Senate
3 October 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1640

NOTICE OF MOTION

African Guerrilla Movements

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

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

That standing order 76 be suspended so that Senator Greenwood may present to the Senate the following petition received by him and signed by 6 citizens of Australia, namely:

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

That whereas it was reported in ‘Newsweek’, 26 August, page 12, 1974, that the Australian Government agreed to send $225,000 for ‘humanitarian purposes’ to black guerrilla movements fighting Rhodesians, South Africans and Portuguese in southern Africa;

And whereas these guerrilla movements being members of ZAPU, ZANU, FRELIMO and FROLIZI and other kindred organisations have been guilty of 96 documented acts of murder, abduction, mutilation, arson, cattle maiming and rape chiefly against other peaceful Africans between 22 December 1972 and 10 May 1974, in Rhodesia alone;

And abducted 295 people chiefly school children from St Alberts Mission in Rhodesia as reported in the news media;

And whereas these above mentioned and kindred organisations have been guilty of many other barbarous acts of brutality as reported in ‘The Silent War’ by Chris Vermaak and Reg Shaay, and the ‘Real Case for Rhodesia’ by Charlton Chesterton, both books widely read in Australia.

So therefore your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate will take action to prevent material and other assistance being sent to the above mentioned organisations in southern Africa which are guilty of various acts of terrorism as such assistance would give the impression of agreement of the Australian people and the Government to the various acts of brutality which have been perpetrated by the organisations concerned.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Malcolm McEachern (President)

Dr Charles Huxtable (Patron)

David R. Bean (Vice Chairman)

David Clarke (Vice Chairman)

C. Dillon ( Hon. Treasurer) on behalf of the members of the Australia-Rhodesia Association of New South Wales.

page 1640

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1640

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate who represents the Acting Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Minister for Labor and Immigration said in Adelaide on 1 3 August that he would rather go out of office than be responsible for having 250,000 people out of work. In view of that statement by the responsible Minister, and in view of the current unemployment figure of 120,000, can the claim yesterday by the Acting Prime Minister that unemployment is not serious be seen as anything but an attempt to sweep under the carpet a problem which has reached alarming proportions?

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Whatever happens in the field of employment, the honourable senator can be certain that no unemployment will be caused by the actions of the present Minister for Labor and Immigration who is bending his every effort towards creating a prosperous society in which there will be full employment. I think everyone would recognise that not only the Minister for Labor and Immigration but also the whole Government is endeavouring to achieve that objective. I indicated yesterday in the Senate that there were severe shortages in Australia of certain commodities produced in this country. I referred to 90 products, with another 25 under consideration for duty free entry because of the shortage of those commodities in Australia. In many areas there are opportunities and the Government is encouraging industry and the whole community to take advantage of the enormous resources we have and our skilled manpower.

The Leader of the Country Party in the Senate would recognise that judged in world terms we are one of the most prosperous countries in the world with a high standard of living and a very low level of unemployment. The Government is doing everything it can to reduce even that low level because it is wasteful in any society to have unemployed people who can work. If we are to have higher productivity overall we want to be using the maximum resources of our people. That is the Government’s aim. The Leader of the Country Party in the Senate was a Minister in a government that failed entirely and I suggest that instead of offering carping criticism he ought to assist us to achieve these laudible objectives.

page 1641

QUESTION

APPRENTICES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Accepting the thesis of the Minister that the availability of extra skilled tradesmen will give impetus to jobs in other industrial classifications, is the Minister in a position to say whether State Ministers for Labour are being honest and frank in giving details of the number of apprentices who will become journeymen at the end of 1974? Can he further indicate the number of such apprentices who, assuming the status of tradesmen in 1975, will gravitate into the metal and electrical industries?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I understand from the Minister for Labor and Immigration that he has received very good co-operation from the State Ministers in respect of this matter. Only recently the Hon. F. E. Hewitt, the New South Wales Minister for Labour, applauded the Government’s intentions in respect of the financial incentives which have been announced in the Budget. He said that they would act as a great inducement in this area. As the honourable senator probably knows, there is an Australian Apprenticeship Advisory Committee which meets regularly, chaired by Dr Sharp, the head of Mr Cameron’s Department. On that body there are representatives of employers, unions and State governments. I am told that in this area the State Ministers are very co-operative. I do not have the figures with me but I will try to get them. The fact is that quite recently the incentives or subsidies provided to employers in relation to the intake of apprentices have very nearly been doubled. This is an indication that we are doing all we can with the assistance of industry and the State governments to induce apprentices to join industry.

page 1641

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. The Government tabled yesterday in the Senate the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation in which an item of $2,188,000 for exchange fluctuation gains and special items is brought to account in the profit and loss account. Can the Minister say whether in the same account provision is made for losses in the current year from exchange devaluations and changes? If this has not been done, would it not have been prudent to do so?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-I will have to refer the question to Dr Cairns, as the Minister responsible, to obtain an answer.

page 1641

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY EQUALISATION SCHEME

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Agriculture been drawn to a Press article in this morning’s Melbourne ‘Sun’ that Kraft Foods Ltd intends to withdraw from the dairy industry equalisation scheme? Will this withdrawal affect the efficiency and operation of the scheme?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have seen the report indicating that the Kraft company intends, as I understand the report, to withdraw from dairy equalisation. There is a long history to the equalisation of the dairy industry and there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in the States over its operation. I am more concerned, though, about the fact that the same company wrote to me only perhaps 3 weeks ago outlining its concern and the difficulties it was experiencing. I replied to its letter indicating that many of the points which it raised in its letter to me and the suggestions it made were very good ones. Nevertheless, I indicated that I would prefer to see the company remain within the present arrangements until such time as a decision can be reached between the Australian Government, the State governments and the industry, because we do not want to see a collapse of equalisation with nothing to replace it.

I do not know whether the decision that the company has taken is a final one. It is a matter of concern to me. I am endeavouring to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the report in today’s Press. But I would hope that the industry itself is not going to find many other factories and manufacturers withdrawing from the scheme at this stage because a great deal of new thinking is going on now throughout the whole of the dairy industry and there is a realisation that changes will need to be effected and that providing everybody is prepared to co-operate, they can be effected to the betterment of the industry.

page 1641

QUESTION

RIFLE CLUBS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. My association with the Kapunda Rifle Range Club in South Australia has brought home to me the problem which the members of that range experience in respect of the cost of ammunition, a problem which I understand is common to all such organisations throughout the Commonwealth. As rifle range activities embrace defence, sport and recreation aspects, and as some years ago clubs were favoured with issues of certain amounts of ammunition by the then Department of the Army, will consideration be given to reinstating this system of giving encouragement and assistance to these clubs?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I understand the position to be that since 1960 no subsidy has been given to rifle clubs for ammunition. But generally speaking, since that date the practice has been that purchases have been made from the former Department of Supply- it is now the Department of Manufacturing Industry- and the rifle club associations which have made the purchases have then distributed the ammunition to the civilian rifle clubs. However, I am not aware whether since the decision in 1960 reconsideration has been given to this aspect. I undertake to refer the honourable senator’s request to the Minister for Defence.

page 1642

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration assure the Senate that the decision to impose restrictions on the number of immigrants coming to Australia will not affect the immigration policy of ensuring that the reunion of families holds the highest priority?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I can only give the information that has been announced by Mr Clyde Cameron. He has announced that because of the employment situation it has been necessary to review the migrant intake target, which was 80,000 people. But in relation to that review, he has given an undertaking that family reunions will be given the highest priority, that applications which are presently being processed will not be affected, that generally the objectives to which the honourable senator refers will be maintained and there will be no departure from those objectives. I will ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration whether he can add to the information that I have given to the honourable senator.

page 1642

QUESTION

MR JACK MUNDEY

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is it a fact, as alleged in the media, that the National President of the Communist Party of Australia, Mr Jack Mundey, has applied for legal aid to finance an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales given against him in his defamation action against Sir Robert Askin? If so, on what grounds has he applied? Has the application been decided? If so, what are the reasons for the decision?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I understand that Mr Mundey has applied for legal aid. I do not know on what grounds he has made that application. His solicitor spoke to me about the matter and, as I understand it, a letter has been written to my Department inquiring about legal aid. Application forms were sent but no formal application has been made to the Australian Government or to the Australian Legal Aid Offices. But he is making an application for legal aid to the New South Wales Government through its appropriate instrumentality. I am not sure whether it is the Public Solicitor. That is the position at the moment. No application has been received by the Australian Government or its Legal Aid Offices. I really do not know the grounds upon which the application has been made. That was the position, as I understood it, a few days ago, and I have not heard anything further since then.

page 1642

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING PANEL

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-Yesterday I asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs a question concerning the Aboriginal Housing Panel on behalf of Senator Keeffe who was attending a conference in Queensland. However, the answer given by the Minister interests me. Is it not a fact that although the Aboriginal Housing Panel is elected by the Royal Australian Institute of Architects it is wholly funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and in fact received a sum of $100,000 for its activities? In the circumstances, is it not necessary for its report to be circulated to all members of Parliament, especially since Mr Myers, a member of the Panel, made the accusation that millions of dollars were being wasted on Aboriginal housing through ignorance and negligence?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-My Department does wholly fund the Aboriginal Housing Panel which received $45,000 in 1973-74 and $91,500 for 1974-75. It is not mandatory to circulate the annual report of the Panel. It has issued one annual report from which I quoted yesterday. I am informed that the Panel distributes 600 copies and copies are normally sent to those people who it thinks are interested in its activities, including a number of members of Parliament. One copy was sent to Senator Bonner. Although it is not mandatory to table the report, I am prepared to do so or at least to make a copy available in the Parliamentary Library so that everyone may see it. Mr Myers is not a member of the Panel. He does work for the Panel. As regards his remarks about money spent on Aboriginal housing, the Housing Panel does not construct houses; it is simply an architectural advisory body.

page 1643

QUESTION

MAKINE COURTS OF INQUIRY

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– Has the attention of the learned Attorney-General been drawn to the scathing criticism made by Mr H. E. Cosgrove, Q.C., Tasmanian Crown Advocate, in a paper tabled in the Tasmanian Parliament on Wednesday, 21 August, concerning unfair advantages appertaining to the Commonwealth in marine courts of inquiry? If the Attorney has examined the statement will he advise the Senate of his reactions to it and state whether Mr Cosgrove ‘s advice to the Tasmanian Government not to take part in any future inquiries of a marine court is fair and reasonable? If the Minister thinks it is, what does he intend to do to improve the situation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-That was a court of inquiry presided over by Mr Justice Dunphy. I have seen the report. I have not seen more than that. Anyone would be disturbed at the kind of criticism which has been made in the report. I will have the matter looked into thoroughly.

page 1643

QUESTION

ADMINISTRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, arises out of the deliberations of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee this morning when departmental witnesses were examined as to the availability of appeal provisions under certain regulations. Is it a fact that the Government proposes to establish a legislative review tribunal to afford rights of appeal to persons against ministerial and administrative decisions where such rights of appeal do not presently exist? Will the tribunal’s functions cover the whole range of both substantive and subordinate legislation and operate in all instances where aggrieved persons wish to have their citizen rights preserved and protected? I understand that the proposal for setting up the tribunal has advanced to a certain stage. When can we expect to see the tribunal established and how in general terms, if it is possible to state them briefly, will it function?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-What the honourable senator says is correct in that the Government is proceeding with the proposals for an administrative review tribunal. Legislation has been drafted and that is still to be considered by the Government. I think perhaps it is unwise for me to go into the details of what it would cover. In general terms it is to provide appeals from administrative decisions, whether made by government departments, statutory authorities and so forth under the laws of this Parliament. The general notion is to have a tribunal to which appeals can be brought. Of course, such appeals would be decided on the basis of applying administrative standards. A much broader scope would be available to the review tribunal than would be available if a decision were being reviewed by a court which could apply only judicial, and in this sense some narrower, standards. For example, a court might be able to determine only whether proper procedures had been followed, whether some error of law had occurred or something of this nature whereas the review tribunal would be able to review all the facts and standards applied in an administrative way. I would hope that the matter could be put before the Parliament in the next few weeks.

page 1643

QUESTION

OIL POLLUTION

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In view of the big movement of crude oil around the Australian coastline and the consequent continuing danger of oil pollution in our offshore areas, what steps have been taken by the Government to have sufficient supplies of dispersant readily available for the treatment of any such oil spills?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– The honourable senator notified me some time last week that he sought information on this matter and would ask me a question on it. I referred it to the Minister for Transport and received the following reply: The Australian Government, in co-operation with the States and the oil industry, has established a national plan to combat pollution of the sea by oil. The plan consists of stockpiles of dispersant and equipment located at Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, Fremantle and Darwin. A further stockpile is to be established at Port Hedland. The stockpiles are available for use by Australian and State government officials who bear responsibility for the abatement of oil pollution. In the event of a massive oil spill entire stockpiles may be transported interstate. A quantity of basic feedstock from which an additional 2,000 tonnes of dispersant can be speedily manufactured is held in reserve at Botany Bay, New South Wales. The plan also includes a separate stockpile in Melbourne of ship to ship transfer equipment for use in lightening tankers which may become involved in a collision or stranded.

page 1643

QUESTION

SINGAPOREAN STUDENTS

Senator GEORGES:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There is now some confusion concerning the position of students from Singapore in Australia. Can the Senate be assured that no action will be taken to deport Singaporean students in Australia against their will? Will the Government resist any such demand from the Singapore Government?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The information I have is that it is not the case that there are 70 Singaporean students in Australia whom the Singapore Government is asking to return now and who have refused to go. Of the 700 to 800 private Singaporean students currently in Australia approximately 75, according to the Singapore Government, are under bond to return to Singapore at the conclusion of their studies. It is expected that most, and perhaps all, would return to Singapore voluntarily. Following discussions between the Prime Minister and Mr Lee Quan Yew last February the question arose as to whether sponsorship arrangements proposed for all future students from Singapore- these have since been worked out but are not yet implementedcould be applied to private bonded students already in Australia. The Prime Minister said that he would have the matter examined. That examination has been completed and in a letter to Mr Lee on 30 September the Prime Minister explained that he could not agree to deport bonded private Singaporean students currently in Australia who might refuse to return home. That is the information which I have.

page 1644

QUESTION

CANBERRA RADIO LICENCE

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. I refer to the recent radio licence granted in Canberra. Has the Minister seen a report that the A.C.T. Trades and Labour Council is seeking to send a deputation to him with a view to exerting pressure on him to have the successful applicant’s company reconstructed? Has the Minister been under pressure from members of his own Party to support the claims of this deputation? Does the Minister intend to review the licence already granted to the successful company?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen the report, I think in this morning’s ‘Canberra Times’, that the A.C.T. Trades and Labour Council carried a motion seeking to send a deputation to me to discuss this matter. Briefly the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the licence to a company known as Capital City Broadcasters Pty Ltd are these: The previous Government called for applications for the licence in 1972. Upon the election of this Government I recommended to the Cabinet that the matter be deferred pending my further consideration of whether the issue of a second licence for Canberra was warranted. Having considered that matter, I determined that a second licence in Canberra, bearing in mind that there was a complete monopoly existing in Canberra, was warranted and the Australian Broadcasting Control Board was directed under the terms of the Broadcasting and Television Act to hear publicly the applications that were received.

