic health of all business undoubtedly will vary from year to year, certainly in line with the decisions of managements in relation to their companies’ affairs. It should be the duty of the Government not only to set a climate conducive to sound and profitable business but to see that hurried government actions do not harm the budget planning of sound management. I used the words ‘profitable business’ because in these days that is something with which the Government must be very much concerned.

If one listens to spokesmen for the Opposition, profit is something to be abhorred. I fear for industry should the Australian Labor Party ever gain the treasury bench in this country again. There are sufficient left wing men of strength, both within the Parliament and behind closed doors who direct the. members of Parliament, to make us believe that a Federal government of a Labor complexion is to be resisted by all businessmen in this community. Some people of normal Liberal views may have come to overlook the excellence of the climate in which thenbusinesses have operated over the past 20- odd years. I believe that it will remain in the interests of business to have a strong administration in Canberra which believes in the support of private enterprise and not in wholesale socialism as is supported by the Opposition. The present Government is aware of its obligation. It is alert and ever cognisant of its duty to encourage and not to discourage sound and profitable business. I believe, that industry is aware of this. lt could be said that the Government must be more alert to the many problems of business during these times. Dealing with some of the economic problems and the basis of concern in the business community, I believe that the Government must be alert at the present time to the influence of high taxation in the community. This is not conducive to a continued maximisation of efficiency by all businesses. If efficiency is represented by taxable profits in which this Government- must be ever interested, the general climate which is set by the Government must be conducive to higher profits by companies as they progress. The Government must be alert to the incursions of overseas manufacturers who perhaps have far greater government encouragement to produce and to export to Australia than have Australian manufacturers to export to other countries. The free importation of goods produced overseas has caused a serious situation which has been developing over the past few years. In past years we have seen some indigenous Australian industries harmed by imports. Some have been, forced out of business. In the future when we in Australia come under the domination of an overseas marketer in a particular line of business we certainly will be paying a high price that it demands from a country which has not its own business base on which to offer competition. It is my view that the attitude of the Tariff Board as an independent body advising the Government has caused some dismay and distress in areas of industry. The Government and in particular some senior Ministers must speak out in strong support of Australian industries more than has been the case in recent years.

Amongst other important matters, the Government must seek to curb what is at times unreasonable departmental expenditure when compared with the demands of private industry. The Government should see that the Public Service wages and salaries bill is not beyond the means of the community to support it. My point there is based on the number of public servants throughout Australia compared with those employed in private industry who are providing the return to the Government which in turn supports those public servants. The ratio of public servants to those employed in outside industry of one in 4 or one in 5 is something to which governments, both State and Federal, must be alert. Interest rates must be examined carefully if the Government is to promote a strong economic climate in the community. The high interest rate that is paid by businesses in Australia today compared with comparable countries overseas has been mentioned in the Senate on a number of occasions. I read within the last 2 months that the prime rate of interest paid in America is about 4) per cent at the present time. This is ridiculous when compared to the 7f per cent to 8 per cent which is paid by businesses in Australia. I have stated a fairly low figure considering the availability of money for businesses. This has been mentioned by other honourable senators prior to my speaking.

I have made a point of bringing this matter to the Government’s attention by way of questions asked on a number of occasions. I am dissatisfied with the answers that have been given in relation to the level of interest rates in the community. The profit factor for private banks or others who deal in money is a matter for concern. I imagine that a drop in interest of 1 per cent or i per cent is of concern to somebody who is involved in that line of business. It may have been said in the past by the Treasurer and officials of the Treasury that a high rate of interest is one - of the classic ways of dampening down the demand for money. That philosophy has proved to be incorrect. The Government needs to watch very closely what has been the effect of a drop of i per cent in the rate of interest. I consider that that is not a sufficient drop and that in the near future the interest rate should again be evaluated. Indeed, I have some confidence that this will be done during this year.

Now that we are debating the restoration of the investment allowance, I believe the Government should also give consideration to restoring the taxation incentives which formerly applied to private companies. I speak of the retention allowance and the 2i per cent extra income tax that was applied recently to private and public companies. The investment allowance was a sound measure. Undoubtedly, it boosted the interest in manufacturing by the manufacturing industry of this country. It set a climate in which suppliers of plant and equipment to businesses could look forward with some encouragement for the purchase of their machinery because obviously a government subsidy was being paid for the installation of new equipment. I think it is interesting to note that while criticism has been made by many areas of industry and business of the support which primary industry has received from subsidy, the investment allowance, which has no reference in its wording to subsidy, was in fact a direct subsidy of 9.5 per cent on the capital value of every purchase that was made in this field by a business. It was nothing but a subsidy made by the Government or by the people of Australia to encourage industry to invest in the modernisation of its equipment. That modernisation was of great value. Undoubtedly, it put an extra impetus into the labour force, lt gained greater economic output for industry. The Government assistance which was given in those early days was of immense importance in creating such a sound economic climate in Australia.

Of course, the withdrawal of that concession did not apply to primary producers. It is of some importance for primary producers to acknowledge that in the past year the Government had some special appreciation of their financial plight and that the benefit of that taxation concession, while withdrawn from manufacturing industry generally, was not withdrawn from primary producers.

Senator Gair:

– But ordinarily primary producers receive some generous rebates, do they not?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator’s comment is quite correct. Undoubtedly he will join with me in applauding the granting of those benefits.

Senator Gair:

– I only wanted the honourable senator to acknowledge my comment.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do . acknowledge it and I acknowledge the wisdom of the Government in not taking away from the primary producers that which it found necessary to take away from the manufacturers some 14 months ago. I believe that the granting by the Government of an investment allowance in the past was most successful. It has certainly achieved its aim. There are one or two points that I believe the Government may have taken into consideration in relation to the restoration of the investment allowance on manufacturing plant and equipment. Firstly, the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), who is in charge of the debate on this Bill today, had either the fortune or misfortune to have to reply on at least three or four occasions to my demands in 1972 for this; allowance to be restored. I hope that-; -

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That had some bearing on it. .

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not know whether it had some bearing on the allowance being restored, but the Government was certainly made aware that in the opinion of some members of the Senate the restoration of the investment allowance, whilst not likely to provide an immediate benefit by way of more employment, would have that effect in the long run by stimulating the manufacturer of new plant and equipment for .those who needed it.

The Minister for Health will recall the words Mead time’ being used in October of last year. It. was said that if a measure like this were to be reintroduced it would be necessary to give businesses a lead time in which to place orders; and thereby stimulate manufacturing within the community. That was not done. I have some grave doubts about what will be achieved in, say, the 1971-72 financial year as a result of the restoration of this allowance. I found some support for my view when I read in an article on Thursday, 9th March that Australian businessmen expect to spend $265m less on new capital works and equipment in the first half of 1972 than they spent a year earlier. Apparently that figure was released by the Commonwealth Statistician and therefore can be reckoned to be accurate. There is a problem in relation to businesses being encouraged to make decisions to spend sizeable amounts so that they can benefit from this subsidy. However, it has been restored and it is once again a very important benefit.

I remember a letter being written to me about this matter by a very important businessman in Melbourne. His comment to me, was that the investment allowance should never have been withdrawn and that the few encouragements given to manufacturing businesses had warranted its retention all the way through. I wish to quote from that letter, which comments on a variety of things. I think the writer was at that time writing to me in relation to a question I had asked in the Senate. I think I ought to read it. I do so to indicate how I think Ministers can be wrong at times in putting up certain propositions and how awkward it must be for them to answer correctly all questions which are asked of them in the Senate. Going back to the origin of the letter that I wish to quote I point out that I had urged in a question in October of last year that the suspension of the investment allowance be lifted. I received the following reply to my representations: - The Treasurer, advised that the announcement that the investment allowance was to be suspended and the introduction of the suspending legislation led to the receipt of a large number of representations covering a wide range of aspects.

I interpose to say that I believe that it was more the demands of industry which prompted the Government to act than questions asked by honourable senators in this place. The reply continued:

The Government, of course, carefully examined these representations, and their implications, against the background of the reasons which underlay the decision on suspension. As you know, however, we have decided that the legislation suspending the operation of the investment allowance will remain unamended.

Among the broader considerations which influenced the Government’s decision to suspend the operation of the investment allowance was the fact that the allowance represented a subsidy, albeit by way of a tax concession. That is to say, it reduced the cost of investment to the business concerned, but did not reduce the cost to the nation as a whole. At present rates of company tax, it was a subsidy to public companies at the rate of 9.5 per cent of the installed capital cost of eligible plant. Subsidies to encourage investment might, of course, be justified in particular circumstances, such as those which existed when the allowance was introduced, but it is quite another matter to suggest that they remain a permanent feature of the tax law.

Genuinely’ economic investment will not be stopped by the suspension of the concession and the only effects of the suspension are likely to fall on investments which would be economic only after a subsidy from general revenue. There are, no doubt, likely to be some projects which are so marginal that the return from customers would not enable the investment to break eVen without the help of the allowance. But to give the allowance in those cases would involve encouragement of uneconomic projects and would not assist productivity. Except in such marginal cases, the suspension of the allowance will not do anything to reduce the relative attractiveness of new equipment which is more efficient than that which it supersedes.

In a letter I received from a company director whom I regard highly, he states, inter alia:

Whether the investment allowance was ‘a subsidy’ or not is scarcely relevant; it was one of the very few encouragements given to industry to keep up to day and efficient.

It galls me when I’m overseas to see how, under the taxation policies of countries like Germany, industry can keep up to date. Not only does it have the natural advantage of large internal and close external markets but it also has the active encouragement of government to maintain efficiency.

I impress upon the Government that the investment allowance is a good measure and that it encourages efficiency. I emphasise that we do not give sufficient encouragement for efficient production by manufacturers in this country as compared with the position in some overseas countries. 1 request the Government to look at some of the taxation measures overseas wi:h a view to granting even further concessions to the manufacturing industry in Australia. If we are to encourage employment in our community, if we are to maintain our high rate of employment, if we are to sustain the high wages that have been granted to employees in our manufacturing industries and if we are to be able to compete on overseas markets that are new to this country, it will be necessary to find other measures to encourage efficiency in our manufacturing industries. 1 question 2 points in relation to this legislation. Undoubtedly it is a decision for the Government as to the manner in which this legislation is to be applied but I doubt very much whether industry understands the position in relation to the reintroduclion of this measure. This allowance has been reintroduced as from 14th February 1972. It was withdrawn, if my memory serves me correctly, as from 4th February 1971, but if at that date contracts had been entered into for the supply and installation of goods, payments made during that period of suspension would be permitted to those industries which had contracted in good faith. That decision was a most sound one.

In relation to the reinstatement of this allowance, if a manufacturer contracted to install goods for the year prior to 14th February 1972 but made arrangements to pay the amounts owing off after 14th February 1972, those payments which he makes after 14th February 1972 will be allowable deductions. If, however, a manufacturer in good faith installed equipment during the year prior to 14th February 1972 and made arrangements with his private trading bank to finance the payment for those goods or even found his own financial reserves to make prompt payment for those goods, any claim by that manufacturer to receive the benefit will be disallowed. Personally, I believe that that position ought not to be countenanced. I do not think that it is a fair proposition to put forward with respect to business.

For instance, it is drawn to my attention that, during the period when the investment allowance was suspended, manufacturers who knew. that they could not get the allowance but who. went ahead in good faith because they were seeking efficiency and paid for their goods or perhaps increased their overdrafts for the time being to meet these costs, will be precluded from the benefits because of the provisions laid down by the Treasurer regarding reinstatement of this allowance. If a manufacturer purchased goods on the good old Kathleen Mavourneen terms of hire purchase or some other means, payments will be permitted to be claimed as allowable deductions in the current period. The Government should look at this situation. The proposition is unfair to some. It is a good bonus to others. Perhaps one should applaud the bonus that exists, but I abhor the attitude which is taken to the other less fortunate individuals.

The other anomaly which I see relates to the building and construction industry. 1 refer honourable senators to section 62aa of the Income Tax Assessment . Act. Subsection 3 of that section provides: (3.) This section does not apply in relation to-

  1. plant or articles for use in mining or quarrying operations, but not including operations referred to in paragraph 00 or (b) of the next succeeding sub-section;
  2. road vehicles, wherever or however used, of the kinds ordinarily used for the transport of persons or the delivery of goods (including the delivery .of goods of a particular kind);
  3. plant or articles for use by the taxpayer primarily and principally for the purposes of the manufacture of goods to be used as materials, parts or fittings in the construction by the taxpayer of roads, bridges, dams, buildings or other structures;

There are several other sub-sections to that section.

The point that I wish to make is that originally in the early 1960s when this provision was introduced the building and construction industry was precluded from the benefits of this legislation. There may have been some reason at that time why the then Treasurer thought in this way. I have not looked up the debate to find out what was said by members in speaking to this legislation. It appears to me that those who were manufacturing with a view to gaining assessable income should have had the benefits of that section applied to them. But a contractor in the building and construction industry was precluded if he manufactured doors and used them himself or manufactured concrete and used it for his own construction work. His preclusion from the benefits of the investment allowance continues under this Bill as the same provisions apply. Those who were disallowed this allowance previously will be disallowed it also under this measure.

I suppose the Government may hide behind the fact that this Bill continues to apply an existing provision. But I believe that the construction industry has a unique case to put forward at the present time. It is possible that a contractor could pull a curtain down over the extent of his operations and set up a separate section within his own business, whether or not it be at arms length, to manufacture certain items - this is what the Government is encouraging him to do - as a means of avoiding the incidence of taxation. He would gain the benefits of the subsidy by setting up some legal provision to enable the whole of his operations to qualify for this allowance.

My reading of some of the speeches of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) indicate that the Taxation Office will be on the look out for measures that have been taken by private industry to set up schemes by which the incidence of taxation on overall operations is lowered. Perhaps the eyes of the Treasury may also be on schemes which have been set up to gain the benefit of some taxation allowances. If the Treasury should so move, this would be one allowance to be considered. I am well aware of manufacturers who have looked immediately at this provision, have seen that their growth in the future in relation to manufacture will be large, have set up a manufacturing company under the overall control of fee parent company and have gained all the benefits of the 9.5 per cent concession from the Government. I believe that that is not warranted. We should not require of companies that they spend money with a view to setting up some arrangement by which they gain these concessions. These concessions should apply only in respect of genuine manufacturers seeking more efficiency and looking to provide assessable income upon which eventually they will be taxed. Surely the burden of my earlier comments is that in this community we should encourage higher profits from every organisation if this can be achieved by greater efficiency.

Here is an anomaly. We see it in Canberra as we come to work daily. Let us take the case of a contractor who is constructing an enormous building and decides that he will purchase his concrete from a concrete manufacturer and have it driven to the site by concrete mixer, he would not be entitled to the allowance. But if the manufacturer set up his plant to manufacture concrete he would be entitled to the investment allowance and all the benefits that go with it. What is the situation today of the builder? In the past few years Australian builders have become so efficient that we do not realise the great impact that the manufacturing and construction industry is having in South East Asia. The Minister for Works, Senator Wright,, will understand my comment because he appreciates some of the contracts which Australians in this industry are achieving purely by their efficiency in their work overseas. If the local contractor decides that the best way for him to operate is to set up a manufacturing plant of his own, to bring in the raw materials and to enter into the manufacture of concrete under his own company name on the site of his construction, he is not allowed the investment allowance. I think that is entirely wrong. This type of situation shows up continually in the building and contracting industry, of which I have some knowledge.