The Board heard the applications that were received. I think all told there were 7 applicants. All applicants were represented by counsel before the Board at those public hearings. During the course of the public hearings an article appeared in the ‘Australian Financial Review’ which in short said that I had stacked the Board to ensure that the licence would be awarded to a certain company. That matter was referred to the Attorney-General’s Department which I think advised that if the Board were not a quasi judicial body, the article would be in contempt. However, the members of the Board then took individual action against the ‘Australian Financial Review’ and those proceedings are still pending. As a result of that the members of the Board asked all the parties present at the hearing -all represented by counsel- whether they wished to proceed. All parties indicated that they wished the Board to proceed with the hearing.

The Board took evidence and heard the addresses of counsel. After considering the evidence and the addresses of counsel it made a unanimous recommendation to me that the licence be awarded to a company known as Capital City Broadcasters. I gave consideration to the Board’s recommendation and determined that in view of all the circumstances I should put the matter to my Cabinet colleagues for their consideration. Cabinet considered the Board’s report and agreed to accept the unanimous recommendation of the Board to invite the company known as Capital City Broadcasters to take out the second radio licence. That information was conveyed to the successful applicant within 4 or 5 days. The successful applicant has. now advised me that it accepts the Government’s recommendation. I am quite happy to meet representatives of the A.C.T. Trades and Labour Council to discuss the possible restructuring of the company, but from the short discussion that I had yesterday with my colleague, the AttorneyGeneral, I am given to understand that it is very unlikely indeed that the Government could accede to such a request.

page 1644

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer also to the

Government’s announcement that there will be a severe setback in the Australian immigration program. Does the Minister agree that a migration program cannot be turned on and off like a tap? As most of the current year’s target has been reached, what will happen to the various offices and officers of the Department in recruiting countries? Is the Minister aware that the Minister for Labor and Immigration said last night that Australia’s greatest problem was a shortage of skilled labour and that if we could get 400 fitters and turners, an organisation such as the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd would take on an additional 1,400 people? If this is so, will the Minister take all possible steps to obtain these and other skilled people who will assist in the productivity situation in this country and will continue the benefits of immigration to Australia?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I do not think that our present offices overseas would be affected at all by the announcement by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, but I will check with him. I would be very surprised if they were. The honourable senator might not have noticed that Mr Clyde Cameron placed some emphasis on the need for skilled people. He referred to unemployment and said that in some fields unemployment was causing concern and because of that the Department had set a new target. He said also that in some areas of Australia there was a shortage of skills that was hampering production in the way that Senator Davidson has said; consequently nominations or applications in respect of workers in those employment categories in which there remains a strong demand will continue to be considered. I believe that the Minister will have regard to the sort of aims which are referred to by Senator Davidson, and he has already said so. I will ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration whether in precise terms he can add to my general comments on the question.

page 1645

QUESTION

TELEVISION ADVERTISING

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for the Media: Have any Australia-wide surveys ever been undertaken to determine whether television viewers have expressed any objection to frequent interruptions to commercial station programs for advertisements? If no survey has been instituted, will the Minister consider obtaining an expression of opinion from the public on this matter?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am very much aware of the problems to which the honourable senator refers. I receive letters on this subject practically every day. I have also had the opportunity of seeing the results of various surveys that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board has conducted on this question from time to time the last of which was conducted last year. I think that survey showed that about 70 per cent of television viewers- this is by way of illustrationconsider that there are too many interruptions to programs on commercial stations. As a result of those surveys and as a result of discussions that I have had with the members of the Broadcasting Control Board the matter was recently the subject of consultation between representatives of the commercial stations and officers of the Board. Those consultations have now led to a number of variations in the Control Board’s standards for advertising time in radio programs. I understand these standards are designed to ensure a greater continuity in radio programming arrangements. Details of the changes in the standards will be circulated to the radio stations in the course of the next few days. Meanwhile, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is still consulting and conferring with representatives of the television stations towards obtaining an improvement in the situation so far as television is concerned. I have every reason to hope that progress will shortly be made in this area.

page 1645

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN LAUNCESTON

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– By way of preface to a question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, I refer to the fact that over a period of several months I have raised, firstly, a request for a task force to be sent to Launceston to investigate and make recommendations relating to the unemployment problems in the textile and other industries there. Secondly, I have requested on several occasions the publication of that report. I now ask: Will the report be made available to the Senate and all those concerned with overcoming the problems of both the people and the industries in the Launceston area which has been adversely affected as a result of Government policies?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The report referred to by Senator Rae was commissioned by the Government as an interdepartmental committee report to Cabinet. It is customary- as far as I know it has always been the practice in government in this country- that interdepartmental committee reports made for the purpose of Cabinet advice are not tabled in Parliament nor made public. It is my understanding that the Minister concerned has taken that view in respect of this particular matter. At this stage he has decided that he will not table the report.

page 1646

QUESTION

ALLEGED HARASSMENT BY JOURNALISTS

Senator DEVITT:

– I would like to ask a question of the Minister for the Media which follows a question asked yesterday by Senator Guilfoyle concerning harassment of people by journalists and their associates in looking for news stories. My question arises from observations which have been made to me by a number of my associates, particularly in the Labor movement. I would like to know whether the Minister, in view of the serious nature of this situation, is able to provide the Senate with any further information concerning this incident and perhaps incidents of a similar kind in other areas?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not in a position to provide the Senate with information other than that which I gave yesterday. The Acting General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Dr Semmler, was reported in the Press this morning as having said that Press reports of the incident had suggested that the television crew had harassed Mrs Petrov. He went on to say according to the report that the account given by the ABC team does not tally with the Press report in all particulars. He has assured me that he has called for a detailed report on the matter. Meanwhile I assure the honourable senator that in conformity with my undertaking to the Senate yesterday I have already written to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and asked him to ensure that this matter is discussed and debated by all members of the Commission at its earliest meeting. Further, my colleague the Attorney-General has raised this subject with me and I know that he will be able to supplement the remarks I have just made.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

- Mr President, the Senate may be interested to know the information I have received in relation to the matter concerning Mrs Petrov. My information is that after Mrs Petrov had taken refuge at the East Bentleigh police station where she was being besieged by Press and television personnel, she returned to her home- this was the day before yesterdayand there received a letter together with a bunch of flowers. The letter is in these terms:

I’m sorry that you were upset by the events of this morning- it was not my intention to cause you any more personal grief or disturbance but I want you to know thatIama tenacious journalist and will not give up easily when I see the prospect of a good story in front of me. I know you have a right to privacy and I understand the personal difficulties in your life at the moment, but you must also understand the public interest there is in your story and why that motivates me to keep on trying.

I remind you again of what I said this morning that one way or the other I am determined to get a story out of the fact that your whereabouts are now known. It is not my intention under any circumstances’ to tell our audience either the name you now assume or your address. But even if you do not agree to talk to me there are a number of ways we can still tell the story without disclosing these facts.

I told you this morning of some ways this can be done. We can continue to follow you or to film your house from the street and to speak to neighbours, etc, etc.

In view of the disturbance this caused this morning it is a course of action I am not happy to embark upon. But it is a course of action I will most definitely take if that is the only way I can get the story. Can 1 again ask you to agree to give me a short interview? Our program has an audience of one and half million throughout Australia- even if you only appear to say that you wish to be left alone and that the events that made you a figure of public interest arc now 20 years in the past- that would suffice for our purposes. Can I also suggest that such an interview on a national TV program would go a long way to defusing the continual pressures you face from the media to make such a statement- and the harassment and invasion of privacy you will continue to face in the absence of such a statement?

Yours sincerely Allan Hogan

Mr President, I do not think that needs very much comment from me. That is the information I have.

page 1646

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT’S LAND PURCHASE NEAR BRISBANE

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, refers to a recent statement by the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Federal Government has purchased 271/2 hectares of land near Brisbane which will provide approximately 250 building sites for the erection of homes under the defence service homes scheme. Has the Federal Government undertaken to pay rates to the Redlands Shire Council on this land or does it intend to take advantage of its right not to pay local authority rates for land it owns? If it has not undertaken to pay normal property rates, will the Minister give an assurance that it will make an exgratia payment to the Redlands Shire Council so that the burden of shire maintenance of the land does not have to be met by ordinary ratepayers of the Redlands Shire?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– In relation to Service homes there is an arrangement whereby the Commonwealth pays various councils an amount in lieu of rates. I do not know whether arrangements have been made in a particular area. I shall refer the question to the Minister and find out what arrangements are intended for the purpose of reimbursing the council for services provided for the houses which are built.

page 1647

TELEVISION SERVICE AT LEIGH CREEK

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for the Media will recall that last week he informed me that a meeting was to take place in Melbourne this week to consider a request for a television service at Leigh Creek in South Australia. I now ask the Minister whether he has any information as to the outcome of the meeting.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I can tell the honourable senator that there have been discussions involving officers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, the Australian Broadcasting Commission and officers from the Australian Post Office, for which my colleague, Senator Bishop, has ministerial responsibility. I am told that as a result of those discussions there is a need to hold other meetings in the near future. A meeting with a number of interested parties from South Australia will proceed next week. I understand that officers of the Board will be available in Adelaide on Friday next for these discussions. Until those discussions are held it is not quite clear what can be done about the cost problems involved in this suggestion. After those discussions have been held between officers of the Board and interested parties in Adelaide I will be able to advise the honourable senator further.

page 1647

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ASSISTANCE FOR WATER SUPPLIES

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Development to the statement in the Queen’s Speech of 28 February 1974 to the effect that legislation to provide financial assistance to Queensland for the Ross River Dam and to Western Australia for water supplies for the Gascoyne plantations and Carnarvon would be presented. I note in passing that the legislation for the Ross River Dam went through the Senate a couple of days ago. I ask the Minister: Why was provision not made in the Budget for the Gascoyne and Carnarvon schemes? When can action be expected on that promise?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I understand that the reason is that certain environmental matters in relation to this scheme are still to be resolved. It is the Government’s intention to press forward with it in conjunction with the State authority. I am sure that as soon as the environmental matters have been resolved there will be a further announcement on specific developments.

page 1647

QUESTION

CONVERSION OF TELEVISION SETS

Senator POYSER:

-Has the Minister for the Media noted that the system for conversion of black and white television sets to colour television sets as developed by 2 students at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology has now been taken up as a commercial proposition by a Melbourne based firm? What will be the implications of this development for Australian television viewers?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I recall the honourable senator asking me a question on this matter about November or December last year. As a result of his drawing the matter to my attention I arranged for officers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to get in touch with the 2 students concerned from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. I must say that I was personally delighted to hear the news that the students at RMIT have at last been able to succeed in gaining interest in the market place in their conversion kit. The honourable senator may recall that at the time the students first developed the kit I offered whatever assistance my Department and the Board could provide. I am given to understand that the Broadcasting Control Board provided the students with considerable assistance.

I trust that the purchase of rights to the conversion system will assist in the Government’s general policy of trying to ensure that colour television is made available to Australians at the lowest possible price. When I saw the article in this morning’s Melbourne ‘Sun News-Pictorial’ I spoke with the chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, Mr Wright, about it. The chairman of the Board informs me that he understands that the kit will be available only for certain makes and models of sets. In fact, it is a condition of the agreement of the licensing of the company which has taken up this offer that the conversion kit will be installed only by qualified technicians who are trained in the actual conversion by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

page 1647

QUESTION

IRANIAN INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Is it a further measure of the contempt of the Government for this Parliament and for the Australian people that the Prime Minister has disclosed to a Press conference in the United States of America important and controversial details of his Government’s recent talks with the Shah of Iran rather than first reporting those details to this Parliament? Will the Minister, in order to rectify this grave discourtesy, interpose today a statement to the Senate on the nature of those discussions and any decisions reached between the 2 governments? Is it the intention of the Commonwealth Government to allow foreign governments of whatever ideology to invest, whether through the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Petroleum and Minerals Authority or otherwise, in Australian resources development? Would such investment be exempted from the provisions of the variable deposits ratio? Does this indicate a significant change in the Government’s policy regarding foreign investment and multi-nationals? Does the Government support the public statement of Dr Cairns, the Acting Prime Minister, that he has no difficulties at all with multi-nationals and that, in fact, he finds them easier to get on with than other companies?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator has asked a number of questions. The first one, which deals with the attitude of the Prime Minister to Parliament, might be disposed of easily. I do not think there is any Prime Minister who has ever taken such a strong attitude as the present Prime Minister towards the informing of Parliament. There has been a remarkable change since the Labor Government has come into power. All sorts of reports, statements and information have been tabled and given to Parliament- a constant stream of them. So much has that been so that I have noticed a couple of instances of requests and demands for information made in the other House which have received the answer that the relevant document had already been tabled in the Parliament.