I think it is entirely unfair that, in the reintroduction of the allowance, thought was not given to the claims that have been made by manufacturing processors for many years. I am advised by the various master builder associations and contractors that they have been submitting claims to the Treasurer very nearly since 1962, when the Act first came into operation, for their manufacturing processes to be accorded the benefit of this allowance. I think that, prior to the Bill being introduced, it was encumbent upon the Government to look at their proposition to give them the benefit of the allowance where they are genuinely manufacturing for their own business.

There has been some movement by some Government senators in relation to this matter. Perhaps I should pay a tribute to Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield for her most energetic work in this field. I would give her credit because she has been quite active in attempting to get the Government’s attention drawn to the matter. I think she may give her view later. She certainly has encouraged Government senators. She has had various Treasury officials discuss with her and with other members what should be done in relation to his matter. If the Government does not see fit at present to encompass the building and construction industry in this legislation, I plead with it to introduce at a very early date a Bill which will encompass that industry.

I repeat that the Government, when it introduced the original legislation which provided for the payment of an investment allowance, was entitled to the highest credit for what it did. It certainly achieved success. The withdrawal of the allowance for a period was a decision made by the Government with the aim of controlling to some extent the inflationary situation that had developed. I implore the Government to direct its attention at present - I know that it will - to the controlling of inflation. I believe that the allowance should never have been withdrawn. I expressed that view on a number of occasions, as the Minister well knows. I applaud the Government for reintroducing the allowance. I think that within 6 months the Government will again be able to have the highest credit paid to it for the benefits that will be obtained by manufacturing industry, both in efficiency and in the provision of further employment opportunities.

Senator McMANUS:
Victoria

– The Australian Democratic Labor Party will support the Bill and will vote against the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition. We have examined the amendment. We feel that it merely proposes to withdraw the Bill and offers no alternative. If offers nothing which would replace the stimulus to the economy and the business world which undoubtedly will come from the Bill. We feel that the words in the amendment ‘unselective in its approach* and no consideration to balanced economic development’, do not offer anything constructive. We do not see anything which would induce us to change our attitude in a time such as this, when Opposition parties are complaining about the malaise in the business world. We see no reason why the Opposition should oppose a Bill such as this which, it is generally agreed by people in the business and manufacturing world, will be a great impetus and a great assistance to those progressive manufacturers who desire to make their businesses efficient and to keep their equipment up to date.

Admittedly, the reintroduction of the allowance is a rather humiliating reversal of form for the Government. It reminds me of an occasion about 10 years ago when, in similar circumstances, the Government announced that in order to keep the economy on a good business footing it was necessary to increase sales tax on motor cars by a considerable percentage. We had advanced to us by the Treasury the most powerful argument as to why this could and should be done. A few months later, when Cbe damaging effect of that increase, what it would do to the car industry and what it would do to employment, were suddenly realised overnight, without any preparation the Government reversed its stand and removed the increased sales tax on cars. I can well remember one member of the Liberal Party complaining to me with some bitterness that he had been at his Liberal Party branch meeting and had explained at considerable length why it was necessary to increase the sales tax on motor cars. He loyally backed, everything that the Government had done on that issue. When he had finished and when questions were asked for, the first question was: ‘If it is so good why did Sir Robert Menzies announce on the air at 7 p.m. that it is to be cut out?’ The Treasury or the Government made a mistake. 1 suppose we all make mistakes. The Government is now reversing the process in relation to the investment allowance.

The regrettable thing is that this kind of assistance cannot be turned on and off like a tap. I hope that if anything along these lines is being considered in the years to come, the Government will give consideration to the fact that there always will be business firms which, in planning reequipment, plan to pay for that equipment over a period of years and to phase it in over a period of years. While some consideration was given in the Bill to that fact, I doubt whether enough consideration was given to it. Once a government starts fiddling around with something like a development allowance or an. investment allowance it leads to a state of uncertainty in industry which is bad for everybody. Therefore I hope that in future the Government, if it proposes to examine this kind of allowance again, will give consideration to the long term possibilities. I believe that if it does so we probably will not be placed in the situation that we are in now of reversing our processes.

The removal of the investment allowance caused great consternation in the business world. I, like other members, was approached by representatives of business and manufacturing organisations who pointed out the serioussness of what was proposed and what it might do to the business world. One thing I said to many of them - I repeat it - was that to a degree it is the fault of the business and the manufacturing community that this kind of action is taken because, in my belief, the business and manufacturing community has failed to contribute its quota of experienced people to the Parliament and to the Cabinet. When we received our new handbook recently I listed the occupations of members of the Cabinet. It was interesting to find that 16 of the 27 came from the legal fraternity or from the rural community. When one looked in the list of the Cabinet for people who belonged to the business community, who had experience in manufacturing or- in administering large organisations, one found that one would be lucky to find perhaps two people who could claim to have had that experience.

I believe that a parliament and a cabinet to a degree should be a cross-section of the community. I believe, therefore, that the Parliament and the Government suffer from the fact that the business community has not contributed its quota in those sectors. I had the amazing experience of one organisation of manufacturers saying to me: ‘Just before this happened there Was only one man in the Cabinet whom we felt we could approach with confidence on matters of concern to the manufacturing industry and, in particular, in regard to tariffs - only one.’ I said: ‘Who was that?’ I received the amazing reply: ‘Sir John McEwen, the Leader of the Country Party.’ I asked whether they were serious and they assure rae that’ that was the position. I said: ‘To a degree it is your own fault. If you people in the business and manufacturing fields feel that you are not represented in the Government, that there are not the people in the Parliament to- put your case, why not set to work and choose from your own ranks people of experience and ability who have a liking for a political career?’

Senator Gair:

– And a desire to serve.

Senator McMANUS:

– Yes. I said: ‘Why do you not persuade these young men to put themselves at the service of their country?’ The answer I received - honourable senators can probably anticipate what it was - was that it is not possible to get a young executive of ability and drive, the sort of man who ought to be in the Government of this country, to stand for parliament because the salary is such that he would not be able to afford to live and to educate a family on what he would receive as a member of parliament. That is the whole crux of the situation. When members of the business and manufacturing community complain to me, as they frequently do, that they cannot get their case put, that they are unable to have adequate consideration given to their views, my answer to them is that perhaps the community is getting value. I say straight out that I believe that the business and manufacturing community have let the side down by not playing their part in the legislative and representative sphere. I believe that they have been too concerned with their own industries and too concerned to retain the best men from their own organisations. They have neglected completely their obligation to provide their quota, the same as other organisations in the community. The trade union movement offers its people. Law obviously offers plenty of people, as also does the rural sector of the economy when we find something like 8 out of 27 are from the legal field and another 8 are from rural communities.

Senator Wright:

– Do you think that shows low earnings in the law?

Senator McMANUS:

– No, but it might. I saw the other day that a prominent legal gentleman, who has been selected by the

Australian Labor Party as a candidate, said that he was making a very real sacrifice in standing for Parliament because as a law? yer he would make the equivalent of the parliamentary salary between Christmas and Easter. The situation is, therefore, that in present salary circumstances Parliament is being deprived of the services of a large number of men of ability who are unable to accept a position here simply because they feel that they could not live on the salary and because the financial opportunities outside parliament are much better.

There have been suggestions of late that the bureaucracy - officialdom - is taking over in our governmental sphere. The salary of a member of parliament is about the same as, or possibly lower than, that of the lowest member of the Second Division in the Public Service. In ‘the Civil Service, salary determines seniority. Why should the bureaucrat take any notice of us when, in the eyes of the Government, we are inferior? I believe that one of the reasons for the failures of this Government is that it has lacked the proportion that it should have of people with business and administrative experience in big organisations. When a government lacks the necessary admixture of that type of person the tendency is for the bureaucrat to take over and to make decisions as a bureaucrat, rather than for the decisions to be made by a person who has to answer to the rest of the community. 1 agree with this legislation. Although the Government has reversed its former decision, I think it has been very wise to make this decision. I believe that this will be a good thing for the business community. In my. view it will help the Australian manufacturer who often has to compete with well-heeled organisations from outside. In that respect I believe this will be a good thing and that it will provide extra employment for the Australian worker. But I say again to the business community and the manufacturing community: If you expect to have your interests reasonably regarded, it is necessary for you to provide a quota from your area for the Parliament, rather than think, perhaps, that because you make a donation at election time your interests will be safeguarded.

Sitting suspended from 5.43 to 8 p.m.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– The measure before the Senate at the present time is simple in effect I am not required to Spell out its specific terms. Suffice it to say that it is designed to reinstate a concession to industry which existed until 12 months or so ago. The Government, after removing that concession, found itself to be in error once again. Now it is reinstating the concession. I say that it is a relatively minor measure. It is one which would not cause my blood pressure to rise. But since it is a tax measure, it provides us with an opportunity to direct our thoughts to other aspects of taxation which have a relationship to the measure before us at the present time.

I hope that in the course pf the few comments I want to make on this measure I will show that what I say is relevant to a consideration of taxation in the total context and will indicate to .the Senate areas in which I believe there are quite serious discrepancies in the approach of the Government to this question which, in fact, give validity to the proposition which Senator Willesee has put to the Senate, namely, that this measure, as it is presented to us, should be withdrawn and that there should be a re-examination of the taxation situation in a much broader context. That is the purport of Senator Willesee’s amendment which, I suggest, is valid in all the circumstances at the present time.

Originally a measure was passed to give a 20 per cent concession to industry on the provision and installation of plant, presumably to give a stimulus to secondary industry and the manufacturing industries which would be making that plant. I believe that there was a great deal of justification for the comment that was made by Senator lames McClelland, namely that there seems to be no discrimination between plant manufactured in this country and imported plant. No impetus seems to have been given to local manufacturing. No encouragement seems to have been given to the production of this sort of machinery and equipment in our own country. I believe that that should be encouraged.

The Government’s attitude seems to be very much in line with its lack of forethought in other directions of manufacturing industry. I can think, for instance, of the problems which exist in the manufacture of light aircraft in Australia. Our record will stand against that of any other country in that field. We have had proof of this. Light aircraft manufactured in Australia in competition with similar products made overseas have come out on top on more than one occasion. We do not seem to have given the sort of encouragement that was necessary. There are many reasons why it is necessary for us to encourage the development of our own industries - not only from the point of view of the employment that is provided and the stimulus that is given to economic development in Australia but also in the context of defence. However, once again there does not seem to have been put into the preparation of this measure the sort of thought which would have some regard to that proposition. The removal of this concession to industry was found to have had some undesirable effects. I do not know whether Senator Wright is trying to interject or just mumbling in his beard. Some funny sounds are coming from the background, as usual.

I can see some validity in the comments that were made by Senator Webster in the course of his remarks in relation to the stimulation of industry. He referred to the experience in post-war Germany, where considerable concessions were given to industries for the rehabilitation and reestablishment of their industrial potential, in the form of taxation concessions on capital employed for that purpose. There is another aspect of this matter, lt has some relationship to the experience of Britain in relatively recent years. Because there was some lag in the installation of the most modern forms of plant and equipment in the industries of Britain it was found that the output or productive capacity of those industries was not keeping pace with the performance in other parts of the world and that the unit cost of the production of those factories was not comparing very favourably with the performance in other parts of the world.

British industries were handicapped very severely as a conseqeunce of that. It was a matter of British industries resting on their laurels. Britain had a very enviable record of production, particularly of machinery and equipment of that nature, and it tended to rest on its laurels because apparently not sufficient inducement was given to industry to upgrade the standards of its equipment and machinery and so enable that country to compete against the rest of the world in the very competitive markets that then existed. I think there has been an improvement in that situation’ in more recent times; but it just shows the respective approaches of various countries to this important question.

In Australia we see this small measure of stimulus. I do not get carried away with it, quite frankly, because I think its application is relatively limited. For instance, we do not find manufacturing industries replacing their plant with terribly great frequency, and I do not think its implications in financial terms are all that great. But it is an indication of a desire, I imagine, to give some stimulus to industry and to employment in the manufacturing industries and to provide goods at a reduced cost. One would expect to find that as a consequence of the installation of more modern plant. The restoration of the 20 per cent allowance which is made by this Bill gives some acceleration to these 2 factors.

The proposition that Senator Willesee put, namely, that we ought to be looking at this matter in a far broader context, is a valid one, I suggest, because when we come back to the basic situation we find that all taxation takes its authority from the Constitution, in particular section 51 (ii.). It seems, to me that if we are to deal with measures of this kind in isolation from all the other questions related to taxation - such questions as income tax, probate, sales tax and even the tariff-

Senator Wright:

– Is not this but one item of income tax?

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 am just saying that all taxation takes its power from section 51 (ii.) of the Constitution. I think it ls improper, in all the circumstances, for us to be considering one small aspect of taxation in isolation from all the other things that we could be discussing. This validates the proposition that Senator Willesee put forward, namely, that we ought to be looking at the matter in the total context rather than in isolation. On this measure the Government has played the old game that we used to play when we were kids - ‘Now you see it, now you don’t; perhaps you will get, perhaps you won’t’. This is a restoration of something that existed before, because of the fumbling and bumbling mismanagement of the economic affairs of this country. We have a concession on today and off tomorrow. Things of this kind do not do us, as the planners of the economic affairs of this country, any great credit.

Senator McManus, in putting forward his Party’s view of this measure, said that he could see no validity in or justification for the point of view which the Labor Parly is putting forward in its amendment, namely, that we should be considering this matter in the total context. Having said that he proceeded by his advocacy to justify the very points which we are putting forward. He spelt out a number of our reasons. In fact, he spoke about turning the tap on and off. He said that there should be an approach to this matter on a long term basis rather than dealing with it piecemeal or higgeldy piggeldy as we seem to be doing at the present time. As I say, the honourable senator gave his Party’s point of view as far as the amendment is concerned. He said that his Party was against our proposal but he then spoke in favour of it. That is a rare type of advocacy to be sure.

Senator Webster in that quaint and curious way of his somehow had the left wing of the industrial movement intruding into the situation. Quite frankly, I fail to see the relationship between this matter and the left wing of the industrial movement. 1 suppose the honourable senator used that as a vehicle to put forward his own rather curious attitudes to industrial matters and to the affairs of the working people upon which the development and progress of this country depends so much.

Senator Webster:

– I mentioned that matter, senator, because I realise that there are a number of right wingers in the Australian Labor Party who just do not understand the influence they have.

Senator DEVITT:

– Thank you for the explanation, Senator.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I wish honourable senators would address their remarks to the Chair and not to each other.

Senator DEVITT:

– At the present time there are a number of forms of taxation at which we ought to be looking but which we choose to ignore. One form which comes to my mind is the payroll tax which was formerly handled by the Commonwealth but which has now been handed over to the States. In a recent examination of the implications of payroll tax in the States as against what happened federally, one finds that the hands of the States are largely tied because of the peculiar nature of the financial relationships which exist between the Commonwealth and the States. For instance, I suggest that there is not a freedom for the States to use the payroll tax which is a growth tax and which will enhance their Treasuries to the extent of the growth of the States. One would expect that having been given the right to levy payroll tax there would have been a large measure of independence available to the States in the application of this tax. One could imagine that in a State such as Tasmania which has very serious economic disabilities because of transport difficulties it may have been competent for the State to apply the tax in such a way that it would relieve some of the difficulties inherent in its particular situation.

To take that to its conclusion one would be inclined to believe that it would be competent for a State to say that while it has agreed, in common with the other States, to the application of a payroll tax in all the States on the basis of a certain level of taxation, it would be competent for the State to make an independent judgment - if, in fact, it is permitted to make an independent judgment - and say that it would not apply that tax in the light of the particular disabilities suffered by that State. I imagine that if a State, even observing the spirit of a particular arrangement, were to make a judgment that because of the disabilities existing it would not levy the tax at all, then that judgment would be made by that State having regard to all the issues involved. In a situation like that because of the way in which the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and States work there would be a serious disadvantage to the States because of the way in which the Commonwealth Grants Commission would look at the matter. So it is not possible for a State to make a judgment of that kind. In a sense these issues may seem remote from the central theme of the debate which is before the Senate at the present time but they are related to the overall tax situation.

One of the earlier speakers - I fancy it was Senator Webster- raised the matter of the current interest rate on loans available to various sectors of industry in Australia. I am not totally aware of the situation which applies to secondary industry in relation to the rates of interest applicable to money borrowed by secondary industry but I am aware of a serious disability which exists so far as the Australian primary industries are concerned.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I wish the honourable senator would get back to the subject matter of the Bill.

Senator DEVITT:

– 1 am talking about the application and the implications of taxation in the broad sense. I am merely following the comments made by earlier speakers.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate is dealing with a specific Bill. Honourable senators have a habit of rambling along on the concept that they are dealing with money Bills and that they can talk about anything under the sun. This is a specific Bill. 1 would be grateful if honourable senators would address themselves to the subject matter of the Bill.

Senator DEVITT:

– With respect, I thought I pointed out in my earlier comments that the Bill takes its origin from Section 51 (ii.) of the Constitution which deals with the general taxation power of the Commonwealth.

The PRESIDENT:

– If the honourable senator wishes to pin his argument on Section 51 I ask him to address himself to it.

Senator DEVITT:

– That is what, in fact, I thought I was doing.

The PRESIDENT:

– Not very successfully. I do not want to interrupt the flow and tenor of the honourable senator’s debate but I would be grateful if he would get back to the Bill.

Senator DEVITT:

– That is exactly what has happened.

Senator Wright:

– We are talking about an investment allowance under income tax.

Senator DEVITT:

– I do not need any assistance from Senator Wright. I am quite competent and capable of .conducting the debate in the way I want to.

The PRESIDENT:

– I hope the honourable senator will accept suggestions from the Chair, though.

Senator DEVITT:

– In relation to the performance of secondary industries to which this measure relates I am suggesting that there is a fairly substantial measure of assistance because not only does this area of industry receive a 20 per cent depreciation allowance year by year but at the outset, ‘ with the installation of new plant, a further 20 per cent allowance is provided. There is a great disparity between the performance of secondary industry and the equally important performance of primary industry in this country. On the one hand interest rates which apply to the installation of plant are applied .at a certain level through the legitimate banking institutions whereas on the other- hand the primary industries are forced by the present exigencies and difficulties in rural areas to obtain loans at whatever interest rate they can. Of course this rate frequently amounts to 13 per- cent because 8 per cent, is paid on money advanced to primary industry through the stock companies . and the auctioneering firms and the primary industries are- obliged to pay an additional 5 per cent interest on the sale of stock back through the company. Primary industry is in a very serious position, when compared with the position of secondary industry where the Government is providing this quite handsome measure of assistance.

Of course there are very serious difficulties in the working of rural reconstruction schemes. Here, again, the interest rates which are being charged and the difficulties which are being experienced by primary industries as against their fellows in secondary industries are very evident. I have recently been approached by people in the sort of difficulties to which I have just referred. They have asked what can be done by the Commonwealth and State governments in concert to make rural reconstruction schemes work better. Many people in this area of endeavour are in very serious difficulties indeed. In justification of my earlier comments I say that it is my view - I may be wrong in this - that as Senator Willesee in his amendment spoke about an examination of taxation on a broad basis, any observation in relation to the broad position of taxation would relate to the measure before the chamber. It was on that basis that I widened the range of my contribution in this debate, as did speakers before me.

I think, Mr President, having regard to what was said earlier, that I have covered the points that I wanted to bring forward. It will be recalled by honourable senators that earlier in the day I received a reply in response to a series of questions I had asked about measures which the Government could take in an endeavour to get some idea of the possible onset of economic difficulties in sections of the community so that some government institution could be set up to deal with it. I refer to practices which have been very successful abroad and which might very well be implemented here. Various assessments are made of trends within the community so as to provide some forewarning of the onset of economic difficulties of the type that this country has been through in fairly recent times. It is not terribly reassuring to receive an answer referring to the provision of funds by the Commonwealth to the States for employment creating activities. My proposition was that the Government should do what is done in England. In that country an assessment was made of a number of factors which were indicators of a particular developing trend. This assessment could be made long before we are confronted with economic problems of the kind we are experiencing at the present time and which very seriously affect the people. The answer I received to my question was that in fact funds are provided by the Commonwealth. But these funds are provided only after the particular difficult)’ arises. The Treasurer (Mr Snedden) went on to say in the answer given to me:

A further example of this kind of action-

That is, assistance for depressed areas - has been the measures implemented through the rural reconstruction scheme.

It is very difficult when speaking on the subject of taxation to get away from questions of taxation in the very broadest sense. It is difficult to confine oneself merely to observations about a particular and very limited Bill of the nature of the one before us to the exclusion of the other factors which one must take into account in assessing the need to provide the 20 per cent inducement for the installation of plant, which is the purpose of this Bill. The factors I refer to go very much broader than this.

I suggest that this Bill merely reinstates the situation that existed 12 months ago. It does not offer any improvement to the economic situation in Australia. The Treasurer went on in his answer to my question and said:

At the same time, it needs to be recognised that there are constitutional limitations on the extent to which the Commonwealth is empowered to adopt policies which could be construed as discriminating in favour of particular States or parts of States.

This raises the question of other allowances to assist other sections of the Australian community. I refer to zone allowances. I have done some research on this matter in recent times in an endeavour to establish whether it is constitutionally valid to create tax zones throughout Australia. I have been assured from my inquiries of people whom one would expect to provide the right answers - I accept them as being so - that the measures introduced by the Chifley Government in 1945 are constitutionally sound. It seems to me that there can be no argument against the provision of these taxation zones, against expanding their area or against enlarging the number of graduations of tax assistance which can be given. Here again I turn to the broad situation in Tasmania. It has been my belief that some measure of assistance in this direction could help substantially to right the disabilities of Tasmania, where the transport problem is so great. The smallness of the State and the relative size of its manufacturing industries put it at a very serious disadvantage as against other States of the Commonwealth. So there are many areas of taxation which ought to be looked into.

The Commonwealth Government should be looking at the whole question of tax and not confining itself merely to the relatively minor matter dealt with in this Bill. This Bill merely patches up something which came unstuck about 12 months ago because of very bad fiscal policies and bad planning on the part of the Government

We should be looking at the whole question Qf taxation and all its implications and ramifications throughout Australia. If the Government is to assist the whole Australian community rather than a relatively small and particular section of industry and activity throughout Australia it ought to be looking at taxation in a much broader context than is dealt with in this Bill before us. I suggest that this is the purport and intention of the amendment moved by Senator Willesee and I strongly suggest that the Senate should adopt his proposal.

Senator Dame NANCY BUTTFIELD (South Australia) (8.20) - I have listened with great interest to many of the points raised in this debate but I have been amazed at the to and fro arguments that Senator Devitt has put forward. At one time I thought he was -trying to make a case following on what happened in England where such an allowance was needed to stimulate the economy. He then switched and said that that seemed to be a reason why we should not be doing anything. I did not understand his arguments. I cannot support the amendment put forward by Senator Willesee which suggests that the Bill should be withdrawn and that we should do nothing to stimulate the economy in this sense. It seems very evident to me that we should be doing something. The economy was running into serious inflationary troubles and it seemd to me quite logical that the Government should endeavour to dampen them down. Now, having stopped the economy from continuing on the crash course which it was following the Government is trying to reaccelerate the economy. The Government has to find ways of stimulating the economy.

Senator Devitt said that the Government should be looking at all forms of taxation together. This seems to me to be another way of saying: ‘Do not do anything at present; just wait and do nothing to stimulate the economy.’ In my opinion this is a good Bill as far as it goes but it does not go far enough.

Senator Devitt:

– If it is that good why did the Government repeal the provision 12 months ago?

Senator Dame NANCY BUTTFIELD:

– I was going on to say that the reason why the Bill does not go far enough is that it specifically exludes once again the building and. construction industry. That industry was excluded when the legislation originally was introduced in 1962. For many years leaders of the building and construction industry have been endeavouring very hard to persuade the Government that the industry needs to be included among the manufacturers of this country. That industry is manufacturing increasingly as time goes by. As the industry modernises it needs to manufacture more things on site. It needs to do more of the processes close to construction sites and in this way it does manufacture. The anomaly of the situation is that if building companies buy certain products such as ready mixed concrete or concrete blocks for a building from someone else that person gets the investment allowance. But if the building company manufactures and uses the plant itself as part of its activities in the construction industry it does not get the allowance. The construction industry has tried very hard to persuade the Government to have a look at this situation and to bring the whole of the industry up to date and to include it among those which are eligible for the allowance.

There seems to be one way in which probably the industry could get around, its exclusion from this Bill; it could set up subsidiary companies which could do the manufacturing. The construction companies could then buy from their subsidiary company. This is a ruse which would get round the legislation. However, at no stage has the Commissioner of Taxation really come out clearly and ° said whether he would allow this. I think it is time this was done. I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) to get this assurance from the Commissioner of Taxation. I ask him to find out exactly what attitude the Commissioner would take in respect of any construction company which set up a subsidiary company in order to get around the anomaly in this Bill. It seems to me that it is worth mentioning in this case that the construction industry buys equipment to the value of $350m a year. If it were included in this allowance, it would be saved $20m a year. By buying modern equipment, it could reduce its costs by that amount and the Government would gain considerably because a great deal of the construction which is being done is for Government departments. They would be gaining very much from any reduction in costs.

When the Bill was introduced in 1962 the Government gave as its reason for introducing it the need to help the balance of payments problem and to increase exports. The situation has changed today and although the Government is now saying that it is simply re-introducing a Bill which was introduced in 1962, in my opinion it is not taking into consideration the changed situation. Today there is a need not only to boost the economy but also to increase productivity and efficiency and to be able to compete with overseas industries, heavily subsidised in many cases by their own governments. There is a need to compete with them both overseas and in Australia. Many companies are coming in from overseas and setting up here. Our construction industry, which is not receiving the assistance which other countries give to their industries, is prejudiced. It is also making it very difficult for it to compete, for instance, in South East Asian countries where we need to improve Australia’s image. We need to be able to have our construction industry go in there to prove its efficiency. But it needs this assistance which other countries are giving their industries. It is of interest that recently the United States of America reintroduced a similar allowance for all manufacturers, including manufacturers in the building industry. That country has reinstated it and included its building industry. But we continue to exclude the building industry in Australia.

I think we need to remember - I plead with the Government to do so - that the turnover of the construction industry represents 10 per cent of our gross national product. It turns over $3, 000m a year, an amount which calls for consideration. I know it is said that the building industry is buoyant and that it does not need this sort of assistance. But I have already given examples of how it does need to be able to increase its efficiency and therefore reduce its costs and increase productivity. It could do this if it were included as a manufacturing industry. For instance, when a con struction firm builds a concrete making plant alongside where it is building, as we see here in Canberra, because the construction firm is itself mixing its concrete it does not receive the allowance. If the concrete were transported in, involving another company, the construction firm would receive the allowance. It is interesting to note that on 8th December 1970 the then Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, suggested to the building industry that it put its case once again to him. He said: . . the Department of Works has suggested that a study be undertaken jointly by the Federation, the Department and the Building Research Division of the CSIRO designed to show present levels of plant use and possible increases in efficiency by the use of additional plant. Such a study could be relevant to future consideration of extension of the allowance to the building and construction industry.

That was on 8th December 1970. That committee has been set up and is in the process of presenting a report. It did press ahead quite rapidly but. when the allowance was suspended in 1971, it probably went a little slower, the result being that when suddenly this allowance was reintroduced, it was not ready to present arguments to the Treasurer as to why that industry should be included. However, in the last few weeks it has held many meetings and has agreed on several points which are very relevant to this discussion. I would like to read the points on which it has agreed. It has asked that the Treasurer consider these points very soon so that they can be brought in as rapidly as possible for the industry to receive this allowance. The Committee has agreed:

  1. There is undoubted potential in the building and construction industry to improve its performance;
  2. This performance can best be achieved by the extension of the use, application and selection of plant and equipment available for building and construction;

It has also estimated - it is only an estimate - that approximately $20m per annum would be gained in taxation concessions and that the potential saving in building costs could match this allowance. That is its third point. The points continue:

  1. That the provision of an incentive would remove apparent reluctance on the part of contractors’ to invest in modern plant and equipment; and
  2. That the concession would be a valuable aid to contractors endeavouring to participate in construction projects in developing countries in the South East Asian area in competition -with similarly assisted contractors from other countries.

It is very significant that this committee, which was suggested and approved by the former Prime Minister, has reached these conclusions. I bring this point to the attention of the Minister most emphatically. If these points are put to him he should consider within the next few days allowing this allowance to be given to the building and construction industry in the next Budget. It is significant that in answering a letter to the Master Builders’ Federation of Australia the Treasurer said that the reason for re-instating this allowance was to assist in boosting confidence. He said further:

But as I told you in our discussion on 24th February, 1 will be prepared to examine and consider the report of the committee on which the Federation is represented and which is looking into building costs.

That is not a correct assessment. That committee is doing far more than looking into building costs, as I illustrated when I read the 5 points on which it has agreed. It is for this reason that I make a very strong plea that the Treasurer give consideration to the. fact that this committee has made dts judgment. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether building construction companies which set up subsidiary companies will be allowed to claim the allowance. I think, too, that we should take note of the fact that the reintroduction of the allowance will boost our export earnings if we can encourage the industry to compete on a more just basis than at present. I oppose the amendment and I support the Bill.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– The Income Tax Assessment Bill 1972 deals fundamentally with the restoration of the 20 per cent investment allowance. People have commented on the fact that this allowance has been started, taken away, and started again. This is regarded as something that is to be highly criticised. Investment allowances, by their character, are not unusually fairly flexible. It is not unusual in other countries to bring them in, to alter them, sometimes to stop them and to start them again. They are part of the process of economic management where it is desired from time to time to stimulate capital investment and sometimes, if anything, to diminish it. A fairly useful explanatory memorandum was circulated with the Bill and gave details of its introduction and its various clauses. It also gave details of the deductions. I do not think these need to be dealt with in any precise detail. The Australian Labor Party has proposed an amendment which seeks substantially to broaden the whole matter considerably. Without wishing to give any offence to people on the other side of the Senate who take these things seriously, I think one might perhaps say that the amendment did not really sensibly call for this to be done in this area.