The Prime Minister has gone to great lengths to inform Parliament and I think one can be assured that he is doing whatever he thinks fit. I do not know the circumstances of his statement overseas It may be that he intended to make a statement when he returned and he may have found it more in the interests of Australia to make the statement then and there. The honourable senator raised other matters. He asked whether the Government will tolerate foreign countries investing in Australia either directly or through intermediaries. Of course, over the years governments have tolerated that. For instance, the British Government, through large corporations and in all sorts of ways, notoriously has enormous investments in Australia. Other governments have also acted through various corporate devices. The honourable senator referred to multi-nationals and so forth. I will refer that part of his question to the Acting Prime Minister. If he wants to add anything to what I have said no doubt he will do so.

page 1648

QUESTION

BARRIER REEF ROYAL COMMISSION

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Attorney-General. In view of certain conjecture concerning the apparent delay in the publication of the report of the Great Barrier Reef Petroleum Drilling Royal Commission can the Attorney-General indicate whether delay has occurred? In any event, will he take action to expedite publication of the report?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I regret that I am not certain of the position. Perhaps the honourable senator could put his question on the notice paper or I will endeavour to get the information and inform him at the next question time of exactly what has happened. I do know that the inquiry went on for a very long time under a distinguished chairman, Sir Gordon Wallace. We have heard from time to time that it has cost a great deal of money and we do know that the subject matter of the inquiry is of the highest importance to Australia and to the world. I will get the information for the honourable senator and give it to him at the next opportunity.

page 1648

QUESTION

POSSESSION OF FIREARMS

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. Is it correct that members of the Attorney-General ‘s Department or officers acting on behalf of the Attorney-General held discussions with representatives of sporting shooters associations, firearms traders and others earlier this year with a view to developing law reform proposals with respect to firearms? If so, what has been the outcome of those discussions?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I ask the honourable senator to place the question on the notice paper.

page 1648

QUESTION

ALLEGED HARASSMENT BY JOURNALISTS

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Following the AttorneyGeneral’s revelation of a document allegedly written to Mrs Petrov by a Mr Hogan, I ask: Does the Attorney-General intend to refer the document to the Ethics Committee of the Australian Journalists Association as it appears to breach the ethics of the Association? Is the writer of the letter a member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? If so, will the AttorneyGeneral ask his colleague the Minister for the Media to refer to the ABC the letter and its implied threats to Mrs Petrov? Is it a fact that Mr Petrov is seriously ill in hospital? What steps is it intended should be taken to ensure the safety and privacy of Mrs Petrov?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

- Mr Hogan is, of course, not a member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in that sense. I understand that he is engaged by or has an association with the Commission. I do not know what are the formal terms to describe the position he holds. I do not know whether what happened is a breach of the ethics of journalism. I do know that, from the way I read that document, it is an outrage. I know- I think all honourable senators know- that there seems to be an increasing tendency to harassment of persons and I think it is time that the citizens of this country were protected by law against unreasonable invasion of their privacy. It is certainly overdue. Leaving aside this particular instance, I think that that is the way to avoid anything such as this happening. Certain consideration has already been given to this and I hope to be able very shortly to take some action which I think will receive the approval of the Senate.

page 1649

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER’S ADDRESS TO THE UNITED NATIONS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the full text of the Prime Minister’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on Monday of this week? Is he aware that the Prime Minister, in confirming loyalty to the United Nations, used the words: ‘As head of the first Australian social democratic Government since Australia . . joined the United Nations’. Is it the intention of the Government to announce to the Australian public the adoption of the radical policies which are associated with ideologies of similarly termed governments throughout the world? Is the use of the term ‘Australian social democratic Government’ now the proper way in which to address the present Australian Government?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I thank my colleague Senator Wheeldon for making some suggestions about various governments which are socialist democratic governments.

Senator Wheeldon:

– And social democratic governments.

Senator MURPHY:

– And social democratic governments- the government in Germany, the Labour Government in the United Kingdom and the government in Holland. The honourable senator will recall the remarks of a former leader of the Liberal-Country Party coalition of which he was one of the back benchers. The then Prime Minister of Australia, the Right Honourable

John Gorton, in a very strong statement that he made shortly after becoming the Prime Minister announced to the world: ‘We are all socialist now’.

page 1649

QUESTION

BUILDING SOCIETIES

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Treasurer. I draw the Minister’s attention to the statement made by the Acting Treasurer that the Government will, where apposite, assist building societies as they collapse. Does the Government anticipate that other building societies are likely to collapse? Is not the fact that such a statement was necessary at all a reflection of the economic disarray resulting from the implementation of Government policies?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I am not aware that the Acting Treasurer had made any statement to the effect that the Government will support building societies ‘as they collapse’. I am not aware of the word ‘collapse’ being used at all. The Acting Treasurer did make a statement yesterday to the effect that the Government, through the Reserve Bank of Australia, will treat sympathetically the problems of liquidity of building societies which have proper asset backing. It is the Government’s purpose to ensure that stability of these institutions remains and that an atmosphere of fear should not be deliberately engendered as has occurred in recent times in order to take away from the people the confidence which is necessary to maintain these institutions. The Government is constantly watching the position and will ensure that the liquidity necessary to preserve these institutions is maintained.

page 1649

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUILDERS LABOURERS FEDERATION

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Has the AttorneyGeneral read the newspaper account or otherwise been informed of the resolution passed yesterday by mass meetings of members of the Australian Builders Labourers Federation stating: ‘If the High Court decision goes against us we will carry out a campaign of guerilla action to compel the employers to negotiate with the Federation’? Does the Attorney-General propose to take any action or give any warning calculated to uphold the rule of law against such intimidatory lawlessness?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– No, I have not read any account of that at all and I have no information on it. I will look into the matter.

page 1650

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Glass and Glassware’, dated 23 May 1974, and copies of correspondence between the Chairman of the Commission and the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Assistance to Industries. The report was forwarded to the Prime Minister on 20 June 1974.

page 1650

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Reports on Items

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I present 3 reports of the Industries Assistance Commission entitled ‘Polyamide and Polyester Yarns’, dated 18 June 1974, ‘Tyre Cord and Tyre Cord Fabrics’, dated 25 June 1974, and ‘Foundation Garments’, dated 28 June 1974. These were forwarded to the Prime Minister on 1 7, 24 and 25 July respectively.

page 1650

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 I present for the information of honourable senators the seventh annual report and financial statements of the Australian Tourist Commission for the year ending 30 June 1974.

page 1650

BOXING AND COMBAT SPORTS COMMITTEE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the Interdepartmental Committee of Inquiry into boxing and other combat sports.

page 1650

DAIRYING RESEARCH COMMITTEE

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Dairying Research Act 1972 I present for the information of honourable senators annual reports of the Dairying Research Committee for the years ended 30 June 1973 and 30 June 1974.

page 1650

NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 2 of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957 I present for the information of honourable senators the 17th Annual Report of the National Capital Development Commission for 1973-74.

page 1650

CIVIL AVIATION WORKING GROUP REPORT

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Department of Civil Aviation and Airlines Working Group report entitled ‘Aircraft Cabin Interior Materials- Flammability, Smoke and Toxicity’. Due to the limited number of copies available at this time I have arranged for reference copies of this report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library. Copies of a CSIRO report which forms an appendix to the one now being tabled are available on request.

page 1650

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY AND TRADE

Senator COLEMAN (Western Australia) Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement concerning the operations of the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Industry and Trade.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Mr President, I inform the Senate that in considering the reference by the Senate to the Committee of the promotion of trade and commerce with other countries, the operation of Australia’s international trade agreements and the development of trading relations, the Committee has decided to investigate the prospects of trade between Indonesia and Australia.

page 1650

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Post and Telegraph Rates Bill 1974.

Post and Telegraph Bill 1974.

Wool Industry Bill 1974.

Wool Tax Bill (No. 1) 1974.

Wool Tax Bill (No. 2) 1974.

Wool Tax Bill (No. 3) 1974.

Wool Tax Bill (No. 4) 1974.

Wool Tax Bill (No. 5) 1974.

Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill 1974.

Wheat Products Export Adjustment Bill 1 974.

Wheat Export Charge Bill 1974.

page 1651

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

1 ) That the Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending on 30 June 1975 and the Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1975 be referred herewith to Estimates Committees A, B, C, D, E, F and G for examination and report.

That the Committees deal with departmental estimates as follows:

Estimates Committee A:

Attorney-General ‘s Department

Department of Customs and Excise

Parliament

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Department of Science

Estimates Committee B:

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Services and Property

Department of the Special Minister of State

Department of the Capital Territory

Estimates Committee C:

Department of the Media

Department of Education

Department of Tourism and Recreation

Estimates Committee D:

Department of Agriculture

Department of Overseas Trade

Department of Minerals and Energy

Department of the Treasury

Department of Northern Development

Department of the Northern Territory

Department of Manufacturing Industry

Estimates Committee E:

Department of Repatriation and Compensation

Department of Social Security

Department of Health

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Estimates Committee F:

Postmaster-General’s Department

Department of Defence

Department of Labor and Immigration

Estimates Committee G:

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Department of Housing and Construction

Department of Transport

) That the Committees report to the Senate on or before 12 November 1974.

page 1651

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered, Government business take precedence of general business after 3 p.m. this day.

page 1651

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 15 October, at 1 1 a.m., unless sooner called together by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees.

page 1651

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate nominating Senator Devitt to be a member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence in place of Senator Drury.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That Senator Drury be discharged from attendance upon Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and that Senator Devitt, having been duly nominated in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 17 September, be appointed to that Committee.

page 1651

LIQUEFIED GAS (ROAD VEHICLE USE) TAX COLLECTION BILL 1974

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 1651

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate and Senator Townley nominating senators to Estimates Committees as follows:

Estimates Committee A- Senators Everett, Gietzelt, Greenwood, Jessop, James McClelland and Missen.

Estimates Committee B- Senators Button, Carrick, Davidson, Grimes, Mcintosh and Sim.

Estimates Committee C- Senators Coleman, Guilfoyle, Laucke, McAuliffe, Melzer and Scott.

Estimates Committee D- Senators Cotton, McLaren, Martin, Primmer, Walsh and Webster.

Estimates Committee E- Senators Baume, Brown, Devitt, Drake-Brockman, Georges and Townley.

Estimates Committee F- Senators Cameron, Durack, Lawrie, Mcintosh, Marriott and Mulvihill.

Estimates Committee G- Senators Bonner, Geitzelt, Keeffe, Milliner, Rae and Sheil.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That notwithstanding anything contained in the resolution appointing the Estimates Committees, those senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Leader of the Australian Country Party and Senator Townley be members of the respective Estimates Committees.

page 1652

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) read a first dme.

Second Reading

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

On 4 April 1974 I introduced into the Senate a Bill to amend the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967-73. Debate on the Bill was subsequently adjourned and the Bill lapsed on the double dissolution of Parliament.

It is now necessary to reintroduce the Bill.

For the benefit of honourable senators, I refer them to my second reading speech on this Bill which was incorporated in Hansard of 4 April 1974 at pages 678 and 679.

The main objective of the Bill is to enable the Australian Tourist Commission, hitherto restricted in its activities to the promotion of Australia overseas, to promote Australia for Australians.

Although there are at present a diversity of organisations already concerned with the promotion of Australian tourism their responsibilities are limited in their scope.

For instance, the interests of State tourism authorities are primarily concerned with encouraging tourism in their own States. Similarly local authorities are preoccupied with tourism in thenown areas.

There has, therefore, been a considerable gap in the promotion of Australia to Australians and this gap can be readily filled by the Australian Tourist Commission.

Over the past few months through funds allocated in the 1973-74 Budget to the Department of Tourism and Recreation, the Commission, as the agent of the Department, has been involved in this task. The first part of the domestic promotion campaign, which has been directed towards young people, has been warmly received by the travel industry and the promotional material has met with great demand.

To expand the Commission’s activities in this regard, I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 1652

COMMONWEALTH BANKS BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

This Bill is identical to that introduced in the Senate on 4 April but which lapsed on the dissolution of Parliament on 1 1 April 1974. The principal purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s proposal to extend the charter of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia to provide finance for tourist development projects, especially smaller projects in selected areas. The tourist industry is an important contributor to the overall economic prosperity of this country. The key to the industry’s continual growth to satisfy the needs of both domestic and overseas tourists is its ability to obtain adequate investment funds on reasonable terms. Most operators in the industry seeking development finance are experiencing difficulty in obtaining new funds on satisfactory terms, particularly for smaller undertakings in remote areas, and the proposed legislation is designed to help alleviate these problems.

Under the current legislation, the Commonwealth Development Bank’s principal function is to provide finance to assist primary production or to establish or develop industrial undertakings, particularly small undertakings in cases where in its opinion finance is desirable but would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. The proposed amendment to section 72 of the Commonwealth Banks Act will widen the Development Bank’s function to enable it to provide finance for the establishment or development of undertakings, particularly small undertakings, providing accommodation or transportation for tourists or other facilities designed to attract tourists. The provision of such finance will be subject to the same statutory provisions as those applicable to the Bank’s existing lending operations, including the requirement that the Bank should be satisfied the finance would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. The amendment to section 72 will also empower the Development Bank to provide advice and assistance to tourist enterprises.