The allowance which the Bill will restore will apply throughout manufacturing as defined for the purposes of the provision. A parallel provision in the law authorises a comparable allowance for primary production. Within these broad sectors the allowance does not seek to select between particular industries. It is difficult to see how a basis for selection within the manufacturing sector could be arrived at. It is not clear that there is any reason why the Government should try to be selective or why it should extend the concession to other industries. The aim of the Bill is to restore the allowance which was suspended last year and to restore some confidence and remove some uncertainty .in the area of the economy which it covered. The idea that there should be a selection of industries within the manufacturing sector which would have the allowance while others did not is not one which commends itself to the Government. If the aim were to balance country and city industries there would be some substantial constitutional difficulties. If it were desired to pick declining industries from growing industries there would be no way of providing for that in the law. One would have to pick by dangerous arbitrary judgment the industries which were believed to bc in those categories. But the condition of an industry today need not be the same as its condition In the near future. So the Government is not persuaded that there is any virtue at all in the amendment moved by Senator Willesee.

Supporters of the Government have, both in this debate and in general discussions, made some fairly useful comments on the various problems that they see in this Bill. Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield and other honourable senators on this side of the chamber indicated in their speeches the concern that they have with one or two aspects of this legislation. They said that this favoured those manufacturers who installed production machinery during the period of the suspension of the allowance and who decided to fund the payment for the equipment over a period of time which extended beyond 14th February 1972. They felt that at the same time its benefits were denied to those manufacturers who decided to install equipment before 14th February 1972 and to fund their investments by cash or by bank overdrafts. When the Government came to restore the allowance the question naturally arose as to whether the restored allowance should be granted in respect of expenditure after 1 4th February 1972 or only in respect of contracts entered into after that date. The Government recognises that some anomalies will occur with the concessions, but it has decided that this allowance would be more effective as a restorer of confidence in the private sector if granted in respect of expenditure rather than contract.

Another matter referred to was in respect of those manufacturers who were specifically excluded from the benefits of the original Bill. Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield touched on this matter in her speech tonight. In particular, there was reference to those manufacturers who manufacture for their own use in the building and construction industries. Industry spokesmen have stated that during the last 10 years major changes have occurred in the operation of those industries to the extent that manufacturing in a genuine sense on or off the site is now quite a common part of their operations. I think many of us have witnessed this. In the light of the comments that have been made in relation to this matter the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has undertaken to consider a study which the industry is making and when the report on it is completed to consult further with the representatives of the industry concerned.

I have one or two other very brief comments that 1 wish to make. A subsidiary company set up to carry out the manufacturing activities of a building and construction contractor could qualify for the investment allowance in respect of expenditure on new manufacturing plant for use primarily and principally in a manufacturing process. That merely recognises that a company which is wholly owned by another company is nevertheless a separate entity and is entitled to whatever concessions the law provides for the industry in which it is engaged. I am unable to go beyond that, but I hope that that will satisfy the concern some honourable senators have in relation to this matter. As 1 have said, the Government has not been persuaded that there is any wisdom at all in accepting the Australian Labor Party’s amendment, but it has undertaken through the Treasurer to examine critically the particular matters referred to in regard to the building industry. I do not think that there is anything further that I can usefully add to the debate.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Willesee’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 19

NOES: 28

Majority . . . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 744

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 March (vide page 337), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the. Bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

-The Customs Tariff Bill 1972 now before the Senate provides for amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1966-1971. A number of changes are made concerned with 5 schedules which have been introduced into the House of Representatives and arising from Tariff Board reports on quite a number of commodities. It is of interest to me, and I think should be of great interest to the Senate, that the references that we are considering and the reports that are before us cover a wide range of commodities that are of great importance to the Australian economy.

The First Schedule deals with plastic products and an investigation into the production of trout in Australia. The Second Schedule refers to woven shirts. The Third Schedule deals with chains and parts therefor, of iron and steel and light weight cotton sheeting together with a report from the Special Advisory Authority on woven manmade fibre fabrics. The Fourth Schedule applies to malleable cast iron pipe fittings and steam engines, boilers and power units. The Fifth Schedule proposes amendments in relation to mining, metallurgical, etc., machinery, diamond drilling machines and also track for tractors. The Sixth Schedule stems from further additions to the commodities included in Schedule A of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The Seventh Schedule implements changes in relation to mining, metallurgical, etc., machinery and yeast, steam engines, boilers and power units and tetraethyl-lead, tetramethyl-lead and anti-knock preparations based on tetraethyl-lead or tetramethyl-lead

The history of these reports in some cases extends to 1965. A report on plastic products was called for on 12th October 1965 when the reference was made to the Tariff Board. This means that it is in excess of 6 years since this matter was first referred to the Tariff Board. The reference for report on trout was initiated on 8th January 1970. The inquiry into woven shirts was referred in September 1968. The references in respect of woven manmade fibres and steam engines and boilers date back to 21st November 1967. I am reiterating the dates of these references not necessarily for the purpose of pointing out the necessity for any alteration in the present personnel of the Tariff Board but to give a more ready appreciation of the work that the Board is trying to do and the time lag that occurs between a reference to the Board and the presentation of the report on that reference to the Parliament.

In the Tariff Board’s report for the year 1.970-71 quite an amount of comment appears in ‘Chapter 5: ADMINISTRATION*. Dealing with the subject of staff, the report states:

On several occasions in recent years the Government has called for improvement in the quality of the Board’s reports, particularly in the economic justification for its recommendations. For example, in a statement on tariff policy on 28th April 1971, the Minister for Trade and Industry said:

It is clear that the more comprehensively, the Tariff Board, is able to take into account the significant economic and non-economic factors which the Government itself must take into account, the more valuable its reports will be to the Government. Similarly, the more comprehensively the Board is able to support its recommendations with a full exposition of the factual basis and its analysis of the facts, the more informed the Government will be when exercising its judgment and arriving at its decision. It is also evident that the Government needs as clear advice as the Tariff Board can give in its reports to enable the Government to reach judgments on the likely consequences of implementing the Board’s recommendations.

Having drawn that part of the Tariff Board’s report to the attention of the Senate, I state that I believe not only should we be concerned with the time lag in the presentation of Tariff Board reports but also should we look at the fact that so many of these reports on references are presented together that we virtually are deprived of the opportunity for a thorough examination of the reports and the effect of the Board’s proposals on the economy. This also illustrates the merit of the plea for the englargement of the Tariff Board and for an expansion in the number of its research personnel and permanent officers so that the increased staff can participate la the Board’s work which leads to the framing of its recommendations to the Minister for Customs and Excise.

In the course of the report for 1970-71, one of the members of the Tariff Board, Mr Cossar, drew attention to the use of temporary staff for post-hearing analysis work of the Board. Mr Cossar raises a roost important matter here. The report states:

He believes that it is neither necessary nor desirable that persons other than the permanent officers of the Board’s staff should participate in the Board’s work which leads to the framing of its recommendations to the Minister.

The report adds that Mr Cossar: . . does not doubt the sincerity of his colleagues meaning the other members of the Tariff Board: in believing that specialists from universities with skills beyond the competence of the Board’s permanent staff could make a contribution to the post-inquiry work of the Board but he considers that his colleagues have failed to anticipate the problems which could result from such procedures, lt could, in bis opinion, cause participants in tariff inquiries to believe that the Board’s recommendations were being influenced by anonymous specialists.

Mr Cossar, in dissenting from the implied proposal to continue the practice of using suitably qualified part time staff for the post-hearing analyses, wishes to make it clear that he has not sought and will nol seek the employment of such persons.

I have quoted quite extensively from the report to illustrate that the Tariff Board seems to be overburdened with references and that its full effectiveness is not being received by industry and in the economy. I presume that the reports are made available to the Department of Trade and Industry and to the Department of the Treasury much earlier than they are made available to members of Parliament. I point out the period of time that has elapsed between the commencement of an inquiry and its conclusion. In some cases, the inquiry commenced in 1965. That means that the reports are out of date and do not give the up to the minute information that is needed in an economy as fluid and as critical as ours is at present.

During the debate in another place much stress was placed on the great importance, that the recommendations of the Tariff Board and the tariffs generally have on the economy. Basically this comes back to the purpose of and the reason for tariffs. The old battle prior to Federation of protection and free trade has been transposed into the Tariff Board’s activities. Our economic policy is based on protection. We have to ask questions about the extent of protection, the norm for protection and . the basis upon which protection rests. We on this side of the Senate have as ohe of the basic tenets of our philosophy the maintenance of full employment. Therefore people who set up in this country industries which create employment opportunities must be given protection against the obvious and inevitable competition that we will get from other countries which have lower wage levels, often lower standards of living and many other factors which would make it impossible for’ our goods to compete on an open market.

The Tariff Board has the function of examining industries that are set up under these conditions and of making recommendations as to which should remain in production. This is a tremendously important factor in the economy. It has an effect not only on the rate of employment but also on the cost of commodities and the cost of production. In the past it has been stressed that no other single factor in economic policy affects the allocation of resources and the distribution of income more than does the policy on tariffs. The full extent of the influence and the activities of the Tariff Board is not recognised widely enough. Its recommendations to the Government, if implemented, could make a difference in the rate of inflation. So it comes back to keeping the balance between the proper claims of importers who feel that they can supply their commodities on a basis which can help the economy and the protection of our industries.

It is of great interest to reiterate that the car industry in Australia is getting a high rate of protection - up to 67 per cent. It costs the Australian taxpayer $300m a year for the car industry. This protection has been provided through a definite plan and policy of the Government, but. that protection has an effect on the whole economy. It has an effect on our transport costs and on other costs of production.- It- has a great bearing on the stability of our economy. I stress again that the number of items collated in one Bill’ is such that the Senate has not the opportunity to give to those items the type of examination that is needed.

I refer now to the vexed problem of woven shirts that is exercising the minds of certain people throughout Australia. The Tariff Board inquiry was initiated in September 1968. Evidence was taken in Melbourne on 19th May 1969 and in Sydney on 28th and 29th May 1969. The previous report on and review of the industry wds in 1938. At that time the trade was predominantly in cotton shirts. The imports of these shirts were mainly from Japan. The manufacture of these shirts in Australia has been established over 50 years. According to reports of the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia it is estimated that there are about 100 shirt manufacturers in Australia. Some manufacturers buy in fabric and distribute finished shirts either directly to retailers or through wholesalers. Commission manufacturers known as makers up produce under contract to larger manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The majority of manufacturers who gave evidence before the Tariff Board were working below capacity at the time of the public hearing - in some cases 25 per cent below. Other manufacturers had increased their capacity substantially or had plans for substantial increases. In most cases new investment involved the purchase of semi-automatic machinery and durable press finish equipment for the processing of polyester cotton shirts.

The Associated Chambers of Manufactures estimated that the industry employed about 10,000 persons. However, this figure has since been challenged and it is estimated that the industry, including the smaller establishments, could employ as many as 30,000 people. The estimate of 10,000 persons was based on the employment figures of 10 companies, which were the larger manufacturers accounting for about 30 per cent of the Australian production of shirts. Most shirt manufacturers employ a high proportion of migrant women. The employers stated in evidence that lack of alternative skills tended to preclude many of these women from finding employment outside the clothing industry. This illustrates the importance of an industry such as this in absorbing those female migrants who come to Australia and who need avenues of employment of this kind. A further benefit of employment of this kind is that it introduces them into the Australian community in a way which is familiar to them and on a level that is known to them.

It was also stressed during the inquiry that employment opportunities were provided in decentralised areas where clothing manufacture took place, but it was stated also that there were a number of clothing industries in industrial areas where male employment was high and that this afforded employment opportunities for females in those areas. It was estimated during the inquiry that the industry employed funds to the value of about $25m and it was stated that the profitability of shirt manufacture varied from year to year. Some of the larger manufacturers which were producing mainly for the lower priced volume markets had incurred losses or had earned profits which were less than satisfactory. The Shirt Manufacturers’ Association of New South Wales claimed that the section of industry which was making losses at the time of the public hearing comprised those manufacturers which were working on low incomes. One distributor which engaged the services of several makers-up stated that it had been forced to pay low commissions.

The salaries paid to employees in this industry are quite low when compared with other salaries. A comparison in this Tariff Board report on woven shirts reveals that in 1960 the average wage per week in this industry was $23.65, that by 1965 the wage had risen to $26.55 and that in April 1971 the average wage was $38.10. This industry employs machinists at piecework rates which, under the Clothing Trades Award, are set at a rate which will allow earnings at least 10 per cent above the award rate. But at the time of the public hearing average earnings were generally about $40 a week. It is in this industry that much of the traditional dislike of sweating has taken place. Evidently, during this inquiry, no attention was drawn to this practice. One of the witnesses said that in his section of the industry the equivalent of award rates were paid to unskilled migrant labour who required 3 or 4 weeks training. After training these employees were put on piecework rates which provide greater incentive. The recommendations in the short term were for protection of 40 per cent under the general rate and 20 per cent under the preferential rate, plus $1.50 per dozen in respect of Austraiian made woven shirts falling within item 61.03. It was recommended also that imports from New Zealand should be duty free. I suppose that the free trade agreement with New Zealand gives that country the right to compete with our manufacturers on our markets. There was no recommendation for an alteration to this tariff.

Another industry which has been examined by the Tariff Board is one which is of particular interest to Tasmanians. 1 refer to the trout industry. I commend the Tariff Board for ils thorough inquiry into this new industry and for the recommendations that it made. I express the hope that the protection afforded this industry will be required as a temporary measure only and that the growing efficiency in the development of this new and exciting industry in Tasmania will make further assistance unnecessary. Very few people in Australia are engaged in the commercial raising of trout in farms. The industry raises trout primarily for fish for the table, but there is a growing trade in supplying fish eggs for breeders in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States of America. A firm started up by a Mr Purves, an Englishman with whom I made contact quite early in the piece, began in Tasmania and obtained a licence to farm trout commercially at Bridport, which is in the north east of Tasmania and where there is access to both fresh water and salt water. Although the firm was using fresh water at the time of the inquiry it is now achieving encouraging results from the use of salt water farming.

This industry is new in Australia and much research into the industry is being conducted into the industry at Bridport. One of the biggest breakthroughs has been in the development of a new Swedish technique of making a fish food which not only enables the trout to thrive but also develops them more quickly, yielding a higher ratio of fish per lb of feed than other feed previously used. It is expected that the annual capacity of the industry will be in excess of 150,000 lb of trout in frozen and unfrozen form and it is stated that its present capacity is about 100,000 lb a year. There is a growing demand for this fish in Australia and not only is the industry able to compete with the .imported product in taste, quality and packaging but also it provides encouragement and help in expanding a Tasmanian industry. The Tariff Board recommended a protection of 10c per lb. In my view this, protection is warranted and will help in the basic idea of establishing a viable Australian industry.

I intended to make some comment on a number of Tariff Board reports. I refer briefly to chain manufacture in Australia. This is a very big and important industry associated with the manufacture of engine boilers and power units. This is particularly important in this new era in which there is such demand for power because of the discovery of gas and crude oil off the Australian shore. There is an interdependability in Australia between the manufacture of boilers and power units and the use of our own natural products, just as there is between our growing mining and metallurgical machinery production and our growing mining industry. These all have a great impact on our economy.

Generally speaking, I believe that the Tariff Board is doing the best job it can do within its present circumscribed field. But in my view the Board should be expanded so that it can perform a much greater service to this nation by making a closer review and examination of the whole field of tariffs. There must be . thousands of commodities that have never been refererred to the Tariff Board. All those commodities can have their impact on the inflation that is occurring and the increasing costs of production which are such a worry today. It comes back again to Government policy. The Tariff Board can only do what it can do within the confines of Government policy.

As I see it, the whole of our economy is sick, and it is a deep seated sicknes which stems not just from Tariff Board reports but from the period when the Government believed that a policy of laissez-faire could succeed; that we just had to open the gates to free enterprise and prices and demand would level out. All these old. worn out theories have proved to be not only unsuccessful but disastrous in that in a country with vast natural resources and the capacity to export we have priced ourselves out of our potential markets. With the realignment of world markets through the European Common Market, the European Free Trade Area and the barriers in the United States and so many other areas, we find it difficult to compete because of our high costs of production.

I believe that this stems from a lack of proper economic planning and a lack of sufficiently sound guidelines for the economy. Only in the last few days the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) has been speaking of changing the guidelines that were laid down by his predecessor with regard to selling more of the farm - not the little bit of the farm to which Sir John McEwen referred, but the whole farm. Whole areas of the Australian economy affecting its very vitals, such as our means of transport and the mass media, are being allowed to come under foreign ownership. Foreign owners are being encouraged to come in because their money has been manipulated so that, it is of more value now than it was before the devaluation of our currency. This is the result of Government policy.

The luck that the Government had in the discovery of our natural resources and being able to sell out the farmers is running out. This has created grave distortions in the economy, and it is far beyond the capacity of the Tariff Board to adjust them and at the same time to keep the people in full employment and to keep the economy stable. Flowing out of this we see a cynicism and an opportunism displayed by people in business and industry. In addition, this has created in members of the work force a feeling that the value of their money, their savings, their insurance and their superannuation is being diminished by the stealthy, back door method of inflation. To me, this is immoral and dishonest and also encourages and accelerates the cynicism that is abroad. There are always appeals for wage restraints and attempts to blame the Australian workers as the cause of our economic problems. When we investigate other sections of the community and see that prices can be increased and that inflation has a snowballing effect, the claim that the workers are the cause of the problem sounds pretty hollow.

Rather than go into any great detail on the individual references on which the

Tariff Board has reported, I would like to reiterate the importance that we must attach to the Board not only at the present time but also in the future. The Board can become one of the most important factors in stabilising and widening the whole economy. In order to do this it should be properly staffed and should have the full confidence of the Government in its capacity to inquire into industries and to present to the Parliament quickly reports on wheher protection should be applied or withdrawn. In this way the Board can play a most valuable part in making this country what it should be. It should be a most prosperous country. With the technological aids that are available to us today, we should be able to provide a high and rising standard of living for our own people and also be able to go out into the international markets and gain our full share of them.

In conclusion let me say that these reports are comprehensive. They cover a very wide range of economic activity in this country. Perhaps they deserve a more thorough examination than they will receive in this chamber. It is a great pity that more time is not given to the examination of these reports by honourable senators. But we know that the amendments that are contained in this legislation have to be validated. Therefore, we on this side of the chamber do not oppose the Bill. I trust that the few comments I have made about the delay in the presentation of reports will be examined and that, as a result of the increased recognition of the work of the Tariff Board, it will be given sufficient staff, the staff will be upgraded sufficiently and it will have sufficient permanent technical staff to enable it to do its research rapidly and to make it a really vital part of the economic management of this country.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– In years gone by Senator O’Byrne and I have spoken on the matter of the Tariff Board. There was one time when he and I were in complete agreement, and the wheel seems to have turned full circle. At one period we seemed to have parted. He began to express views which seemed to me to reflect a change in the policy of the Australian Labor Party and a return to high protectionism. Tonight I am pleased to see that he seems to have expressed views which would be very much in line with the views which I and some other honourable senators on this side of the Senate have expressed constantly for many years. I agree with a great deal of what Senator O’Byrne has said tonight. It is not my intention to speak at any great length. In days gone by I was a very strong critic of the tariff policy that was being followed. I think that on this side ex-Senator Bull and 1 were voices crying in the wilderness in our criticism of the policy. We have witnessed a change in policy which is more in line with the views which we and many others have constantly expressed.

I agree with the closing comments made by Senator O’Byrne that tariff policy is one of the important factors in stabilising and widening the economy. 1 also agree with his comment that the administration of tariff policy is a major factor in determining the cost structure in Australia. I think that be very rightly laid considerable stress upon the inflationary effect which could follow certain tariff policies. I agree entirely with his comments as I understood them on this particular aspect. I and others have constantly said that one of the major factors in determining the cost structure in Australia has been the high tariff policy which was followed for many years and which meant a diversion of our scarce capital resources to high cost industry.

I supported and defended the Chairman of the Board, Mr Rattigan and, indeed, Sir Leslie Melville the past chairman when they were advocating changes, in the tariff policy. I particularly praise the courage of Mr Rattigan, who stood up against great pressures. He stood by what he believed to be the right course. I believe that eventually he won out because over successive years from 1966-67 the Tariff Board reports have laid down the criteria which the Board would follow. The Board began to look at those areas of high cost industry which had been granted high tariff protection many years ago. Much of this protection had been granted during the 1930s because of the economic conditions which existed in those days and there was no inquiry by the Tariff Board. There has been no inquiry since to determine whether the high level of protection which has been granted to these industries is justified under conditions which exist today. A campaign of denigration has been carried out by vested interests in Australia against the Tariff Board. This campaign has continued’ up to recent times. I think that only last year merchants were being bombarded by certain organisations representing vested interests which opposed the Tariff Board. They were making all sorts- of wild allegations against the Board. 1 for one was delighted when both the Government and the Board stood firm against these pressures.

Senator O’Byrne mentioned first of all the dissenting report by Mr Cossar in relation to the employment of temporary staff. Of course this was a factor which enraged certain sections of industry, j. atn bound to say that I support the Tariff Board in this situation. If the Board can take advantage of outside expert staff to assist it more quickly to make determinations then that situation should be supported. 1 think it is fair to say that the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) made a statement in support of the Tariff Board. He made certain qualifications which were justified but he generally supported the Board in the employment of temporary staff. I think that there is great merit in .employing specialists from universities and elsewhere if they assist the Board more quickly and more expertly to make recommendations. I trust that this policy is continuing wherever it is needed. J have always questioned whether the Tad Board has sufficient staff so that it can more quickly carry out its investigations.

As I think Senator O’Byrne mentioned, there is often a very long delay between the time when a reference is given to the Board and the time when it makes its report. I believe that we should always ensure that this time lag is cut down as far as possible so that the reports and recommendations follow far more quickly from a reference than they have in the past. The Board should be given adequate resources to carry put its tasks. I ani not in a position to say whether today the Board has adequate resources. I believe that its resources have certainly been improved. I also note that last year an additional member was appointed to the Tariff Board to facilitate its work. But I believe that long delays between references . and reports are not in the best interests of industry or of the economy. Certainly the Board must be given adequate resources so that it can carry out its own policy of reviewing tariffs and high cost areas. Its review should then follow down in the medium areas and, eventually, into the areas of low tariff protection to ensure that protection which has been granted in years gone past is justified under conditions which exist today. I also agree with the Board which is giving industries warnings that they have to put their house in order, that there has to be rationalisation.

Over the past twelve or eighteen months many of the Board’s reports have advised industry that protection will be maintained for a limited period and that when that period ends the Board will again review the position to ensure that the rationalisation which is believed necessary is being carried out before granting the industry protection for the future. It is all very well to talk of rationalisation and changes in the structure of our primary industries. Senator O’Byrne referred to pricing ourselves out of world markets. If we are going to compete on world markets and have a reasonable cost structure in Australia then an area which must be under continual examination is the protection granted to Australian industry. If we are going to have the scant resources - and they are in Australia - of capital diverted to the areas where they can make the greatest contribution to our national growth then we have to see that as far as possible they are diverted to those areas which make this contribution. These are the arrangements which I and others have used over the years. It is a matter of some delight and satisfaction to know that after a long struggle, and sometimes a very lonely struggle, many of these policies are now being put into effect.

As I think Senator O’Byrne mentioned, Into any great length I merely express my continued support for the Tariff Board. I particularly pay tribute to the chairman, Mr Rattigan, who, against great odds, fought for what he believed to be right. I think that eventually he has achieved his objectives. He fought against a lot of very powerful opposition. I believe we must continually keep an eye on tariff policy. In the past it seems to have become the custom in this place for Tariff Board reports and customs Bills to be brought on in the last days or dying days of a session when they could not be fully debated. I can remember making protests about this.

Senator Webster:

– Hear, hear!

Senator SIM:

– I thank Senator Webster for his support. I want to make a very brief reference to a reply I. received a few days ago in response to a question I asked in December. I notice a smile on Senator Cotton’s face and I think he knows what I am going to say. I asked a question about the interpretation of the expression ‘suitably equivalent’. I find some difficulty in interpreting the reply I received.

Senator Cotton:

– I had the same problem.

Senator SIM:

– I am delighted to hear that I am not as dull as I thought and that the Minister for Civil Aviation had the same problem. I believe that the administration of tariff policy is almost as important as tariff policy itself. I agree that there must be some flexibility in the interpretation of the phrase ‘suitably equivalent’ and I suppose there must be some arbitrariness in making decisions. I confine myself to saying that tonight but at some later date perhaps, when I have studied the matter more carefully, I will have more to say about it. According to this reply I find that the criterion in the final analysis is this:

There is no availability of a local product that is being or could be used- for a purpose similar to that for which the imported goods are required-

I think you would require a lawyer to define what is meant by that. The reply goes on to state: and the granting of a tariff concession would not be detrimental to the interests of Australian manufacturers. . . .

I merely raise the question - one to which I will get an answer some time - as to which criterion is used if it will be detrimental to the interests of an Australian manufacturer who is a high cost and inefficient manufacturer. Is that manufacturer protected by the use of this phrase suitably equivalent’ or is some study made of the economics of the particular industry? I went on to ask whether price is a factor taken Into consideration when determining eligibility of goods for by-law admission. The reply I received states:

The answer is ‘ Yes’ in determining whether locally made goods are reasonably available.

Quite frankly I have some difficulty in interpreting what that means.

Some time ago I had a case involving a person in Western Australia who wanted to import second hand fire engines from the United Kingdom for between $6,000 and $7,000 for sale to farmers and local authorities. Under the by-law regulations he was not allowed to import these because it was said that suitably equivalent products were available in Australia. I was told - and I have to accept this - that the price of the suitably equivalent product was in the vicinity of $25,000. A person may be able, to afford $6,000 or $7,000 but cannot afford the suitably equivalent item costing $25,000. It seems to me that that price was not a major factor in determining what was suitably equivalent.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Would the Australian fire engines be second hand?

Senator SIM:

– No. I can only repeat what 1 was told but it is my understanding that the fire engines had to be specially manufactured. They were not stock types and they had to be manufactured to specifications. The price was $25,000. The second hand fire engines could have been bought for a specific purpose by farmers and local authorites. They could not afford the higher price but they could afford to purchase the imported ones, in those days, for between $6,000 and $7,000. That prompted my question about the definition of the phrase ‘suitably equivalent’ and I am still somewhat in the dark.

I do not intend to carry on with this tonight but I point out that there have been some quite learned papers by certain academics on the question of by-law admissions. I think that by-law admissions have been one aspect of tariff policy which in the past has been administered against the recommendations of the Tariff Board. I serve notice that at some suitable time I may well have more comments to make on this particular matter. I conclude with those comments. I support the Bill.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– A Bill which involves the operations of the Tariff Board always is a most important measure because those operations are extremely important. In the. disciplined Australian economy the Tariff Board occupies a key position. It is increasingly conscious of the power, authority and role it plays in the Australian economy. From operating purely in relation to an individual industry and giving it protection almost ad hoc, the Tariff Board over more recent years has seen its duty as lying in a more general and wider field and in laying down the general principles in relation to the imposition and operation of tariff policy which is related to the functioning of the whole of the Australian economy - the efficiency of Australian industry and the healthy operation of the Australian economy generally. Although inefficient industries are highly protected they should not, as it were, be dragging against the economic pulls towards national prosperity, full employment and the creation of national wealth. In part this Bill stems from the determinations and recommendations of the Tariff Board following references to the Board as a result of determinations by the Special Authority imposing intermediate tariff rates on knitted garments, knitted outer garments and woven shirts. Of course it goes on to deal with other matters.

The comments of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) in his second reading speech on this Bill were extremely illuminating and referred to certain general propositions which are of particular importance. The Minister said that the Tariff Board found that the industries’ most common disabilities were those which flowed from the high cost of raw materials supplied by the local chemical industry, the high cost of Australian labour and the limited size of the Australian market. Possibly the second two components he mentioned cannot be overcome. The labour cost in Australia is high because of the nature of our national economy and our national life. Allowing for the undue acceleration of that factor through inflation, the labour costs always will remain high. Also, the limited nature of the Australian market is something which must remain with us while our population remains at the present level.

The first component in these particular garments is the high cost of raw materials supplied by the local chemical industry.

The Minister could comment on this. I think it is a fact that the great bulk of the raw materials which are processed in our manufacturing industries are imported. I often think, like Senator Webster, that we do not give enough credit to the primary industries which have provided a great deal of the export earnings with which Australia purchases the raw materials which are processed in our secondary industries. I think that secondary industry as a whole does not sufficiently recognise its dependence on the earning capacity of primary industry. I am sure that Senator Webster agrees with that proposition.

Senator Webster:

– I do. I appreciate your comments.