The Development Bank will be particularly concerned with financing smaller enterprises involved in the development or improvement of tourist facilities away from main population centres. In accordance with the Government’s wishes the Development Bank will consult as appropriate with the Departments of Tourism and Recreation, Urban and Regional Development, and Environment and Conservation in carrying out its financial role in the tourist industry.

This Bill also brings into line with the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 the provisions in the Commonwealth Banks Act relating to the determination of the remuneration payable to members of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation Board and the various statutory office holders under the Act. In particular’, the amendments effected by clause 4 and the Schedule to the Bill will thus formalise in the Commonwealth Banks Act the requirement that the remuneration payable to the statutory office holders concerned be determined in future by the Remuneration Tribunal established under the Remuneration Tribunal Act. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr President, this Bill is principally associated with a matter similar to that referred to in the Australian Tourist Commission Bill. The Opposition will not be opposing either Bill but will wish to make some comments in relation to them. I suggest for the consideration of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) that the 2 Bills be dealt with in a cognate debate when they come on! On that basis I seek an adjournment of this bill also.

Senator Wriedt:

– On behalf of the Government I concur with Senator Rae’s suggestion.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 1653

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 October (vide page 1498), on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– In relation to this Bill it is my suggestion that we have a cognate debate involving the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1 974 and the Universities Commission

Bill. I suggest to the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) that that course be followed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Government has no objection to that course being taken.

Senator RAE:

– The Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills and will support their speedy passage. My colleague, Senator Baume, will speak in relation to certain aspects of the States Grants (Universities) Bill. I make no further comment than to say that this particular piece of legislation is to provide further funds in relation to the expansion of university activities in certain areas. The Opposition, when in Government, took steps to establish the Australian Universities Commission. It took steps also to upgrade universities substantially. As a matter of fact, I think that one of the matters of which we can be justly proud is steps which we took to create in Australia a system of funding of universities and the development of opportunities for university education and for university research and academic life. This Bill carries forward the concept which we introduced when in Government. The Opposition certainly supports it.

In relation to the Universities Commission Bill there are 2 bases on which changes are sought. The first involves an additional full time deputy chairman for the Commission. With the substantially increased work which the Commission has to undertake and with the importance of the work which it has to undertake as I have already mentioned- bearing in mind the fact that it was the Opposition Parties when in Government which created this Commission- we entirely support that it should have available to it that membership which is necessary for the Commission to carry out its very important functions. The Opposition certainly supports the recommendation that there should be an additional full time deputy chairman. We will support that part of the Bill wholeheartedly.

However, I express a reservation about the second part of this particular Bill which alters the definition of ‘university ‘ in the principal Act- the Australian Universities Commission Act- to restrict the meaning of the word to institutions established by Australian and State parliaments. Whilst I in no way suggest that there should be an open go for universities to blossom whenever anyone feels they would care to create the university of Sidi Barrani or whatever it may be in any part of Australia, I do not like the idea of the door being closed so that the only type of universities which are possible are those which are in effect run by the State. They are and remain semi-autonomous bodies in Australia and it is highly desirable that they should continue to be semi-autonomous bodies. The opportunity should be available in appropriate cases for what might be regarded as private universities or other types of universities to be created.

Of course, we are concerned to ensure that adequate standards prevail. Of course, there must be a need for legislation approving the creation of a university. It must be subject to some form of supervision by the Parliament and by the executive government. But I wish to take this opportunitywhilst in no way opposing this BUI- to record that the Opposition does not want to be taken as supporting the idea that all universities must forever and a day be State run universities. The private function ought to remain available. The Opposition seeks to place that caveat upon our support of this particular legislation.

This was referred to in greater detail in the debate which took place in the House of Representatives. I support the views expressed in the other place by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) who dealt in particular with this aspect of it. I simply make reference to that as going further in the explanation of the attitudes which I express. So that this matter may be expedited I make no further comments although I do not wish that to be taken in any way as expressing a disinterest in the subject matter but rather an interest in getting the Bills through this House as soon as possible so that the money may flow and the changes may take place in the interests of the advancement of education.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

– It is a pleasure to be able to join Senator Rae in supporting the passage of the States Grants (Universities) Bill and particularly those aspects of it which deal with the creation of a new medical school in New South Wales. I believe this is the first medical school which the Labor Government will have established. It will follow the tradition of previous Liberal Party governments which considerably increased the number of medical schools in Australia over a number of years. I wish this endeavour well.

There is a great need at the moment for extra medical education and educational facilities. I want to highlight the fact that in Australia we have a tremendous lack of doctors in practice and to place on record that we have only about 7,500 general practitioners in a doctor population of close to 20,000. This is an obvious imbalance which is affecting the kind of program which the Labor Government is trying to bring in to provide more primary care, more care for people out in the community where they need it. It is a fact that if we continue to use traditional medical schools built around the traditional hospital structure it is likely that we will worsen the situation because the kind of training people will receive will encourage them to go into hospital practice or into specialties, and we will continue to get this smaller number of people wanting to go into primary care, wanting to practise in the community. If the community health centre program- the primary care program- is to mean anything, in the end it has to mean more people in practice giving their services. We will find this happening only if we have people trained for it.

What is offering in this Bill is an opportunity for a new kind of medical school in a different kind of situation and operating in a different way. This is what makes the Government’s program for Newcastle so exciting. What the Government has provided in this Bill is just the nucleus to get the program off the ground- the initial establishment costs to plan the school and a little money to get the administrative set up going. Newcastle is an industrial city with all the problems that exist in the large cities of Australia. Honourable senators may recall Senator Chaney ‘s maiden speech last week in which he drew attention to the fact that only in a city with all the problems can you start looking for the solution to Australia’s health problems. He was talking about the need for Canberra to get a bit of industry so that it knows what is going on throughout Australia.

Newcastle has all the problems. It has migrants, it has all levels of wealth, and it has all the kinds of problems we see in Australian society. It is the ideal place for a medical school. I want to make a plea that when this medical school is brought into being it is more than just the conventional type of medical school built around a big hospital, the old kind of honorary system and the study of exotic diseases. I hope the Government will stay with its proposal that this medical school will operate out in the community. The doctors who will come out of this school will help, but there will not be that many of them. If the Labor Government is to proceed with medical education it will need more medical schools. It will need to extend this program. I hope the funds will flow to get the school into operation and after that I hope another medical school is set up.

I suggest that there is another great industrial city, Wollongong, which is not only ideally suited for a school of its own but which has produced a plan for a radical new kind of medical school which will provide the kind of primary care we need. The Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) will know that Dr John Stevens, a leading English general practitioner, has put in a comprehensive plan of medical education for the Wollongong situation and it could be put into action any time we wanted to do so.

I would like to say that I would not regard Canberra as a suitable place for the establishment of an undergraduate medical school. It is a homogeneous middle class society. Canberra does not have the problems that students in Newcastle will be exposed to. The Government has made the right decision in going to Newcastle. It would be making the wrong decision if it decided to put an undergraduate medical school in Canberra. I would like to emphasise that: Canberra may be fine for postgraduate medical institutes, for academic institutes, but let us not get ourselves into the situation where this or any other government is talked into putting an undergraduate medical school here. I wish the Newcastle proposal God speed. I wish Professor David Maddison, who has already been appointed Dean, the best of luck. I hope that these gentlemen bring in something more than a conventional medical school structure. I hope that they fulfil our aim of producing doctors for primary care. I hope that this is only the first of many similar important projects.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– in reply- The Government appreciates the speedy passage which has been given by the Opposition to these 2 noteworthy pieces of legislation which were introduced by the Government as part of its general overall education program. The first Bill is the States Grants (Universities) Bill 1974 and the second is the Universities Commission Bill 1974. I shall be very brief in reply to the points which have been made by Senator Rae and Senator Baume. I reiterate that I appreciate the expedition which has been given to the passage of the legislation. Senator Rae referred to the change in the definition of university which is set out in the Universities Commission Bill. I understand that this matter was the subject of discussion in the debate which took place in the House of Representatives. In reply to the debate my colleague the Minister for Education (Mr Beazley) set out at reasonable length reasons why the change was taking place.

Senator Rae:

– Perhaps the Minister might like to refer to the answer which was given in the debate in the same way in which I referred to the matter which was raised there.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. I am told that it is proposed that the definition of university should be amended in order to restrict the meaning of the word to institutions which are established by Commonwealth and State statutes. That is the point to which Senator Rae alluded. The Universities Commission is concerned that some self-styled universities which in fact are private coaching or teaching organisations may approach the Commission for financial assistance. The amendment will make it clear that the Commission will not make recommendations in respect of such institutions. Apparently, the reason for the change is that in the past the Department had some problems with a private university which was issuing private degrees, as it were, by post or as a result of correspondence. That private university has now folded up. None of the established universities will recognise that institution or the alleged degrees which it conferred, nor will the Australian Public Service recognise the degrees as being a tertiary qualification. It is for that reason that this amendment is being made to that definition. I greatly appreciate the points which Senator Baume has made in relation to Newcastle and Wollongong. Like him, being a senator from New South Wales, I very much appreciate the points which he has made in relation to those very large industrial cities. They are quite complex in nature. They have a great variance of problems not only geographically but also ethnically.

From a personal point of view I echo his expression of sentiment so far as the establishment of a medical school in Newcastle is concerned and also with respect to the proposal to establish another school in Wollongong. I can tell the honourable senator that there is provision of funds for a medical school at Newcastle. If the honourable senator looks at the Schedule to the States Grants (Universities) Bill he will see an amount of about $160,000 is provided for the planning of a medical school for the University of Newcastle. I understand that it is envisaged that the medical school, when established, will be able to take its first students in 1977. So far as Wollongong is concerned, Senator Baume alluded to the very Homeric work being put in by Dr John Stevens who is a leading general practitioner. I am aware of that work. I also tell the honourable senator that the Sax Committee, namely the National Hospitals and Health Services Commission, is now doing a study on the question of putting a medical school into Wollongong. I am sure that that will give the honourable senator great heart. I appreciate the expedition with which the Opposition has allowed the Government to handle the passage of this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1656

UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 2 October (vide page 1587), on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1656

NITROGENOUS FERTILISERS SUBSIDY BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 October (vide page 1497), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– The Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Bill before the Senate seeks to extend the Nitrogenous Fertilisers Subsidy Act 1966-1973 for a period of 12 months to 31 December 1975 pending an inquiry and report on the subsidy by the Industries Assistance Commission. I shall make a few points in regard to this Bill. First of all, I note that under the Industries Assistance Commission Act section 23 states:

  1. 1 ) The Minister may refer to the Commission for inquiry and report any matter relating to the giving, continuance or withdrawal of assistance to an industry____ by the Australian Government, and may, when so referring a matter, specify a period within which the Commission is to report on that matter.

Under this legislation the Government has done this. It has made a referral and it has asked the Commission to report on the reference by September 1975, after which the Government will decide on assistance beyond 3 1 December 1975. I congratulate the Government on the way it has approached this matter in this piece of legislation. I regret very much that the Government did not see fit to proceed along the lines set out in the legislation in respect of the superphosphate bounty. Honourable senators will recall that the superphosphate bounty has been in operation for some years and that the Government made an announcement that it would decide to introduce no further legislation in that field when the bounty concluded on 3 1 December 1974.

Senator Devitt:

– Unless a case can be made out, as in Western Australia.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-Yes. This is a very subtle way of getting around it. The honourable senator may have noted when I quoted section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act that where a bounty has been in force for 2 years or more and the Government wants to withdraw it or increase it, it should refer it to the Commission. However, in some subtle legislative manner this Government saw fit just to let it lapse and I object to that. Now it is in trouble and is saying that if an industry can put up a case the Government will listen to it. I am congratulating the Minister on this legislation because there would be a period between the lapsing of the legislation and the time that the Industries Assistance Commission made its report when there would be no superphosphate bounty at all; under this legislation there is no such gap. The Government has seen fit to increase the bounty for a further period of 12 months while waiting for the report to be lodged. The report has to be completed by September 1 975 so that the Government will have time to make a decision before the extra year runs out.

Under this legislation from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974 the Government paid out about $13,572,100 bounty on 595,049 tonnes of superphosphate. Clearly a very good sum of money is involved in the industry and this is important particularly when one looks at the forecast by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that net income from rural sources will be down by 50 per cent this year. This estimate is based on a substantial drop in the value of rural production plus a 20 per cent increase in costs. The bounty of about $13m does go somewhere towards offsetting that increase and the industry would be very much worse off without it. According to the forecast of the Bureau the increased cost is estimated to be just below $500m of which wages are estimated to take up about $70m. The fertiliser cost is estimated to account for about $82m. While congratulating the Government on making this amount of money available there is a distinct difference between the $13m that the Government is providing and the increase of $82m that the industry is facing this year. Having made those points I say that the Opposition has no objection to this Bill and we are very glad that the Government has seen fit to extend the bounty for a further 12 months.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Third Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I move:

I thank the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate (Senator Drake-Brockman) for his congratulations to the Government and myself on this measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 1657

QUESTION

BUDGET 1974-75

Debate resumed from 2 October (vide page 1633), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Expenditure-

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1 975

Particulars of Proposed Provision for certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1 975

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1 975

Civil Works Program 1974-75

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1 974

Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1974-75

Urban and Regional Development 1974-75

Australia’s External Aid 1974-75

National Income and Expenditure 1973-74

National Accounting Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure of Australian Government Authorities

Income Tax Statistics

Taxation Review Committee, Preliminary Report 1 June 1974

Upon which Senator Withers has moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘ that ‘ and insert ‘The Senate is of the opinion that the Budget fails to tackle Australia ‘s economic crisis, in that:

Unemployment is permitted to grow and the prospect for school leavers is prejudiced;

Inflation is accelerated;

Existing poverty is ignored and new poverty is created;

Personal income tax is increased 45 per cent;

Living standards will be lowered;

Private enterprise is stifled;

Government power is further centralised;

Individual incentive and thrift is penalised;

A double tax is levied on estates.