Senator BYRNE:

– I thank the honourable senator. Therefore where the cost of the base material is so significant as to affect the whole operation of the application of the tariff structure in particular cases it becomes a matter of very great moment. It is not the intention of the Democratic Labor Party to debate this Bill at any great length because its introduction follows a detailed examination by the Tariff Board. The Democratic Labor Party anticipates a further important step that is going to be taken; that is that rather than continue to impose a high tariff barrier against goods coming from cheaply manufacturing countries the Government is going to attempt to find an accommodation with such countries so that there shall be a rationalisation of their exports on the basis of price and quantity. Undoubtedly, that is much more in consonance with the Kennedy Round and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade than is our brutal imposition of a high tariff irrespective of any other consideration. Insofar as it is the Government’s disposition to try to handle this matter by negotiation with the exporting countries, I think it is most commendable that that should be the approach. Therefore, the Australian Democratic Labor Party supports the Bill. We hope that from the indications of the attitude of the Tariff Board and the indication of the disposition of the Government it may be possible to make our contribution to the much freer flow of international trade and to put at the disposal not only of this country but of all the nations of the world, many pf which are poorer than our country, the consumer goods which are so very badly lacking and completely beyond their present means to purchase. I support the Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I am anxious to make one or two comments in relation to the Customs Tariff Bill 1972. I have listened with interest to the previous speakers. The general view expressed is that the attitude of the Tariff Board and of the Government in relation to this matter is supported. I support the passing of this Bill. I do so with some reservation because I believe that the comment that was made by Senator Sim has some validity. He can rightly claim with those in the Senate and in other places who have demanded a much more critical outlook on the part of the Tariff Board in relation to the protection of Australian industries that the Government has taken this action. Perhaps we see in the Bill presently before us action being taken in relation to some industries which come within its ambit. In my view, that action will result in quite serious disadvantage for some local manufacturers. A number of industries and reports of the Tariff Board are dealt with in this Bill.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) and the attached Schedules amount to at least an inch thickness of paper in standard print. Much can come out of a debate of this matter. The Government has taken the attitude - as a representative of a rural party in this House I find that farmers throughout the countryside also generally take the attitude - that tariff protection certainly disadvantages the man who produces original goods and who attempts to sell them on the export market. He receives no protection for his price. I feel proud as an Australian that over the period of the establishment of general tariff procedures a system has been set up whereby a small country such as Australia - small as regards population and its number of manufacturers - has been able , in .1972 to develop and to establish some wonderful manufacturing organisations. Over the last 15 years we have seen the position change from a situation where this . country was dependent almost entirely on its agricultural production for its good economic health. I can recall the time when one was able to say proudly that 90 per cent of the export income of Australia was received from primary production. That situation has vastly changed. We see a situation where today we are dependent upon primary production for about 50 to 55 per cent of our economic health.

It is most important to me that income be earned for Australia. I think that the Government, the Tariff Board and any other board which may have some authority have to look to the support of industries which are producing export income. If a situation existed in Australia today as applied 15 or 20 years ago whereby we were so absolutely dependent on rural income for our economic health, we would have been in grave danger when we ran into the wool depression which has been with this country for the last 2 or 3 years. We would have been in a most desperate situation. But the attitude that has been engendered to a great extent in manufacturing industries by the policies of the Government in a climate of economic good health in Australia by the protection that it has been able to achieve has enabled us to develop to an extent that surely today we are proud of the export rate that is being achieved by secondary industries. I feel proud to be connected with both areas of production. I am proud that the Government can support the industries involved in primary production in so many ways and certainly to see that very important sector of industry, manufacturing industry, at least able to survive in this cut throat world of business. The cut throat world of business is governed to a great extent by what we see other countries wishing to do to other countries. lt always strikes me as most remarkable when I hear comment made - I have heard it made in the Senate - that no protection should be afforded to some particular industry. I read in the various Tariff Board reports that perhaps an industry is inefficient or uneconomic. But the basis upon which such arguments are founded generally do not take into account what the situation would be if such an industry did .not exist in this country. It is well known to anybody who is involved in industry that once a business comes under the influence of and is entirely dependent upon another supplier and mere is no competition, no control exists over the price at which one may buy. That certainly has been borne out by what happened in relation to our own chemical industry in Australia. I recall Sir John McEwen as Minister for Trade and Industry pointing out that the prices of chemicals in many areas of agricultural chemical production had been lowered over a 10-year period since protection had been granted to that industry in this country.

Either that was so or it was not so. As I understand the situation, where there is an escalation of 3 or 4 per cent on a base price of an article and where our economy is inflating at that rate, one can expect that the price of materials will be increased year by year. That situation did not apply. There was a dip in the base price of wholesale rural chemicals, many of which were in everyday use. I do not know how we argue against such a situation, although contained in the references of some people is the fact that there are inefficient industries. The one that is generally referred to is the textile industry. Some people also refer to the chemical industry. I challenge whether that is in actual fact the case. I wish at the outset to deal with the way in which primary industry has been protected by this Government. I ask honourable senators to look at the thinking of governments of all complexions over a period of years. We may hear opposition to the Bill expressed by some honourable senators. I think I am correct in saying that the. honourable senator who led for the Opposition in this debate was very critical of protection in relation to some industries. I do not think it can be said that the Opposition really supports a policy of free trade in Australia. I think it realises that the jobs of Australians are at stake if we are not to have adequately protected industries.

Senator Cant:

– The honourable senator is a free trader.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not a free trader. I want it to be recorded that I most certainly do not agree with that particular philosophy. But it would appear from events which have taken place in the last few years that the Tariff Board has suggested that it will in future classify industries as high, medium and low cost and that it will take the stance that all industries which receive more than 50 per cent protection will be considered high cost industries. Those are the industries that are going to be looked at. Perhaps protection in excess of 50 per cent will not be granted in the future. Those views were expressed in, I think, the 1968 report of the Tariff Board - if I have interpreted them correctly - and they have put some scare into industry. If I were a manufacturer in Australia I would be scared of that attitude being pronounced by an adviser to the Government. I believe that there has been in some industries a cut back in employment which is not related to the current state of the economy or to any taxation matters but directly to unfair competition from goods being imported from low labour cost countries. I am sure that everyone is anxious to see the greatest degree of efficiency in industry, but it is difficult to determine how one should measure an economic and efficient industry. Indeed I have not heard of or read about an expert from any board who can set out in clear terms what he means when he refers to an economic and efficient industry.

Perhaps I could take as an example the situation in the chemical industry at the present time. In doing so I take myself away from the point that I was making in relation to the rural sector. The chemical industry has, over the past few years, reached a situation whereby it is producing less profit on its shareholders’ funds than the average industry in the community. Perhaps I should go into this subject a little more deeply but I have noted that at page 4 of a document entitled the ‘Australian Chemical Industry - Facts and Figures’, which was published in 1971, there is an indication that the profitability of the Australian chemical industry is as a I have described. Perhaps I should incorporate that information in Hansard, Mr Deputy President. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table on the profitability of the Australian chemical industry and a table on the profitability of all manufacturing companies.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think I am correct in saying that the profitability on shareholders’ funds of the Australian chemical industry in 1964 was 6.8 per cent before tax, and 4.4 per cent after tax. If one looks at the profitability of all manufacturing companies on the same criterion - that is, the percentage profit on shareholders’ funds - one finds that in 1963-64 it was 13.3 per cent before tax and 7.1 per cent after tax. That indicates that in. that year the Australian chemical industry was not reflecting figures which were as encouraging for investment as were those of some other industries. Perhaps it would be worth while to go further and take the figures for the year 1967. I have the figures for the year 1968 for the chemical industry but not for the profitability of all other manufacturing companies.

Perhaps I should therefore take the figures for the year 1967. The profitability on shareholders’ funds in that year before tax was 5.4 per cent and after tax it was 3.3 per cent. The profitability of all manufacturing companies in that year was 12.8 per cent before tax and 7.5 per cent after tax. Clearly there was not much profit incentive to go into the chemical industry - an industry that had a profitability of some 3 per cent below the average for all manufacturing industries.

It is interesting to note in that regard that the Tariff Board, in its report on the December 1968 reference of the industry, said that the ‘local producers of most of the chemicals referred to have improved their cost situation’ and ‘local producers have achieved cost reductions that are relatively of the same general order as those achieved by their overseas competitors’. Those comments appear at pages 7 and 8 of that Tariff Board reference. Apparently in return for an improvement in the efficiency in the chemical industry it was converted overnight - one must say by Government acceptance of the Tariff Board reports at that time - into a high risk industry with a reasonably uncertain future. Apparently because the Board believed that the chemical industry was - to use that oft-repeated phrase - economic and efficient industry’, and could contain its costs its protection should be pruned down further. I think it will be found in relation to that industry that there will be some serious repercussions on the Australian scene. I think the effects will be felt right down the line from the basic chemical industry. I believe that action will be taken by the Government in the very near future to reverse the critical situation which appears to me to be coming forward at this time.

I mentioned earlier that the Government appeared to be taking a different attitude in relation to the support and protection of primary industry. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of the Commonwealth Budget provisions for financial assistance to the rural sector over a period of several years. This document was compiled from the Budget Speech and statements attached to the Budget Speech, including Commonwealth payments to the States. It was put out by the Government Printer in Canberra.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The document read as follows):

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have incorporated that document in Hansard because I believe that the figures contained therein indicate that as well as granting tariff protection to industry in general the Government has recognised the areas of primary industry in which support and protection are needed to offset the disadvantages that may be found by having some tariff protection for the input items of rural producers. There is current comment by certain wool producers on the very high incidence of protection. I think a figure of somewhere in the vicinity of $220m a year has been mentioned as the cost of tariff protection to the wool industry. That is certainly an enormous sum. What must be taken into account by the Government and by the wool industry is the calculation by, I think, the Committee of Economic Inquiry that the disadvantage created by the Government’s policy or by protective policies in the community represented some 8 per cent of the wool industry’s costs. Indeed, I would encourage every support that can be given by way of assistance to the wool industry, whether that assistance be in marketing, research or whatever other areas in which assistance may be required.

In the past few years, the wool industry has been granted that assistance which was necessary for it at a most critical point in its history. Indeed the assistance which was granted in the past 12 months to the wool industry which, I do not doubt, you, Mr Deputy President, I and other people who are associated with rural industry support very greatly provided protection by way of support and by way of subsidy to low economic producers within the wool industry and by way of encouragement as far as the righting of the floor price in wool. This country witnessed a situation in which the whims of overseas buyers - it has seen the same thing in relation to the whims of overseas sellers - could create disaster in a community. Disaster very nearly was created in this country.

The other matter to which 1 refer is one on which Senator O’Byrne commented, that is, the state of the textile and apparel industries at the present time. I am concerned particularly about, and have raised questions in the Senate on a number of occasions relating to, the volume of imports of some cheap overseas manufac tures. When I say ‘cheap manufactures’, the grade of the materials that have been entering Australia is most attractive to the Australian buyer. Indeed, a large sector of the Australian retailing community would be most anxious to see the doors opened so that overseas materials might be imported.

I do not know whether the attention of the Government was sufficiently forceably drawn to the situation, but one action which I, to an extent, opposed in the Senate was that of resale price maintenance and the effects it was likely to have. I do not doubt that this matter will be referred to in future times. Legislation of this type encourages and leads to a situation which encourages overseas imports. Let foe quickly illustrate the situation: Previously, a manufacturer was able to undertake with a large retailer the production of a specific line of goods. It may have been a line which any importer could have brought in from overseas, knowing the cost of the overseas import and its likelihood of meeting encouragement on the Australian market. The situation existed daily that a large retailer would go to an Australian manufacturer and say: ‘Here is an item. I would like you to produce 100,000 dozen of this item. Tool up and set up but first quote me the lowest price that you can. If we can get a comparable price we will buy from you’. Every Australian business concern would be anxious to buy from an Australian manufacturer if this were possible. The benefits of such purchase include the availability of the goods at hand, the cost of carriage involved and the other problems which are eliminated by local purchase and make conducive business with a local manufacturer rather than an importer.

On the strength of the legislation which was encouraged and spoken of in the community, to a large extent we have defeated that situation because we know now that the average large retailer is not permitted to enter into that type of arrangement with a manufacturer. A manufacturer who has generated interest in a product by having placed an order for it may wish to have the goods, if his order is large enough, to himself alone. He would not wish to see his competitors have access at the same price. The making of arrangements has been eliminated. This will be greatly to the detriment of Australian manufacturers before too many years are through. I mention this matter as an aside because I have a number of friends in the textile manufacturing industry and in the woven garments and knitted garments industries and I believe that local manufacturers are having a very tough time.

I remember that, many years ago, I produced in the Senate some imported garments which were for sale on the shelves of one of Victoria’s large retailers. There was a disparity in excess of 50 per cent between the price at which a similar garment was produced in Australia, based on the level of wages here, and the cost of importing the garment from North Korea where wage returns are at least one-tenth of those paid by Australian manufacturers. The situation was different with respect to the retailer. Whereas there may have been a 331 per cent mark up in respect of the local product the mark up on the imported goods was between 60 per cent and 70 per cent. The marketer in Australia did very well, thank you. I do not mind whether the store involved happens to be one of the large stores in Melbourne or even the store run by the Australian Council of Trade Unions in Victoria. The average mark up is considerably higher than the mark ups suggested by the ACTU as levels that it would permit. In fact, that argument was fallacious because the ACTU had some arrangement by which out of the profits from its store it would be able to take over a 100 per cent interest in that store in Bourke Street within a few years.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Laucke) - Order! Back to the Customs Tariff Bill, please.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I beg your pardon, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - The honourable senator should refer directly to the Bill before the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Nothing could be more directly concerned with this than the matter of tariffs. If honourable senators look at the references that I have made they will see that the matters with which I have dealt are concerned with the interests of local manufacturers, local retailers and tariffs as they relate to overseas exporters to Australia. If we foster a situation in which we knock out Australian industries, we can be quite certain that those goods which are low priced, supposedly, coming into Australia today will certainly not be low priced tomorrow. Some industries in Victoria, not because of the economic situation which may have applied over the last few months but due purely to imports, have found themselves in a position in which employees must be put off. I know that one factory in Victoria has put off 100 of its staff purely because of the import situation in Victoria at the present time in which the retailer concerned obviously was not anxious to place orders when he is able to bargain against what may be the cost of overseas goods.

I think that some of the statements which have been made by leaders in government need some evaluation. 1 put myself at arms length to the comments which were made by Senator Sim in this regard. I believe that those comments are not in the interests of the Australian community. Of course he has his views. But it follows through that some of the statements which have come from the Tariff Board are not in the best interests of this community. I said at the outset that I believed that Senator Sim’s view has been encouraged, and that he had reason to claim that the Government had to some extent followed the attitude that was proposed, by those individuals claiming that there must be a lower tariff on many of the Australian based industries.

There is a wide area of debate on this point. It is most difficult for anybody to evaluate all the conditions which apply to a specific industry. There is confidential information which is available to the Tariff Board, which it should be able to evaluate in coming to a decision on its advice to the Government, more so than one specific industry or more so than one specific centre. But something is creeping into the Tariff Board which I believe is having a direct influence on the economic health of the Australian community. I am fearful as to what the result will be in respect of some of the most vital and important industries in the Australian community. These are industries upon which so many of our other manufacturing industries are based or, in the case of textiles, these industries are the very basis of employment, particularly female employment in our community. In conclusion, I would say that the content of the second reading speech of this Bill is so voluminous that it could call for a number of hours debate on the important matter to which it relates. I have some reticence in supporting the Bill because this means that I am giving support to the reports of the Tariff Board in relation to several of the industries that I have mentioned.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– in reply - It is with some satisfaction that I note that the Senate does not oppose the Bill. This evening we have had quite an extensive debate on general matters of tariff and the economy which, while they have been most interesting, have had little relation to the Bill. As Senator O’Byrne observed, the Bill contains 7 schedules. These are carefully expressed in the second reading speech which is accompanied by a large mass of material. I suggest that those who may wish to spend more time on this matter in the silent watches of the night should take that material home with them. It is documented voluminously, accurately and reliably. Senator Byrne referred to the general problem of helping underdeveloped countries. I might observe in passing that this has been the practice of Australia. We were the first country to develop a tariff structure to aid the importation of manufactured goods from less developed countries in the Asian region. In effect, we pioneered this devevlopment, which was very much to our credit internationally. I think I found myself in agreement with the general sentiments expressed by Senator Byrne, as I did with most of the sentiments expressed this evening.