And because the Government:

Has made the Budget a socialist vehicle to intensify the attack on the States and break down the free enterprise system.

Believes the absurdity that the Government can spend without people paying or can build without people producing.

Has preached private restraint but has threatened its achievement by its own Government extravagance.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– It was not my express desire to speak on the Budget. I think the Budget speaks for itself; that is generally accepted. It is the second Budget of a government that has been reaffirmed by a second approach to the people and for that reason I did not think there was much need to justify its provisions. However, in a Budget debate one is entitled to raise relevant and irrelevant matters and using this right last night Senator Georges spoke about turtle farming. I think his speech calls for a reply from me, if for no other reason than to put the record straight. Many matters raised last evening were not truly presented. Most of Senator George’s remarks last night were directed towards attributing blame and as the responsible Minister it would be an act of cowardice on my part to allow to go unchallenged the belief that there is a vendetta against the Secretary of my Department and Senator Georges, because the things about which Senator Georges complained resulted from my directions.

Honourable senators will appreciate that turtle farming always has been and always will be a source of controversy and problems. Many unfair criticisms have been made in the Senate of the Department’s handling of the turtle project. Since the Commonwealth acquired power over Aborigines in 1967 it has been the desire to find them useful employment wherever possible. In those regions to which industry cannot be attracted it has been difficult to find employment for Aborigines. Therefore it is necessary to sponsor unusual projects to create employment. Today about 110 Torres Strait islanders are receiving award wages as turtle farmers. If it is at all possible to maintain the project I think every effort should be made to do so.

The project first came to the notice of the Government through the section dealing with applied ecology at the Australian National University. It was conducting research into the ecology of the area where the turtle project was established. I do not know for how long this section had been operating, but in 1970 it asked the Department of Aboriginal Affairs whether it would fund the project to research the question as to whether it was possible to develop crocodile and turtle farming. The project was funded by the Department. It was run under the directorship of Dr Bustard, but in 1971 Dr Bustard ceased to be employed by the university as the university believed that the project had reached the stage where it was no longer a research project but a viable project which could be used in the commercial field.

In order to carry on the research the Department of Aboriginal Affairs employed Dr Bustard by funding the money through the university. As Senator Georges pointed out on a previous occasion, there was insufficient accountability of how the funds were used. I think that the Auditor-General’s report has illustrated that the Department relied on the normal auditing practice of the university, which was found to be deficient, and the university relied on the government audit which did not have jurisdiction in this sphere. No audit of the funds seems to have been done. Attention was drawn to this aspect only when the Auditor-General referred to the expenditure on the basis not of whether there had been any misappropriation of funds but whether there had been expenditure on activities that had association with turtle farming. My Department referred to this matter in its latest report. It has appointed someone to inquire into all the previous funding by the Department of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and whether the funding was used on projects or activities associated with turtle farming. This inquiry is still continuing and we hope eventually to get a clear report on expenditure up to that time.

As this project ceased to be a research project and had to be developed into a viable project, a company was formed. It was registered, I believe, on 6 March 1973. It was called Applied Ecology Pty Ltd. I think that one can gather from conversations and in other ways that the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was not happy with the way expenditure on this project had been incurred in the past. I think that Senator Georges in October of last year disclosed some of the concern of the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The Minister thought that possibly he could pull up this thing or get it in proper order so that it would operate on a better funding basis. In June 1 973 he appointed Senator Georges, Mr Neill, an accountant, and Mr Thorburn to the board of Applied Ecology. On the night of the very day on which I was appointed as the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs we heard from Senator Georges of all the past breaches by Applied Ecology and of the misuse of funds. As I have said, this matter is now the subject of checking and review.

One notes that the formation of the idea of turtle farming and the misuse of funds occurred during the time of the previous Government. When the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs took over that portfolio in 1972 he acted as promptly as it was possible to act in order to bring this thing into line so that there could be some accountability. He appointed to the board of the company which had been formed men in whom he had some confidence and trust. He did this in the belief that there would be some better control over the application of these funds. As I have stated, I was not satisfied- I am not even satisfied now- that we can properly farm turtles. I know nothing at all about turtles. I do not know whether one can eat their flesh; whether or not their steak is edible. I have always followed the practice that when one is administering a proposal about which one knows nothing one must rely heavily upon the experts on the particular subject. If one gets into difficulty with the law one goes to a lawyer. If one gets into difficulty with one ‘s health, one goes to a doctor. In various fields one goes to the tradesmen who operate in those fields.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), concerned with the reports about and the activities of turtle farming, directed the Special Minister of State to commission an inquiry to be constituted by those who were considered to be experts on the question. He appointed to the inquiry Professor Carr and Professor Main who were recognised as world authorities on the question of turtle farming. One of them came from the United States of America. He also appointed Mr Smart, an accountant from Victoria, who could contribute to the inquiry insofar as he could on the question as to whether the project was a commercial proposition that should be proceeded with. When we received the Carr and Main report, briefly it indicated that we were going about something which no one knew anything about and that we could be doing irreparable damage to the ecology in the area. Their report stated that while we were collecting eggs from the wilds, hatching them and rearing turtles it was not known whether we were not depriving the wilds by releasing some 10 per cent of them back to the sea. It also pointed out that no one had ever tagged turtles in order to ascertain whether farmed turtles ever survived in the sea and that no one knew whether cottage farmed turtles were detrimental to sea life. It was shown that because they were confined in a small area the number of turtles that we had had many diseases, including worms.

There was also the fact that we were feeding turtles on unnatural food and that by the time they reached a marketable size they would be consuming some 7 tons of sardines a day. It was also pointed out that the sardines had to be caught, minced and fed to the turtles, and that the water in the pens in which the turtles were kept had to be changed twice a day. This was done by a system of bucketing from the sea to the pens. When the experts asked the locals: ‘How do you know you are not going to run out of fish?’, the answer was: ‘We will not do that because there are plenty of fish here’. But no one studied the life cycle of fish, how quickly they reproduced or what damage we might do with the number of fish that were necessary to feed the number of turtles in captivity. Also, no one had explored the question as to whether there was a market for turtles, if we could grow turtles. It was known that there was only one overseas company which operated in this area.

Carr and Main said to themselves: ‘We must process this; we must research it. Leave it as it is, release tagged turtles and see whether it is possible to breed. ‘ In regard to the feeding of turtles, it is not the natural dietary habit of turtles to live on fish for the whole of their lives. It is known that after a major portion of their lives turtles eat seaweed. They live by a form of agriculture, on seaweed. We found that unless we could develop an area where we could grow natural food on which to feed the turtles we simply could not go on in the way in which we had been operating. Therefore it was proposed that while we carried out this research we should develop a sea crawl. It was proposed to fence off approximately a mile of beach, and carry out research into the growing of seaweed which was edible by turtles and use cottage farming only to raise turtles to a weight of about 15 lb. I believe that this takes 1 lA years. Having reached that stage it was proposed to release them to the crawl.

Other questions involved were the conservation and preservation of turtles. There is world wide reluctance to take turtles for fear of denuding the oceans of them. Therefore we would find a reaction in the market if we tried to sell turtle flesh which originated from wild turtles. If we were to succeed in the market place we had to produce our own eggs and breed our own turtles. Therefore we had to establish a crawl of approximately a mile in the hope that the turtles would come up onto our beach. We could then keep them in captivity and reproduce more turtles. That was the proposal. As I say, it was my intention to put it into operation. The moment we depart from the Carr and Main report we are placed in the position of relying on people who are not experts in the matter. Things may go wrong whomever we rely on, but at least we took the best advice that was given to us.

The Carr and Main report said that Applied Ecology was constituted wrongly. It said that the Board should comprise 3 scientists, 2 businessmen and one representative from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Honourable senators may remember that on the receipt of the report I announced my intention to stick to the recommendations of the report. There was no place on the Board at that time for Senator Georges, Mr Neill or Mr Thorburn, because they did not fit into any of the categories of personnel that it was recommended we appoint to the Board. I took the proposal contained in the report along to the sub-committee of Caucus and subsequently to Cabinet. The sub-committee of Caucus was persuaded that, with the resignation from the Board of Mr Thorburn, there would be sufficient vacancies on the Board to enable us to appoint personnel as recommended by the Carr, Main and Smart report. The sub-committee of Caucus was convinced also that Senator Georges and Mr Neill had played a part in the reorganisation of the turtle farming project and pulled its financial position somewhat into line, and that there was a place on the Board for both of these people. In the period after the presentation of the Carr and Main report, but before taking it to Cabinet, I was looking for personnel for the Board. I went to Melbourne and approached Mr Smart who had some say in the preparation of the report. I naturally thought that he would be keen to ensure the success of his proposals. I approached him personally and asked him whether he would be chairman of the Board. So the approach made to Mr Smart to be chairman of the Board, which would have put Senator Georges off the Board, was made by me and not by Mr Dexter

Senator Georges:

– It was strongly supported by Mr Dexter, and every action that he took in connection with any decision made was directed to my removal and to my discredit.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-When I can get a word in, I will continue. The approach made to Mr Smart was made by me, and I am giving my reasons for approaching him. At the meeting of the Caucus sub-committee I was persuaded that there was a place on the Board for Senator Georges, and at that committee meeting Senator Georges assured me that when the Board was reconstituted he would resign as chairman of the Board and allow the position to be recontested. I then took that proposal for the reconstruction of the Board to Cabinet. My proposal was that the Board be comprised of 3 scientists, 2 businessmen and one representative from my Department. Included would be Senator Georges, Mr Neill and a nominee of the Queensland Government whom we hoped to get, and whom we thought to be essential. The proposal was finally adopted by Cabinet, and this became the composition of the new Board, with the exception of the nominee from Queensland. The Queensland Government would not release that particular individual for the purpose of taking a position on the Board. One other person failed to nominate. The Board has been operating and it has sent me its minutes on every occasion.

One item which has appeared in the minutes of Applied Ecology has given rise to some concern. It has arisen as a result of action taken following a letter which may have been written by the Department as a result of a minute from me to the Department asking whether the Board was functioning in the correct manner. This brings me to the 2 questions to which Senator Georges takes exception. The Board had a system of holding meetings on the islands, and this system was justified last evening as being in an endeavour to involve the Aborigines or the Torres Strait Islanders in the project. Of course, the Carr and Main report recommended that, while Applied Ecology should assist by research in the raising of the turtles to 1 5 lb, which takes 1 lh years, cooperatives consisting of Torres Strait Islanders should be established on each island for the purpose of raising the turtles in the crawl and getting them to marketable size. It was recommended that another marketing organisation should be established to comprise a representative from each of the Torres Strait Island co-operatives. This was how the Torres Strait Islanders were to be involved. But Applied Ecology, which is another research organisation, held meetings with the Torres Strait Islanders, and as a result of those meetings the Islanders became ambitious. They lost sight of the fact that any decision they made would depend on finance being made available from my Department. However, the aspirations of the Islanders built up as a result of meetings at which we were not in attendance. After receiving the minutes of these meetings, I wrote to my secretary on 27 May 1974 as follows:

I am very concerned at receiving the minutes of the first meeting of Applied Ecology and Torres Strait Islanders, and wondered how this formation conflicted with the Smart report on forming separate organisations on the Island for the cottage farming of turtles up to 1 5 lb weight.

I am also concerned that the future proposals of Applied Ecology include boat building and the raising of poultry and pigs. I do not think such activities were ever envisaged when the company was formed.

The minutes also mention that two more turtle farmers be placed on the payroll, which seems an extension of the farming activities and contrary to the Carr-Main report.

I would seek an opinion from you on the decisions contained in these minutes.

That minute indicates my opposition to what has been happening, and I have always tried to restrict Applied Ecology to being a research organisation.

Senator Georges:

– Read the letter I sent in reply.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The one the honourable senator tabled last week?

Senator Georges:

– No, the one I sent in reply to that one you have just read.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator did not receive this letter. It was a letter from me to the Secretary of my Department. This is where the conflict lies. It is not true to say that the expenditure on Applied Ecology Pty Ltd was reduced to $27,000. It was reducd to that amount for one month. The balance sheet shows a total expenditure last year of approximately $541,000. If that expenditure were to be averaged out over the 12 -months period, it would be found that it was costing an average of $45,000 a month to run Applied Ecology. At no time during the year did we spend more than $250,000 funded to the university. This year, we have budgeted for an expenditure of $1,1 19,000. Over $lm will be spent on the project this year. I am not complaining about the cost if it can be shown that this is a viable proposition and if it can be demonstrated that we are doing no harm. A research body is not a profitable organisation. We must be prepared to pay for it. If it can give employment to islanders who would otherwise be doing nothing and be the recipients of unemployment relief, then it has served a purpose.

The next point I wish to make is that the whole question of the complaints about meetings being held in the Torres Strait Islands originated from me. Whatever Mr Dexter conveyed to others or with whatever enthusiasm he accepted the complaints, I do not know. But what was happening was getting away from what should be done in the opinion of the experts that I was relying upon so much to protect me at the time in case things went wrong with this organisation. Then we received further correspondence asking that Miss Margaret Valadian be appointed to the vacancy on the board of Applied Ecology. It was stated that her appointment was wanted for the September meeting- why, I do not know. Having met, spoken to and had much correspondence from Miss Margaret Valadian, I can say that she is possibly the best educated Aboriginal in Australia at the present time. She holds university degrees from universities in both Australia and the United States of America. Her knowledge, capability and personality are such that there is always a job in my Department for Margaret Valadian or a person of her capabilities. But I do not think she knows anything about turtle farms.