There have been some references to the woven shirt industry. This industry has been referred to not only by speakers tonight but also by the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr Anthony) in another place. The Minister said that the Government is very concerned about the matter and. about the necessity to phase tariffs in carefully through a period of time, by negotiation, so that the efficient manufacturer is safeguarded adequately. That is what is happening. We have the assurance of the Minister that this is the case.

Senator Webster:

– Are you able to say what an efficient manufacturer is?

Senator COTTON:

Senator Webster and I have been manufacturers in our time. Probably the less we have to say about efficient manufacturers and inefficient manufacturers the better it will be for all of us. If the honourable senator wishes, I can let him have the comments of the Minister for Trade and Industry, a member of his Party, on the subject of the woven shirt industry. They may be valuable to him.

Senator Webster referred to the general problem of tariffs in which I have been interested for quite some time. The New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement was not referred to at any length, but I have some material on that which demonstrates the rather remarkable expansion which has taken place in New ZealandAustralia trade in the period of the Agreement. It is quite dramatic. I might refer briefly to the expansion in the trade pattern between the 2 countries because it has been referred to on many occasions in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. In the time that the Agreement has been in existence the value of Australia’s exports to New Zealand increased from $171m in 1965-66 to $233m in 1970-71. The value of New Zealand’s exports to Australia increased from $47m in 1965-66 to $95m in 1970-71. So it is very much to Australia’s advantage, as it is to New Zealand, to have this Agreement. Two-way trade in primary products has expanded by 50 per cent. Two-way trade in manufactured products has expanded from $142m to $229m. The Agreement has been a quite dramatic example of what can be achieved by countries working together. I might observe that the same kind of improvements take place internally in countries when each sector recognises that there is a proper place for the other. This is happening in Australia.

Senator O’Byrne mentioned the use of outside consultants by the Tariff Board. In this connection the Minister for Trade and Industry has stated that legal advice has been taken by the Attorney-General’s Department and it is perfectly proper for the Tariff Board to have available to it research staff from outside the Board if it is felt that this will aid the process of the Board’s examination of the affairs that come before it. I think Senator O’Byrne spoke with some feeling about Tasmanian trout farming. This was one of the events of the evening. It touched my heart slightly because I live in a trout fishing area. I have had little opportunity to take part in this activity. I trust that Senator

O’Byrne will have more opportunity than I have had. He might care to take home some of these papers and read them in the small hours of the morning. I suggest that the one on trout farming which refers to Salmo trutta, Salmo Fontonalis and Salmo Gairdnerii might well be worth his evaluation at about 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. Other than that, the debate has been a valuable one.

As all honourable senators know, the Tariff Board has expanded its staff. An additional member has been appointed to the Board. The Bill is essentially, as referred to in the second reading speech, a Customs Tariff Bill which brings about tariff changes referred to in 7 schedules submitted to the Senate in very great detail by the responsible Ministers. I think that with those few remarks I would now be prepared to have the question put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 760

ADJOURNMENT

Australians Abroad - Arts in Australia - Unemployment Benefit

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I rise to ventilate 2 facets of immigration in which I feel that either the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) or the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) should have taken a more positive role. The first instance deals with relations between Australia and the newly established nation Fiji. In passing, I think all honourable senators agree that some of the problems that had presented themselves between Australia, Cook Island and Fiji were probably ironed out when our Prime Minister conferred recently with the Prime Minister of Fiji. I was concerned that while the Fijian Prime Minister ventilated certain grievances our Prime Minister, for some reason best known to himself, did not take the opportunity to examine the policy of the Fijian Government as it affects Australian nationals. I am fortified in my reservations by a recent article in the ‘Australian Financial Review’. The Fijian Government, as it had every right to do, has adopted a system of bonding Australian nationals and other Europeans who enter the country. They have to declare that they will not become a charge on that country.

The point at which I take umbrage - it is based on an article written by a journalist named John Stockhouse - is that there is a difference between native born Australians who visit Fiji and those visitors who have acquired citizenship by naturalisation. I instance the case of a Mr Maas. He is a naturalised Australian of Dutch origin. I do not know this gentleman; I have never met him. The principle I am expounding is that apparently when he entered the country he was requested to put up a bond of $1,800. The Fijian authorities looked at his passport and checked on him. They saw that he had been born in Holland. Therefore they considered that he should put up a bond that would enable him to be flown back to Holland and not to Australia, the country of which he had acquired citizenship, if he got into economic difficulties. This is not a new problem that is confronting Australia. Some honourable senators will be aware that 4 or 5 years ago when there was an exodus of workers from the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority to New Zealand there were similar problems. Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin occupied the position that Senator Greenwood occupies tonight. We were able to get the New Zealand authorities to accept that all who had Australian citizenship were intended to be equal at least in the eyes of the law. Assuming that this article is substantially correct. I voice my criticism because I fail to understand why our Prime Minister, when he met the Fijian Prime Minister, was not briefed so that he could explain that we expected our Australian nationals to be given treatment equal to the treatment given to people visiting Australia.

I submit to the Minister that if action has not already flowed as a result of this article it is time that action was taken. I think there was justification for arguments to be advanced about the reception and rights of people coming into Australia, but the status of Australian nationals overseas has not always been dealt with as quickly as it should have been. I suppose honourable senators will know that it took considerable time for me to get an answer from the Prime Minister on the status of Australians in the United Kingdom in the light of privileges afforded to nationals of European Common Market countries. I hope that we will be given an assurance that top level discussions with the Fijian Prime Minister will mean that if there have been injustices - I think there have been some at times - in respect of people from the western Pacific region, in order to redress the balance there is an obligation to ensure that Australian nationals who also labour under injustices have their grievances rectified. I am sure that Senator Cavanagh will agree with my remarks in that respect.

The next matter to which I refer is more involved. Honourable senators will recall that at the instigation of the Professional Musicians’ Union of Australia I sounded out the Minister for Immigration to see whether there was any truth in the assertion that the relative labour employment codes of the United States and Australia were such that undue preference or privileges accrued to American musicians or non-Australian musicians in Australia when compared with the treatment given to Australian musicians overseas. The report that I received via Senator Greenwood indicated that although in a given 6 months there could be a high preponderance of overseas musicians in Australia, at the end of the 6 months there were generally no more than 10. In making this reference I have in mind a promising young Australian pop singer who was in the pop scene in the United States. At the end of 6 months the American laws became somewhat difficult for him. I am not canvassing that incident as such, but that situation was a line ball and something that should be watched very closely. When I conveyed to the Union representing people in these categories the information I had obtained through Senator Greenwood I received an interesting letter from Mr John McQuaid, New South Wales Secretary of the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees’ Association. He referred to the contention that we were over-solicitous in regard to some short term visitors to Australia and the employment opportunities available for them in contrast with what Australians could expect in other countries. In this case he was referring to the United States. His letter stated:

We do have a similar problem but principally in relation to foreign film technicians coming into this country.

In referring to this matter it is interesting to recall that Senator Douglas McClelland has mentioned what he refers to as our fledgeling film industry. Whilst to some degree we are giving some form of financial assistance to this industry, the hard core of the problem is still job opportunity. Mr McQuaid went on in his letter to point out that he had had correspondence with the Australian Minister for Immigration and the United States Consulate in Australia. He said:

One of the worst situations occurs when United States film technicians come into Australia armed with cameras and sound equipment, etc. and they are officially classified as tourists. They may not be here for very long - in some instances they are here for only a matter of days - and they shoot film which is rightly the province of Australian workers in this area. We have documented instances of this situation occurring, and it is deplorable that it does occur because the motion picture production industry in Australia is a struggling one.

I point out that he uses the words ‘a struggling one’ in referring to our motion picture production industry. There is no need for me at this time of night to regale the Senate with the shortcomings of State legislation in this field. We know that in the. documentary film industry we have first class technicians. If I may digress slightly, I mention another field in which I could be’ prompted by my Western Australian colleague Senator Hartley Cant. I refer to the fact that trade unions have agreed that in highly specialised diving in the pearling industry we have agreed to the employment of some Japanese divers. Yet when it comes to the question of film technicians ‘the issue in not clear. It could be said that the film technician coming into Australia is a supervising film technician, who of course should be permitted to come here, but how many supernumaries come in on the same basis? As Mr McQuaid points out, the point could probably be made that motion picture production, of its very nature, is an international industry. I do not think there’ is one honourable senator on this - side of the chamber who would not claim to be an internationalist. Senator Wheeldon particularly has always advanced thoughts on this plane. But when we say that we are internationalists we assume that every country will be given an equal break. The letter from Mr McQuaid to which I have referred is dated 14th March 1972. I retrace my steps to 22nd April 1971, which was the. date of a letter from the present Minister for Immigration. In a very pregnant paragraph, dealing with this question, he said:

In special cases, such as the short term entry of overseas entertainers and musicians, special consultative arrangements have been established under which the relevant union is consulted . . .

The basis of John McQuaid’s allegation is that if it is good enough from time to time for other national leaders to confer with the United States’ President on equality of opportunity, it is good enough to have consultations in this instance. I instance the running sore that existed between Mexico and the United States in relation to the exploitation of Mexican rural workers in the Californian fruit industry. It was not regarded as infra dig for Lyndon Johnson and the then Mexican President to confer on that problem and to iron it out. Having read this letter from John McQuaid I suggest that it is not good enough for Dr Forbes to pen a letter like this. Either Dr Forbes or the Australian Prime Minister should confer with the appropriate United States authority. I have only to mention comments reported in rather conservative journals such as ‘Newsweek’ and ‘Time’.

Senator Poyser:

– Did you say ‘News Weekly’?

Senator MULVIHILL:

– No - ‘Newsweek’. The point I make is that if it is good enough for the most obscure national leader who visits Washington to deal with these gut issues - that is what they are - and to confer with the United States President, it is beyond my comprehension that our leaders cannot deal with the British Prime Minister, Mr Heath, or the United States President. I have researched some of these matters which involve senior members of the Commonwealth Public Service and I have spoken to senior officers who have told me that memos have been exchanged. There is not an honourable senator here who does not realise that unless a Minister deals with a Minister of another country the memos are merely filed away. As one who has been arguing constantly about the status of migrants coming to Australia, tonight my theme is what I consider to be the dilatoriness of our Government in dealing with the status of Australian nationals in overseas countries. I instance first Fiji. Secondly, I refer to the much more important problem of the protection of Australians in a fledgeling industry in which we can do much better than generalise in the way that Dr Forbes has in the third paragraph of his letter to Mr McQuaid. I extended to Senator Greenwood the courtesy of informing him of the 2 channels along which I would be progressing tonight in the hope that in the not too far distant future something could be done about these matters. I hope that ministerial discussions will be held with the Fijian Prime Minister. As to the second matter, I think the day has gone when a trade union should have to deal with the American consulate. I do not disparage the American consul or even the United States Embassy with which I have had many dealings. But when we deal with them it is not considered good enough. Either the Minister for Immigration or the Prime Minister should deal with the United States on questions such as this. When I talk to the average businessman or consular official about these things, the answer I always receive is: ‘But, Senator, your Government has never asked for this’. When I say ‘You have heard what the trade union officials have said’, the reply I receive is: ‘At the ministerial level you have not asked for it’. Perhaps I should say, in an historical vein, that sometimes we argue that non-Labor administrations are over-solicitous in their dealings with British governments. That may be a passing phase. Let me say this to Senator Greenwood: I hope that in our dealings with the United States and when discussing matters with the United States President it will not be infra dig for us to raise matters that concern a very important segment of the Australian community, particularly at a time when job security is not what it used to be.

Senator BROWN:
Victoria

– On Thursday, 9th March - the last day we met - I raised a matter of importance. As I stated at the time, it related to the nonpayment of the unemployment benefit to people in a certain category in the State of Victoria. These were people whose applications during the protracted industrial dispute in the power generating industry were stood over until such times as a ruling had been given through the appropriate channels for the officers in the district employment bureaus to process their applications for unemployment benefit and accordingly to make the payment. That is the only explanation I can see. I was rebuked on that occasion by Senator Greenwood, as Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, on 2 counts: Firstly, because of the lateness of the hour and, secondly, because I had not previously informed him of the details of the matter I wished to raise in the adjournment debate.

I want to remind the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services that this matter had been raised, or at least had been adverted to quite specifically, on 3 occasions. I remind him that the first was on the day the power strike in Victoria ceased. I believe that was 15th February. On that day an extensive Press statement was issued by the Minister for Social Services, Mr Wentworth. I said in my remarks in the adjournment debate on 9th March that any reasonable person would have interpreted that statement as an instruction or at least a guide to the appropriate officers to set about the task of processing these applications which fell within the category of applications made during the duration of the industrial dispute. Subsequently I found that on 24th February - 9 days later - a colleague of mine in another place, Mr Scholes, the honourable member for Corio, who was concerned about the state of affairs in his electorate, discussed the matter with the Minister for Social Services and officers of the Department of Social Services. He was informed on that day - 24th February - that an instruction was being sent to the appropriate officers in Melbourne so that the claims could begin to be processed. Seven days later Mr Scholes had occasion to raise the matter in the adjournment debate in the House of Representatives. Seven days later again - on 9th March - I raised the matter in this place.

The Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, in his reply to my submissions, said, among other things, as reported at page 685 of Hansard:

With all that, I shall convey what the honourable senator has said to the Minister. I am sure the Minister will give the honourable senator the information which, as I said earlier, if he had approached the Minister directly would have been given to him immediately.

Now, 11 days later, I have not received from the Minister for Social Services any reply or indication of precisely - what the reply to my remarks on 9th March is. But in the intervening period I have taken the liberty and the opportunity to do some sample tests in the State of Victoria to ascertain precisely what is happening in the Department of Social Services in respect of the processing of the claims of those persons who lodged applications for unemployment benefit during the course of the industrial dispute. I find that letters have been sent out. They seem to me to be uniform replies to the persons who lodged applications sent out 2 days after the matter was raised by me in the Senate on 9th March. Ail the letters I have seen, all the information I have received from people who are awaiting determination of their applications for unemployment benefit and the various conversations I have had with officers in district employment bureaus would indicate that on 11th March - incidentally, an unusual day for officers of the Department of Social Services to be working, because it was a Saturday - notices were sent to the people to whom I have referred. The following is a sample - dated 11th March 1972:

Dear Sir,

To determine your eligibility for Unemployment Benefit under the Social Services Act in respect of the claim you lodged during the recent Victorian power dispute, it will be necessary to know the name of the Trade Union or Association (if any) to which you belong.

Would you therefore, please answer the questions listed below and return this form as soon, as possible. An addressed envelope which does not require a postage stamp is enclosed for this purpose.

Yours faithfully, A. R. KOPP Director

Then there is a little questionnaire. Question 1 reads:

Were you a member of a Trade Union or Association on 2nd February 1972?

There is provision for an answer alongside that question. Question 2 reads:

If so, state which.

That must mean the name of the trade union or association, if the person belonged to one. There is provision for an answer, and then there is provision for the signature and the date. The person concerned is to provide that information. That would indicate to me that the criticisms that have been made by the honourable member for Corio and myself are justified. It would appear that there was not simply a blockage in the pipeline after the issuing of the instructions or guidance to the officers in the various district employment bureaus or that no instructions at all had been issued. It would appear that now, 3 weeks and 4 days after the actual end of the dispute and after the making of the Press statement by the Minister for Social Services, this information is being sought. It will take some time for it to be returned to the Department of Social Services. This will further delay the processing of these applications and the determination of whether these people are eligible for unemployment benefit.