Senator Georges:

– She is a social scientist.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes. She knows nothing about turtle farming. It is beyond my comprehension why we should put her on the board of Applied Ecology, which is dealing with turtle farming, just because she is a social scientist. It would be a different question if I were asked should we have another scientist who was an engineer, an expert in marine biology or some other profession adaptable to turtle farming. But just to bring someone in because she is an Aboriginal and has a good education is not right. In a letter dated 20 September 1974 I outlined my reasons for rejection of the appointment to Mr Cooper, the Secretary of the Board of Applied Ecology, as politely as I could. I stated:

I have considered the recommendation of the Board of Directors about further appointments to the Board, conveyed in your letter of 20 August, which my Ministerial Officer acknowledged on 22 August.

I am unable to agree to the appointment of Miss Valadian to the Board, since the only available vacancy at this stage is for a scientist. The Government’s decision on the composition of the Board was that it should comprise the six persons recommended by Mr Smart in his report, namely three scientists, two businessmen and one person nominated by the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, plus Senator Georges, Mr Neill -

The letter goes on to mention the individual in Queensland. It further states:

In regard to the six persons recommended by Mr Smart, there are already on the Board two scientists (Professor Trollope and Dr Radway Allen), two businessmen (Messrs Furzor and Smart) and an Aboriginal Officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Mr J. McGinness).

The letter goes on to mention the fact that the Queensland position was not filled and states.

  1. . you will be aware that the Queensland authorities refused to let him accept the position; the position is not open for filling except by a comparable person on whom I can reach agreement with the Queensland authorities.

We are still hoping to fill that position. The letter continues:

Therefore, as I say, there is at this stage a vacancy on the Board for only one scientist. I await a recommendation from the Board in due course for the filling of this position. However, I wish to emphasise that the absence of this third scientist from the Board must not be allowed to hold up other developments or progress by the company; I regard the existing Board as complete for all practical purposes. 1 note the Board’s recommendation that I invite Professor Main to be a consultant to the company. I am so inviting him, and will advise you of the outcome.

There is the whole clear position. We have reached the stage now at which we have a board carrying on as a scientific body. We hope to restrict its activity to scientific research. If it is possible, we will develop the other companies that we are financing and not Applied Ecology. But we did not have a Board composed of scientists to see whether we should start a brick making plant, as was suggested in one of the committees or whether pigs or something else should be raised in the Torres Strait Islands. We hope to have Torres Strait islanders involved in this development work in rearing turtles from the infancy stage to the marketable stage. So much doubt and opposition have been expressed in regard to this proposal from time to time that I could wipe my hands of the lot of it tomorrow and be finished with turtle farming. Then, we would not be subjected to the ridicule that we are subjected to today. But 1 10 farmers are getting a living out of it. There are 1 10 farmers who could be supplying a commodity to a world market if we could supply it at the current rate.

The highlight of this whole matter- I think it showed the opposition to it- was when I was waited on by 3 Island representatives from the eastern islands. They came to me in Brisbane asking me to finance a co-operative between the 3 eastern Torres Strait islands as they were sick of Applied Ecology and wanted to develop their own turtle farming.

Senator Georges:

– I would like to check out that statement with the minutes and the statement made by the chairman of the eastern islands group which appears in the minutes which were sent to you.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I would say to the honourable senator who was interjecting: Ask George Moy, who led the delegation, about this matter. He was accompanied by 2 others. I was told that their wives and children were still bucketing water on a chain gang to fill tanks. They told me that they were still trying to keep the sun off the turtles with palm leaves. They said that if they did not keep the sun off them the turtles died. This is the state in which we are trying to raise turtles. It cannot go on. We have reached the stage where we must either scrap the project or set up the organisation as recommended by the experts who considered that question. That is my only defence. Senator Georges wants to get out of being chairman of the board. He was not doing any harm. I think at one time he did a good job.

Senator Withers:

– He was not doing much good, either.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He was not doing any harm. But it is not a job for a politician; it is a job for a scientist. Senator Georges has now decided to blame and to persecute the Secretary of the Department who possibly has many defects and much dislike for Senator Georges. But the decision made in regard to Margaret Valadian was made against the recommendation of the Head of my Department because the Carr and Main report was my bible and will continue to be my bible. That is the case that I put to the farmers. I think that the efforts we are making need the cooperation not only of those on this side of the House but also of everyone who is interested in the welfare of Torres Strait Islanders if we are to get something into operation so they can be usefully employed.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-There are one or two matters upon -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie)- Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator GEORGES:

– I want to give notice -

Senator Milliner:

– I rise to order.

Senator Marriott:

– Could you not adjourn to Caucus?

Senator Milliner:

– That is about the height of your intelligence. Mr Acting Deputy President, I listened to Senator Georges last night and the Minister today. I did not want to interrupt Senator Georges last night and 1 felt I should not interrupt the Minister today. This matter is now before a committee of the Parliament- the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts. It has been referred to the Committee, I believe, by the Auditor-General. Irrespective of who referred it, it is common sense that a matter of this nature should not be debated while it is before a Committee of the Parliament. I am sorry that I did not give you notice that I was going to raise this matter but I thought that the Minister would continue till lunch dme and that we would then adjourn. I apologise to you for not making you aware of my intention. I had no desire to put you in an invidious position. It is my firm belief that what I have outlined is the position.

Senator Georges:

– Speaking to the point of order, I accept what Senator Milliner has said. If I had been able to conclude my statement I would have indicated that I believe that I have been misrepresented and at a later stage I would take the matter up. But there is some substance in what Senator Milliner has said.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– A point of order has been raised and I feel that the Senate must not get itself in a bind on this. Senator Georges claims that he has been misrepresented and he is entitled to seek your leave, Mr Acting Deputy President, to make a statement on the ground that he has been misrepresented. I do not think any honourable senator can be deprived of the right to defend his honour in accordance with the forms of the Senate. The Minister has resumed his seat and if Senator Georges wants to deal with this matter he should deal with it straight away or seek another opportunity to make a statement by leave. That is my view on that matter. The second point I wish to refer to is that raised by Senator Milliner. I suggest that there is no validity in it. The Senate is the master of its own business and it is entitled to discuss what it wants to discuss.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- With regard to the point of order raised by Senator Milliner, 2 honourable senators at least have spoken and have been allowed to speak on this matter. I do not think the Senate can do anything about that now. Senator Georges wishes to make a statement or to claim that he has been misrepresented. Standing order 410 states:

A Senator who has spoken to a Question may again be heard, to explain himself in regard to some material part of his speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter, or interrupt any Senator in possession of the Chair, and no debatable matter shall bc brought forward or debate arise upon such explanation.

Subject to these conditions I rule that Senator Georges must confine himself to an explanation of where he claims he has been misrepresented. I call Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:

-The point I was making was that I had been misrepresented. I wanted to make that point at this stage and to indicate that I would take up the matter at the earliest opportunity. But I felt that I ought to make that statement at this point.

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– It has been an interesting interlude. We have been discussing the Budget and now we have had 2 long discourses on turtles. Let us get back to affairs of State. Senator Cavanagh, in his only reference to the Budget, said that it speaks for itself. We certainly agree with that. Not only does it speak for itself but also it has been spoken about by every section of the community. It has achieved a number of firsts. No Budget has been more soundly condemned by every section of the community. I admit that no Budget is popular and that no Budget receives universal applause, but this Budget has been universally condemned.

Even Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Labor Party and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in his dual capacity, had some very serious reservations about it. The economists in this imprecise field were once pretty well unanimous in condemning the Budget on a number of grounds.

No Budget has been subject to so many leaks. We had the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns), who is now the acting Prime Minister, on television night after night and at Press conferences day after day telling us what he thought should be in the Budget. And most of it was. Others wanted to get into the act too. So we were bombarded day after day by Ministers, members, senators and others with all the things which they thought should be in the Budget.

So the Budget was no surprise. Indeed it was remarkably accurate and one wonders why anybody bothered to present it. They could have put all the suggestions together and we could have had the lot. No Budget has so recklessly ignored the twin evils of inflation and unemployment.

They hardly received a mention in the Budget Speech. No Treasurer was so ignored. Mr Crean, I think, is an efficient and sincere man but no one would have believed that he was the Treasurer responsible for the financial and economic policies of the Government. He was referred to as the puppet Treasurer and the de facto Treasurer but he certainly at no stage was the Treasurer except for the brief moment of glory or otherwise when he was allowed to read the Budget Speech in accordance, I suppose, with tradition and precedent. I remember seeing a cartoon in one of the newspapers which showed Mr Crean going up to Dr J. F. Cairns saying: ‘Jim, I can’t read that. What does it mean?’ That is indicative of the sort of reaction outside to the part played by the Treasurer in the preparation of the Budget Speech.

Of all the firsts, no Budget has been so subject to change forced on a government by a Caucus immediately after presentation. We know that Caucus obviously regarded at least some measures as being, to put it mildly, ill conceived. One of those, of course, was the tax on unearned income. That battle, so we read in the Press today, is still continuing and I will say something about that in a moment. But there is no question about one thing: This Budget was designed unashamedly to bribe the unions into exercising restraint.

Senator Wheeldon:

– What is wrong with that?

Senator SIM:

– Is bribing part of a government’s activities?

Senator Baume:

– Did Senator Wheeldon mean it?

Senator SIM:

- Senator Wheeldon has a great sense of humour and I take the interjection as being another indication of that sense of humour. But the Government sought by bribery the cooperation of the unions.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator SIM:

- Mr Deputy President, prior to the suspension of the sitting I was saying that the Budget was unashamedly an attempt to bribe the unions to co-operate with the Government. It is interesting that the Government seeks the cooperation of the unions whereas it confronts every other section of the community. But it does not appear that the co-operation is forthcoming because we understand that the unions have provided the Government with a list of demands which must be met before they are willing to cooperate in the area of wage restraint. So even in this area the Budget has failed. The worst feature is that it is a savage attack on the thrifty and those least able to bear the burden, and it destroys initiative and enterprise. It is really an ideological document with the sole objective of furthering the socialist policies of the Government, without any regard for the economic and social consequences.

One of the most frightening aspects of the Budget is the complete failure even to attempt to deal with inflation. This issue was largely ignored and was hardly mentioned in the Budget except for the Treasurer (Mr Crean) or whoever was responsible for the Budget throwing up his or their hands in horror and saying that there will be an inflation rate of 22.5 per cent in the coming year. By any standard this rate is an extremely high one. No one that I know believes that the rate of inflation will not greatly exceed 22.5 per cent. The figure of 30 per cent is often spoken of. This makes nonsense of the so-called tax concessions that the Government is providing for those on lower incomes. The tables which have been produced show that by the end of this year and early next year they will be paying a far greater percentage of their incomes in tax than they are paying at the moment because of the rise in wages to meet inflation. While the Government has been urging on other sections of the community the need for restraint, it is not prepared to show any restraint itself. The continued growth in Government expenditure is worrying. It is 35 per cent. It is interesting that when the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) met the State Premiers in June, he said:

There is however a need for all of us not to try to push ahead so fast that the economy is unable to meet our demands. As part of the battle to contain inflation we will be following a policy of restraint in our own spending.

Some dramatic changes took place in the thinking of the Prime Minister between June and September because if one regards an increase of 35 per cent in Government expenditure as exercising restraint, one must wonder at the type of thinking that goes on in the minds of the Prime Minister and members of his Government.

The Treasurer delivered his so-called miniBudget in July. Honourable senators will remember what a flop that was because right up to the last second we did not know whether he would be allowed by Caucus to deliver it. How emasculated it was. But he did say this: . . the Government acknowledges that public expenditure must also be restrained … the Government accepts that its plans must be realised with a timing consistent with the needs of sound economic management.

They are very brave words, and we would agree with them. The Treasurer continued:

Those matters will be examined more fully in the context of the 1974-75 Budget . . . The expenditure restraints we have required of the States will be fully matched by our own.

What hollow words. I wonder which State Premier or Treasurer, whether in a Labor or a LiberalCountry Party Government, would agree that the Commonwealth is exercising any restraint. But the Commonwealth is demanding restraint from the States. This is part of the complete irresponsibility of this Government.

One of the most notable phrases used by the Treasurer was that the Government expenditure would take up the slack in the private sector. I do not know what is meant by that, but he said words to that effect. This Government has allowed the private sector to languish. The private sector is the productive sector of the community and provides our wealth. I am at a complete loss to understand where the resources to fuel Government expenditure will come from if the Government is to take up the slack in the private sector. One would have thought that the only correct policy would have been to allow the private sector to expand by, if necessary, a restriction in the growth of the public sector. It is becoming a sick joke but both Dr Cairns, as Acting Prime Minister, and Mr Crean, as Treasurer, are appealing for confidence in the private sector when every decision and act of this Government, if not deliberately aimed at destroying confidence in the private sector, has certainly had that effect. The private sector is witnessing the collapse of organisations and cannot help but feel fearful for the future. This is a symptom which should be worrying to the Government. How can there be confidence when the Government seems to be deliberately trying to increase Government expenditure at the expense of increasing the opportunities for the private sector to expand?

There are the extraordinary antics of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) which, if they were not so serious, would read more like a comedy than anything else. He has deliberately or incompetently- I do not know whether he is deliberate or incompetent- destroyed confidence and the growth of our great mineral industries. No one knows what his policy is, and the Prime Minister in his address to the United Nations made a mockery of Mr Connor’s policies. It is time that the Prime Minister, as I think Mr Peacock said earlier, put up or shut up. When he returns to Australia he ought to do something about it to ensure that Mr Connor at last produces a minerals policy that will allow for the development and sale of the great mineral resources of Australia. There is no confidence today in our mining industries. Even the Labor Government of Western Australia, when it was in office, was highly critical of the Federal Government’s policies in relation to the development of our mineral resources.

We have heard Dr Cairns, followed by Mr Hawke, saying: ‘Look, you know, really there is nothing wrong with what we are doing. It is the system that is to blame’. They are trying to excuse their own folly, irresponsibility and incompetence by blaming something called ‘the system’. I think that one must be excused if one has a suspicion that the policies of the Government are deliberately devised to destroy the system. It is interesting that more and more people in the community are beginning to suspect that. I suggest it is an act of cowardice for the Government to blame something abstract called the system ‘ for the economic and financial mess that we are in today.

As the Prime Minister callously and cynically betrayed the Baltic people in repudiation of an undertaking that he gave on the eve of the general election on 17 May, so he has equally callously and cynically betrayed the Australian people by his repudiation of promises and undertakings that he gave during the election campaign. We recall that it took us some time to get the Prime Minister to admit that there was an inflationary problem in Australia. At last he admitted it. During the election campaign in May he told the Australian people that inflation had been reduced and was no longer a problem.

The cry was: ‘Only Whitlam has reduced inflation by one-third ‘. Inflation was running at a rate of about 13 per cent during the May election campaign. Today it is running at about 20 to 22 per cent. That is a betrayal of the Australian people. The Prime Minister promised full employment. The Prime Minister said that in Australia alone unemployment and inflation did not march side by side. We know the history of ever-growing unemployment. I believe new unemployment figures will be released very shortly. If the reports are correct those figures will show a dramatic and frightening increase in unemployment in Australia.

I turn now to some of the measures in the Budget. The first one to which I wish to refer and to which the Opposition takes exception- indeed the Labor Caucus also took exception to it- is the proposed tax on unearned income. We believe that this proposal came from one of the bright young boys who surround the Prime Minister. He suddenly had this great idea that we could placate the unions by soaking the rich. The Government, in this Budget, imposed a 10 per cent tax on unearned income. It has had a pretty stormy passage because there was immediately a revolt in the Caucus. I think it was the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Armitage) who I understand is the secretary of the economic and finance committee of Caucus who announced in the other place that this proposal was to be amended. It was not announced by the Treasurer. The poor old Treasurer has been ignored all the time. The Treasurer could not make the announcement. It was made by a back bencher who said that Caucus had decided that this -

Senator Young:

– He is the under-Treasurer now, under Cairns, isn’t he?

Senator SIM:

– Oh, he is the under-Treasurer. I thought he was a puppet but still, a nicer word is under-Treasurer’. We understand that Caucus- if today’s Press reports are correct- discussed the matter again yesterday when some members showed great wisdom in wanting the tax on unearned incomes abolished altogether. That proposal did not receive enough support. We now have a proposal that tax on unearned income should be abolished on incomes up to $5,000 a year. I presume that the Labor Party Caucus believes that anybody earning more than $4,000 is rich and that we should soak them. It is an objectionable and unjust tax -

Senator Poyser:

– You did not read the report correctly.

Senator SIM:

– Which report is it, senator? Is it your report or someone ‘s leak?

Senator Poyser:

– The one that was in the paper.

Senator SIM:

– Which one was that, senator? What is the income level? I will take the Press report as being correct and somebody can correct me if necessary. The Press report indicated that the tax would be abolished for people earning up to $5,000 and there were some concessions up to $5,600.

Senator Poyser:

– Ha! ha!

Senator SIM:

– Well, if it is wrong, I ask the honourable senator to tell me where. It would be very interesting because I do not think it matters whether the amount is $5,000 or $6,000. The new proposal does not remove anomalies, in fact, it increases them. Is the Government arguing that a man on a taxable income of $6,000 is a wealthy man? Is he in any better position than a man with a taxable income of $5,000 or $5,600? In other words, the Government is still going to penalise the smaller man. Honourable senators opposite can frown if they wish. The Government is still penalising the thrifty people who have saved, the widows–

Senator Poyser:

– I am listening.

Senator SIM:

– I am glad the honourable senator can listen. But it is not sufficient for him only to listen. It also takes a little intelligence to let what I am saying go into his head. I am afraid that is where Senator Poyser often fails. The tax on unearned income is penalising the thrifty. It is still penalising the small man for the sole purpose of placating the unions. It is an objectionable tax and it is an unjust tax. Even Dr Cairns is reported to have allegedly said that it was a mistake. I go no further than that. The leaks from Caucus are monumental. Dr Cairns has said that the tax may have been a mistake and could be rescinded in the next Budget. That is interesting. If it was a mistake why is the tax not being rescinded now before it affects many people? 1 am glad to say that the Liberal and Country Party Opposition has announced that when it assumes office very shortly the tax -

Senator Mulvihill:

– When will that be, senator?

Senator SIM:

– It will not be long the way you are going my friend. But until the tax is abolished a lot of small people will suffer from this Government’s action. The whole way in which this matter has been handled by the Government and by the Caucus is typical of the way in which this Government handles nearly every measure. The

Government has created uncertainty in the community. We can only think that the processes of this Government are not only muddled but are rather queer.

The capital gains tax- we do not know how it will be applied- is a tax which, unless it is applied very carefully, could be vicious and could have disastrous financial consequences. It will place a burden on many well meaning people the value of whose assets will suffer because of the high rate of inflation. The Government has shown itself interested only in the urban areas. It is doing this at the expense of rural areas. The Government believes that it can bribe the people in the urban areas to vote for it. The Government does not care a tuppenny damn for the primary producers. I exempt from that statement the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) who I think is putting up a brave fight in the interests of the rural community. But Senator Wriedt is fighting a losing battle.

Nothing illustrates this more than 2 things: Last year the Prime Minister went out and told the primary producers that they had never had it so good. He received a rather savage response to that comment. Today many of our leading primary industries are in serious economic difficulties. In the middle of these difficulties the Government abolished the superphosphate subsidy. The Government has defended that action as being just and sensible. Dr Cairns who does not believe in Cabinet solidarity- that is the last thing in which he would believe- has now said that abolishing the superphosphate subsidy could have been a mistake, too, and perhaps the Government should examine the matter again.

Senator Jessop:

– Did he not say that the Government should create incentives?

Senator SIM:

– Yes. But the Government believes in creating incentives only for those who are involved in government. The Government is not interested in providing incentives for those engaged in primary industry or in private enterprise. The position now is that the Government has abolished the superphosphate subsidy. The Acting Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, has said: Well, we could have made a mistake. We could have handled it better and we could have done something else about it. Perhaps we should look at it again ‘. This again is typical of the muddle of this Government which is creating such uncertainty throughout the community.

In 1 972 the Prime Minister said that the Labor Party was the only government that could unite

Australia. What is the truth? The truth is the contrary because Australia has never been so divided as it is today. It has never been so uncertain as to its future. This uncertainty is felt by all sections of the community. There is today a feeling of despair and a loss of confidence because of the failure of the policies followed by this Government and because of the Government’s failure to give leadership. There is in truth a crisis in leadership in Australia. What do we find at this time of economic and financial difficulty? I do not want to use the word ‘crisis’ in that context. We have a Prime Minister who once again has gone overseas to address the United Nations and to talk to President Ford, desirable though that may be, and then to go up to talk to Mr Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada. Canada also has problems and Mr Trudeau decided not to go to the United Nations although it is only a few hundred miles away. He decided to stay at home and provide leadership at this time of financial and economic–

Senator Mulvihill:

– No. He has a sick wife. That is only part of the story.

Senator SIM:

– Do not let us get into this other sector. Mr Trudeau said he would not go away because he wanted to be on hand at this time of economic and financial crisis. But it is no problem to our Prime Minister to scoot off and leave us in the hands of somebody else. Even that is not the end of the matter because tomorrow the Deputy Prime Minister is scooting off too. He is scooting off to Peking. I know that Chairman Jim and Chairman Mao are great friends but why is the Deputy Prime Minister going there? He is going to open the Australian exhibition or something or other at the Peking fair, a matter of great national importance. So at one and the same time the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are to be absent, at great expense. I do not deny the Australian Prime Minister the right to travel overseas but he has left the country at this time and we are to be left to the tender mercies of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. Well, well, well, the tender mercies of Mr Connor! So the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer are to be absent. I quickly acknowledge the right of the Treasurer to be overseas because he is attending a very important conference. Of those 3 people, only the Treasurer has the right to be leaving this country at this time. This is an extraordinary situation. They are being recreant to the trust and responsibility placed on them in going overseas on matters which, however important they may seem, are not as important as being here to provide the leadership and confidence this country requires at the present time.

Before I finish my remarks, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to refer to one other matter. The Budget again showed how little regard this Government has for the defence forces. It talks about having a mandate. It had a mandate to continue defence expenditure at between 3.2 per cent and 3.5 per cent of the gross national product. That figure was soon down to 2.9 per cent and now it is down to about 2.5 per cent.

Senator Bishop:

– It is not.

Senator SIM:

– What are the figures?

Senator Bishop:

– I gave the figures last night.

Senator SIM:

– I have not heard them. Give me the figure.

Senator Bishop:

– Nearly 3 per cent.

Senator SIM:

-Nearly 3 per cent of the GNP. The GNP has risen tremendously so the figure is well below -

Senator Bishop:

– What was the Opposition going to do? It did not announce any policies.

Senator SIM:

– I tell the honourable senator that we would not have allowed our defence forces to run down to the state they are in today. The Army hardly exists. It has only about 30,000 personnel. There has been the greatest number of officer resignations ever.

Senator Bishop:

– Rubbish!

Senator SIM:

- Senator Bishop can give all the excuses for this. The officers are getting out. One only has to get out and talk to them. They are getting out because they do not believe in their future.

Senator Bishop:

– Quote the latest figures.

Senator SIM:

– The figures for what- the officers? According to the latest figures the Army increased by 63, or something like that, in the last month or so. Australia has no tanks and has ordered 53 for delivery sometime in the distant future. We have no orders for artillery. We have nothing. The Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) has been going overseas and looking around, shopping for something for 1980 or some such date. Where is the Navy today? It cannot even patrol the coastline of Western Australia. Our defence research establishments are being deliberately allowed to run down at this time when the Prime Minister has admitted the dangers confronting the world. A little while ago we had the most optimistic forecast of growing world stability, detente and goodness knows what. Honourable senators on this side challenged the Government and said that the forecasts were unreal. Now the Prime Minister has been forced to admit they are unreal. He has been forced to admit that a serious international situation is developing. Never have our defence forces been in such a parlous state as they are today and with no prospect for any improvement.

I conclude by saying that the Government has failed to provide leadership. It has made no effort to appeal to the community for community help in solving this tremendous problem of inflation. There are no easy solutions; no one suggests that there are. Inflation will not be solved by waving a magic wand. The solution will require hard work. I am glad that at last some Ministers are now placing some stress on increasing productivity because that, of course, is one of the solutions. This will require hard work and far greater co-operation between the Australian Government, the State governments, local authorities and all sections of the Australian community, yet there has been no sign that this Government wants to seek that co-operation. It wishes to seek confrontation with State governments. My colleague Senator Baume says that it is destructive. While this Government is engaging in unrestrained expenditure it is forcing the States to impose savage taxes which are themselves highly inflationary and only adding to the inflationary problems.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Why did the Queensland Parliament give itself a rise? Your Party is in government in Queensland.

Senator SIM:

– The honourable senator wanted to give himself a rise. He should not blame the Queensland Parliament. He would have had a rise.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Look at all the State governments. They are trying to sabotage us.

Senator SIM:

– I shall wait until the honourable senator finishes. If it had not been for honourable senators on this side of the House there would have been a rise for Commonwealth parliamentarians because Government supporters wanted it. Senator Mulvihill should not point the finger at anybody else. I said that there is no easy solution to inflation. This Government unfortunately has abdicated its responsibilities in this respect. It should tell the Australian people in plain terms that it seeks their co-operation, that it will work towards obtaining their cooperation, and that there will be unpalatable policies required. If this Government provides the leadership the people of Australia will respond as they always have responded. This is the challenge this Government faces. It also faces a crisis in leadership and it is about time the Prime Minister started to provide that leadership and stopped waffling at the United Nations. It is time the Australian people were given clear policies for the future and an assurance from the Government that it will exercise the self-restraint required. The sections of the community which provide the wealth should again be given confidence for the future. It is time the Government sought their co-operation. We all require and wish to have a stable Australia.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to support the amendment that is before the Senate with reference to the Budget papers. It is almost in the form of a censure of a Budget which can do little or nothing other than tend to increase the widespread problems that face the Australian economy and Australian society today. Let me draw the attention of the Senate, and indeed of Australians, to a very significant sentence early in that part of the Budget speech called ‘The Budget Setting’, which says:

The relatively subdued conditions in prospect in the private sector provide the first real opportunity we have had to transfer resources to the public sector.

I believe that that sentence has been referred to more than once and I believe it should be considered by all Australians very much more than once. It is indeed a significant statement. It is a statement which suggests that the Government, through the Budget, is concerned with establishing a different type of Australian society. It suggests that by transferring to the public sector we have started to move towards ideological change rather than towards a change in an economic and social situation. In that very sentence there is the suggestion that control in the eyes of this Government is related directly to ownership. That sentence contains the suggestion that the superstate is the ultimate objective of the Government which is in power in Australia today. Further attention to the Budget in matters of taxation and expenditure confirm the sinister suggestions which are made or held within that sentence. Surely these suggestions are confirmed in the words which the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) spoke not so long ago. In answer to a question concerning industrial unrest and the inflationary rate which was so rabid in this country he said that the Government had gone about as far as it could go within the system. I believe that this is a sinister and dangerous statement.