Let me say to Senator Greenwood in passing that I did not argue about the terms of the statement that was issued by the Minister for Social Services. I am not saying that they are not arguable; but I was not arguing about them or about the instuctions, as one might have taken them to be. I was simply saying that obviously this information had not been conveyed to or had not been acted upon by the appropriate officers of the Department. In addition to the references I have made, I have received a communication from a Mr W. R. Reay of 12 Elaine Court, Springvale, Victoria. He is another person who was stood down on 1st February. He applied to the Springvale district employment bureau for employment. On 9th February he lodged an application for unemployment benefit with that bureau. I am informaed that that application was forwarded to the Dandenong registrar of social services. Evidently it was subsequently referred from the Dandenong registrar of social services to the central office on the corner of La Trobe and Spring Streets, Melbourne - the building known as the Commonwealth Centre.

I remind the Senate that Mr Reay regis tered on 2nd February, the day after he was stood down. He filled in the appropriate forms and lodged them on 9th February. Then he received a letter dated 11th March - a Saturday - which incidentally is the date of the letter to which I have just referred as a sample of the letters seeking information. The letter read as follows:

Dear Sir,

Your application for Unemployment Benefit has been carefully examined but approval cannot be given for the following reasons:

I ask honourable senators to listen to the reason:

The circumstances of your unemployment do not comply with the conditions under which unemployment benefit may be paid.

Yours faithfully, A. R. KOPP Director

Mr Reay was not satisfied with the content of the correspondence which he received from the Department of Social Services. He telephoned the Department and he was told over the phone that the reason for his not being paid was:

The Social Service Department had decided that as I had employment to return to when the electricity strike had ended, then this did not qualify me as unemployed.

In other words, the matter had nothing to do with whether or not he was a member of the union which was involved in the industrial dispute. The Department simply anticipated that Mr Reay would have the opportunity to return to employment after the cessation of the electricity strike. To me this seems to raise a number of questions. I know from first hand knowledge that during the course of any year without the advent of any industrial disputation there are many industries which have to stand people off because the amount of work is not available to sustain the complete work force as it is normally throughout the year. Does this mean that people who are placed in that category and dispossessed of their income through no fault of their own - for whatever purpose they may be stood down - are going to be denied the right to make application for unemployment benefit and have that application accepted by the Department of Social Services? This is one of the questions to be raised.

I have just been informed that a Minister is instructing the Minister representing the Minister. That is good because we might get some answers this evening. I hope that we do. The real criticism which I have - I set aside the Press statement by the Minister for Social Services which I say is quite arguable - is that the Minister issued a statement on 15th February. It was not until 11th March - 3 weeks and 4 days later - that information was sought from people who happened to fall into a particular category of employment and who might or might not have been entitled to the benefits payable under the Social Services Act. Paragraph 3, as I number it of the Minister’s statement reads as follows:

Those who registered between 1st and 8th February will of course be eligible for unemployment benefit as from 15th February if they are still unemployed, but whether they are paid benefit for the period between 8th and 15th February will depend upon whether they lost their employment because of the strike and belonged to one of the unions sponsoring it.

This means that a person could have applied and, in fact, registered on 1st February. On 8th February he would have been eligible for unemployment benefits and would have received payment of unemployment benefits if still unemployed up to 15th February. But a stay was put on all payments, evidently, in accordance with this statement made by the Minister, until such time as it could be ascertained whether a person’s continued unemployment was a consequence of his belonging to a union which happened to be involved in the strike. That means that it is not a period of 3 weeks and 4 days which is involved - the period since the statement was issued by the Minister. Taking entitlement as being retrospective to the 1st February, it means that these people have not received a payment for 4 weeks and 4 days up to 11th March when this information was sought by the Department of Social Services. I think this is a scandalous state of affairs.

I remind the Senate, as I did on Thursday, 9th March, of the position in Geelong on 2nd March. It was confirmed by an officer at that district office. The position had not changed between 2nd and 9th March because we checked in the late evening of the 9th with the employment office in Geelong. Five thousand people were registered for employment and between 2,000 and 3,000 had lodged applications for unemployment benefits but the Geelong office was unable to process those applications because it had no clear instructions on how precisely to process them. If this situation were reproduced in the metropolitan area I suppose there would be at least 25 to 30 times the number of people who could be involved. We are speaking about 60,000-odd people who may well have been denied unemployment benefits for anything up to 4 weeks and 4 days. They could still be waiting. At least another week to 2 weeks could go by and we could be looking at something like 6 weeks and 4 days to 7 weeks before it is determined whether everybody who was the recipient of the letter sent from the Department of Social Services on 11th March is entitled to the unemployment benefits. I think hon.ourable senators will agree that this is a serious matter.

In addition to this matter I raise the question as to what advice these people are given - obviously they are not encouraged to appeal - in the event of their believing that they have been wronged as I am sure Mr Reay has. I remind the Minister that Mr Reay is the foreman of a tool shop at Reom Industries Pty Ltd at Moorabbin. He used to be a member of a union of employees but because of his position he is now no longer eligible to be a member of that organisation. He has not been a member of a union for 2 years. This raises the question of whether a person is going to be denied his rights whether that person belongs to a union or not and whether his union is involved in a strike or not. Secondly, if a person is stood down - and this is a critical question because it will not apply only in the case of an industrial dispute as I pointed out earlier - will he be entitled to lodge an application to receive unemployment benefits?

I think that these questions need to be answered. Quite frankly, I think that the Minister should take an added interest in the affairs of the Department in Victoria. He should follow through and see precisely what is happening in the Department because from first hand information which I have received from various district officers it would appear to me that the Department is in a complete state of chaos. That is bad enough but the people who are being deprived of the miserable income from unemployment benefit are suffering extreme hardship. I sincerely trust that the Attorney-General who is representing the Minister for Social Services will impress on the Minister that he should take a direct and personal interest in this matter and actively follow it right through.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

Senator Mulvihill raised the question of. whether there had been discussions between the Prime

Minister of Australia (Mr McMahon) and the Fijian Prime Minister when they met recently. I think he assumed, quite correctly, that there had not been these discussions. He was -concerned because in Fiji the migration policies, as he understood them, appeared to work hardship against types of Australians. He instanced a report which had come from a correspondent in Fiji in relation to a gentleman by the name of Maas. I can only say that there was no discussion between the Prime Ministers of Australia and Fiji on the respective immigration policies of their countries. The question of discrimination between Australian born and Australian naturalised citizens visiting Fiji and the amount of the bond which some have to give was therefore not discussed. I do not know whether the attention of the Minister for Immigration (Dr Forbes) has been drawn to the matter concerning Mr Maas. Certainly Mr Maas himself has not raised the matter with the Department of Immigration or with the Minister. I say that on the information which has been provided to me. In those circumstances, whatever views one might have of the respective immigration policies, the case of an individual person will not - I think it is a reasonable attitude to take - be taken up by the Minister unless there is some indication that the gentleman himself is complaining. All I can say in regard to that aspect is that Senator Mulvihill explained his case, lt was clearly stated and I shall see that his remarks are conveyed to the Minister.

I turn now to the other matter raised by Senator Mulvihill - the entry into Australia of persons who are film technicians in, for example, the United States of America and who come to Australia to undertake the same activity here. I think he received a letter from the Minister earlier this year setting out the general position. That letter related mainly to entertainers who came to Australia, the conditions under which they were admitted, the circumstances in which they obtained a visa to work and the length of time for which they got that visa to work. The vast preponderance of persons coming in came here for short term stays of less than 3 months. I think the honourable senator knows the letter to which I refer.

The position broadly is that provision exists in Australia whereby persons may be introduced from overseas for . a period of temporary residence to engage in employment. That is as much for film technicians as for entertainers or anyone else who has a short term job here. Applications have been received and are received from a wide range of people with professional; technical and other specialist skills and talents. The consideration of applications in these categories involves initially a special need for the applicant’s services and it is upon the applicant or those sponsoring him to establish that need. The normal procedure provides for consultation with the Department of Labour and National Service about such applications and the Department advises on the availability of local labour and, where appropriate, discusses the proposal with the trade union concerned. The procedure is designed to minimise the possibility of industrial problems by ensuring that workers are not admitted on a temporary residence basis to undertake employment in areas where Australian residents with appropriate qualifications are available.

According to the records of the Department of Immigration relatively few overseas film technicians have been granted visas for temporary residence in Australia. Generally those who have been so admitted have been part of an integrated team engaged on some specific short term project. Following an approach by the Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association last year - I imagine this is the approach to which Senator Mulvihill referred although I cannot confirm that it is - instructions were issued to all visa issuing posts indicating that all applications by film technicians and similar workers to come to Australia temporarily were to be referred so that the necessary consultations which I have mentioned already could be arranged prior to the issue of a visa. If film technicians are travelling to Australia from the United States ostensibly as visitors but in reality for employment, the Department of Immigration is certainly not aware of it.

I have noted what Senator Mulvihill said had come to him, I think, from Mr McQuaid, who had written to him. It appeared to me that the suggestion was that people had come in with all the equipment, cameras and paraphernalia to suggest that they were film technicians and that they did so on the basis that this was the work that they were engaged to do. That may or may not be so. Certainly documentation of the facts would go a long way, I imagine, towards clarifying the position. On the information available to me the Department of Immigration is not aware that these people have come in under the guise of tourists but in reality for employment. I am sure, from the character of the notes I have, that the Department of Immigration would welcome any information which would suggest that persons are coming in in a guise different from the purpose for which they sought visas. Apart from conveying to the Minister the remarks which have been made I suggest that if the honourable senator has any information to support the suggestions which have come from the Association on whose behalf and in whose interests he has been speaking then 1 am sure that inquiries will be made.

Senator Brown referred to a matter which has been raised earlier. By way of preface in response to him - I think I mentioned this on the earlier occasion - if there are particular problems relating to individuals who are experiencing delay in getting unemployment benefits or who have been given replies which appear on the face of them to be erroneous replies, I can suggest only that the appropriate course available to him is to contact the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) or someone in the Department directly. I know, and I am sure all Ministers know, that if a senator has a particular problem on behalf of a particular person then the best way is to approach the Minister directly. I do not think that there is a Minister who does not go out of his way to try to do what he can to help. I suggest that in the case of Mr Reay, to whom the honourable senator has referred, that would be a far more efficacious way of achieving relief and immediate benefit, if benefit is what he is entitled to, than by raising the matter in the Senate on an occasion such as this. I will certainly arrange for the Minister for Social Services to have a record of what has been said tonight, and I am quite sure that the Minister will take up the matters which have been referred to.

As to whether or not a person should disclose what his union membership is, I think it is relevant, in the light of a longstanding policy to which- 1 referred on the earlier occasion when Senator Brown raised this matter, that members of a union which is engaged in the dispute which has caused the unemployment or the stand-downs are not entitled to unemployment benefit. Otherwise we would have a situation in which some members of a union were on strike and the other members of the union who were not engaged in the strike would be getting the unemployment benefit. On the aspect of whether or not standing down is unemployment, I am unable to give any answer with regard to the specific matter because I know this is an area in which there, have, been varying legal opinions. I do not think it is unreasonable that one would suppose that such legal opinions and legal difficulties have to be resolved. Is a standing down by an employer temporary unemployment in the sense in which that phrase is used in the Social Services Act and for unemployment benefits? Likewise - I only use this to illustrate the point I am making - is the situation in which a person withholds certain of his labour but is available for other activities to be properly called a strike? In this day and age there are sophisticated techniques and there are events, which occur in which language which has had a fairly time-honoured meaning may not be applicable. I mention that only to suggest that there have been legal questions which I understand now have been resolved, but I will leave it to the Minister for Social Services to convey to the honourable senator what the position is.

I will see that the Minister for Social Services is informed of the other matters which I have not endeavoured particularly to make some mention of. I am quite sure that he will do his best to give as full information to the honourable senator as he is able. As I have said before, I do not think the conduct of the Minister in the way in which his portfolio has been handled suggests that he is in any way dilatory in regard to matters which are conveyed to him or is not prepared when the facts are stated to do what he can to assist. If there are instances which have been referred to where something can be done to remedy the situation, I am sure that the Minister will do it.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I did not intend to speak tonight until I heard the remarks of the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), who represents the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in this House. He said that honourable senators should contact the Minister or an officer of his Department in relation to problems relating to individuals. In fact, as has been indicated by Senator Brown, in the city of Geelong some 5,000 persons are waiting for a ruling from the Minister on whether they are entitled to a payment for lost work. Does the Attorney-General suggest that we send individual representations on behalf of 5,000 individuals in the manner in which he has suggested to Senator Brown it should be done, when all that is required is that a ruling, a correct ruling, be given that these people are now entitled to a benefit. It is a matter of history, it is a matter of fact, that none of these persons in the city of Geelong were directly associated with or participated in the stoppage in relation to which the Minister has made some ruling or has refused to make a ruling. As Senator Brown indicated, it is now more than 3 weeks since we first requested a final decision on this matter.

It is not good enough for the AttorneyGeneral to go out into the back alleys to try to get some instructions from the Minister for Social Services and to come back into this House and give us the rubbish that he has given us tonight about this matter. It is not an isolated case of one individual. It is not an isolated case involving 20 or 30 individuals. It is a case involving thousands of individuals who have made application in Victoria for a benefit to which they rightly believe they are entitled. So let us not have any more nonsense and let us not hear again the same speech as we did tonight that, Senator Brown heard over a week ago in which it is stated that this matter would be handled, he would receive some information and that if he had gone to the Minister originally this information would have been readily available to him. Nearly a fort night has elapsed and the information is still not forthcoming simply because the Minister is trying to avoid the payment of these benefits to the people concerned.

What is far more important for the Government is to avoid publishing figures to show that there were far more people unemployed at the end of the period for which the Department of Labour and National Service issued the figures for registered unemployed persons. It is a shrewd tactic on the part of the Government to avoid its obligations. If we take the matter a step further, we find that even the relief payments which are being made to municipal councils in certain areas throughout Victoria and in other States is being used for this very same purpose. It is being used to avoid disclosing to the people of Australia the actual unemployment figures. In some cases a person who has been out of work for one week is entitled to make application for unemployment benefits. He receives the unemployment benefit after the first week. He receives nothing at all for the first week. After 2 weeks he can claim the unemployment benefit if he has not received a job. In some cases a shire council may have enough money to employ 40 persons for 2 weeks or 4 persons for any number of weeks.

It has been shown to me that in some cases a shire council, in its humanitarian approach to this matter - not because it is trying to juggle figures like the Commonwealth Government - will put a person on for a week or a fortnight and then give somebody else a job. In actual fact, that person is out of work for one month for which he receives one week’s unemployment benefit. He is not registered and he has to go through this rigmarole that the Minister is talking about tonight. Half of the procedure is just a hoax and a dodge for the purpose of hiding the real figures. There is no way we will get the answers while the Government plays politics with persons who are out of work and who need the relief that the Government should rightly pay to them. . ‘.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.14 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 March 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720321_senate_27_s51/>.