The words ‘within the system’ suggest that there is no solution to be found except by scrapping the system. What is the system? The system is that which has been developed over the entire period of Australia’s history. The system is the evolution of the Australian people. It is a system which has been constantly changing and evolving in the progress of this nation. The answer to the problem which surrounds us today is not in scrapping and overthrowing the Australian system and superimposing some system which belongs to some foreign ideology. Perhaps there is some hope in the fact that within the Government there are probably ten or twelve ideas as to how this problem which the country faces can be solved. The suggestion that the system be overthrown may not necessarily be the consensus of Government opinion, but at least it is significant and sinister enough to concern the attention of the Australian people. I ask: What is so attractive in adopting a policy which concerns itself with taking over the resources of the nation into the public sector? What is so attractive about that sort of policy, unless it be an ideological base?

I suggest that the lot of the vast number of Australians who are unionists, who work in the shops, who are operators of garages, stores and farms and who are professional people- millions of them- is in no way enhanced by substituting for 100,000 or 500,000 employers just one employer. That is the circumstance which confronts us if we take to its logical conclusion the necessity to transfer the resources of the nation to the control, indeed to the ownership of the public sector. I believe this is an attack on the freedom of choice of Australians of both occupation and place of employment. Today in the regrettable circumstance of continuing and increasing unemployment there is a case for the direction of labour as one of the ways in which to overcome the unemployment situation which confronts us. Let us remember that, in the sort of state set-up that is the logical conclusion of this transfer of resources to the public sector, the control and direction of labour, as of every other factor of production, would become the province of the State alone. That indeed is a sinister thought.

What is so magnificent about creating a monolithic type of state, an all-powerful controller and owner of the country’s assets? Surely the story of history is such that it proves time and time again that the greatest exploiter of man and resources is the state. Let us make sure that that does not happen in Australia. I maintain that the basic element of this Budget is the beginning of that sort of circumstance. I believe that the Budget document is much more akin to an ideological document than it is to an economic and social document having proper reference to the problems in the economic and social fields which confront Australia today.

I refer briefly to the area which is the province of the Department of Urban and Regional Development, that is, decentralisation. As a member of the Senate from New South Wales I have a very definite concern for decentralisation. In the Budget which is before us something approaching 20 per cent of the money of the Department of Urban and Regional Development is to be diverted to the establishment of two or three growth centres. I have no argument with the suggestion that this is one way in which we can establish realistic decentralisation. But the enormous amount of 80 per cent is to be spent in the areas of the large metropolitan parts of the country. If by decentralisation is meant just the movement of the perimeter of the great cities to a point where it is a little further away from the centre, that is not decentralisation at all in the context of the Australian scene. It is not meaningful decentralisation. If these moneys are to be spent in the metropolitan areas of Australia let us spend them to make those areas better places to live in and not bigger places.

In the area of decentralisation proper I believe that we should establish, through this Government, sufficient funds for the State Governments through their responsible departments to establish tertiary and secondary industries wherever there may be a potential within the States. I shall cite very briefly the performance of the Department of Decentralisation and Development in my State of New South Wales. In a short history of some 9 years and with an extremely tight budget extending to only $68m in that time, it has been able to expand and to assist to expand no fewer than 871 industries. It has helped to move these industries from the cities to country sites and from interstate to country sites. It has helped to develop new industries in country areas. But I believe that even more significant than that is the fact that these industries have been established in no fewer than 170 different locations. This is of great significance if we consider that decentralisation must concern itself with a proper balance of our countryside. Let us face it, in Australia we have an enormous smog free and pollution free area which is the potential host to a great and diversified industrial and primary industrial complex. The fact that these industries have been attracted to 170 different places in New South Wales means that there is the capacity in that State to retain and develop large, medium and small towns which are the social and service centres of an important community. 1 believe that this is inherent in any true picture of decentralisation in the Australian scene. In the future this Government or whoever may be the government should be concerned that State departments which have the expertise, the priorities, and the capacity to do just this have in the Budget the financial backing that is necessary. One cannot talk of decentralisation without reflecting on the circumstances of country people in Australia today. By ‘country people’ I mean all those people who live outside the metropolitan complexes around the seaboard. I believe that there is a distinct problem in this area due to many causes, but in no small measure due to the ripping away from the primary industries in particular in the 1973 Budget of quite significant areas of tax allowances, deductions, compensation, bounty and so forth. Compensation in the form of tax deductibility for the conservation of soil, water and fodder and investment allowances as they apply particularly to agricultural machinery are not to be viewed as they are sometimes mistakenly regarded and exhibited as just handouts to the rural community. They are far more than that.

Great significance attaches to the investment allowances, the superphosphate bounty and the equalising subsidy for petrol prices which act as incentives to a nation’s capacity to conserve its resources. They are beneficial not only to the farm community. I believe that they involve a number of people immensely in excess of those engaged in farming. They are of direct economic and social importance to the people who make, service and sell machinery; the people who make superphosphate, whether in the country or in the cities around our seaboard; the pilots who spread superphosphate on the land; and to the mechanics and council employees. To all of these people the incentives act to secure their way of life and employment and should be viewed in their total context, not just as handouts to a numerically small section of the community. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Government has not seen fit to reintroduce at least a significant number of these incentives at this time. This Budget was a perfect opportunity to reintroduce them because never before has there been a greater need for incentives to produce and to provide employment than there is today.

Senator Wriedt:

– The Opposition would not give that undertaking during the last election campaign.

Senator SCOTT:

– An undertaking to reintroduce?

Senator Wriedt:

– Yes.

Senator SCOTT:

-The Opposition certainly would not have acted to destroy the superphosphate bounty. There is little doubt about that. It would have been a basic pan of our performance in government because, let us face it, we were the people who introduced the incentives to produce more, the benefits of which the country sadly needs today. If those incentives were re-instated it would enable increased productivity and increased activity across a wide field, not just on the farms. There would have been a realistic attack on inflation by increasing the goods and services that are so drastically needed. There is an exciting future for the marketing of grain and hopefully of wool, and certainly of minerals and petroleum products. We should make sure that the necessary incentives and compensations are there to enable the total economy to take advantage of that sort of market situation.

I make only a very broad reference to the tax cuts which, naturally, are acceptable as far as they go. However, it is regrettable that they are of such extent that they will be totally eaten away by inflation within weeks and will not provide what is so drastically needed. They will not provide the degree of satisfaction in the wage and salary earning community that will lessen the constant demand for increased wages and salaries which consistently increase the costs of production. It is in this area that the Budget fails so badly. It is assessed that should wages continue to rise to the extent of 22 per cent in 12 months it would mean an additional rake off to the Government through taxation of not less than 46 per cent. It seems to me that in that circumstance inflation could well be the Government ‘s business. I trust that it is not but that is the inference readily drawn where an increase in wages of 20 per cent or slightly more will bring about an increase in revenue from taxation of about 46 per cent.

I make only passing reference to the tax cuts and to government spending. I have already indicated the great fallacy of increasing government spending in the public sector at a time of inflation. I make only passing reference because so many speakers in this debate have placed considerable emphasis on these matters and because of the continuing and proper criticism in newspaper editorials across the country, and indeed, because of the comment of Australians everywhere. I am not sure of the effect of editorial comment on members of the Government. Recently I watched a ‘Four Corners’ program put on by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In that program the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) said in answer to a question that he considered that newspaper editors were fit pieces for a museum. One assumes from that sort of attitude that editorial comment would have little effect on government policy.

Senator Mulvihill:

– When they have been unfair to our side you have disregarded it.

Senator SCOTT:

-Perhaps that is so, but I do not think it is fair comment that the editorials in this country are written by people who are fit pieces for a museum. I wish to refer now to one or two areas of taxation that greatly concern me, and I am sure, a vast number of Australians. This Budget introduces for the first time on the Australian scene a capital gains tax, the operation of which at this point is somewhat obscure. 1 think honourable senators opposite will admit that the Government has not yet defined the area in which it will operate. It has been stated that it will probably not come before the Parliament before the autumn session. Assuming it is to be as severe as can be inferred from the Budget papers it will be a disastrous tax to this country across a wide range of activity. It will be disastrous if, in the first place, it hits only an area of increased gain which is due to the application of management skills and capital and labour to an asset, whatever that asset may be, because if that sort of action is to be savagely taxed on top of income tax the incentive to develop the vast resources of this country must be limited quite significantly. But that is not the worst feature of this tax. The worst feature is that if it is, as it appears to be at this moment, a capital gains tax which will apply to virtually a paper figure, it will be a tax on a value which is nothing more or less than inflation.

It is significant to consider that a $100,000 asset in 20 years time, assuming a 10 per cent annual rate of inflation, would have a written or paper value of $672,000. It would have a capital gain of $572,000. Of course, this is purely an inflationary increase. If this were taxed at the rate suggested and if the same asset happened at that point to pass to beneficiaries through death or to another owner, the total tax commitment on that asset would be 6 1.4 per cent of that figure of $672,000. I suggest that this capital gains tax is disastrous. I believe that there is no real necessity to impose it at all. Unless there is some indexation with reference to the inflationary content of the capital gain envisaged it will be a disastrous tax because, added to estate duties, this sort of tax will result in the total eradication of the small business operator, the small farmer, the plumber in his business, the electrician- any number of small operators and indeed larger operators right throughout the Australian community. It will result in the total eradication of this sort of enterprise within, in all probability, one generation and certainly no more than 2 generations. It would be a tax virtually on all human endeavour. It would attempt to disrupt incentive at a time when the economic and social circumstances of Australia demand that there should be incentive in many fields in order at least in part to overcome the inflationary spiral in which we find ourselves. I believe that a capital gains tax, if it has an area with which it is justifiably referable, should be in that area which applies to purely speculative gain- an area in which there has been no contribution in order to development. But outside that area a capital gains tax has little or no proper place of application. I say in passing that the question of estate duties, on balance, has received virtually no treatment at all in this Budget. This is an area in which I believe we could well see the Federal Government abstain from having any involvement at all, because this iniquitous tax is such that it is expensive to collect. It represents less than 0.9 per cent of total revenue. It is destructive of a nation’s incentive and of the continuity of a nation’s productive effort. It causes the dismemberment of economic units. In fact, it is a tax that is anti-development in a country which sadly needs development. Prior to the abolition, hopefully, of this tax surely it would be reasonable, in view of the inflationary circumstances of the last few years, to adjust the rates which are applicable in estate duty. It may be interesting to observe that an asset which was valued at $50,000 some 20 years ago would today, in all probability, be valued at about $200,000. But the amount of estate duty applicable to that asset is not 4 times that which was applicable; it is more like 14 times that which was applicable. I suggest quite seriously that the Government should look at its responsibility to write into the estate duty rates that which would recognise the inflationary nature of things.

There are many areas about which I should like to speak briefly but, in closing, I will mention only one or two of them. In the field of defence, I believe that once again this Government has abrogated its responsibility. It has abrogated its responsibility to develop a capacity which would give us the sort of standing that we need and should be able to offer to our friends and neighbours. This is a serious situation. I believe that the only attitude that appears to be clear is some sort of servile attitude to those states which hold the master-state concept.

I say briefly that it is an iniquitous thing that the tax allowance for education should have been reduced from $400 to $150 a child. In a situation of spiralling inflation, reducing the amount to $150 will be an attack on practically everybody who has children at school. There is no question here of attacking children at independent schools, if that is what honourable senators opposite want to attack. If they want a situation in which there is no freedom of choice in the area of education, as in any other area, that is their business. But in this instance they are attacking not only that section of the community which sends its children to independent schools; they are attacking practically everybody who has children at school. Certainly in country areas in New South Wales very often $150 would be eaten up in the cost of bus fares for children travelling to and from school, let alone in the cost of text books, school clothes and so on.

We are living in a world that is crying out for more food. We are living in a world that is crying out for more fuel, but this Government is literally chasing away our capacity to find and develop sources of minerals and energy. We are living in a world that is crying out for more clothing. In this inflationary whirlpool I believe that it is criminal to bring down a Budget which does nothing but ideologically transfer resources to the public sector and which provides no incentive whatsoever for Australians to produce. Indeed, Dr Cairns has said that we must produce our way out of inflation. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this amendment of censure of a Budget which I believe does nothing but create greater difficulties in difficult circumstances.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– This Budget ignores totally the great critical issues of the international scene in nations outside our shores and also the serious economic crises at home. In his increasingly infrequent visits to Australia, the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) has shown a lofty distaste for and monumental ignorance of economic issues. Indeed, he prefers the international jet set to the worries of home. His Deputy, Dr Cairns, in between his frequent ideological pilgrimages to Peking pauses occasionally to tell us of a growing list of Government actions which he says he deplores. He conveniently forgets that he was part of a Cabinet that made those decisions. He murmurs that everything will be all rights. However, the truth of the matter is that 1 80,000 people are likely to be unemployed by the end of this year. But the Minister says that unemployment is not serious. He says this in a week in which the figures suggest that unemployment in September will be shown to have been the highest recorded for that month in any year. Unemployment is not serious in the Minister’s eyes. Of course, the nominal Treasurer, the little boy lost, Mr Crean, who is somewhere in the world at this moment is no doubt smiling beatifically and in a somewhat confused state, wondering about it all. In that context and in the context of a very real world in which the energy crisis and the growing food crisis create the greatest peril probably in this century, the Budget is brought down ignoring all of those issues.

A Budget is and must be an instrument which conceives the nature of the problem, both internationally and nationally, at a particular point of time, lt must be part of a symphony orchestra. It should be not the whole orchestra but perhaps the first violinist. It must perceive the grants and loans necessary to be made to the States and to local government. It must look to the nature of the Government’s tariff policies. It must look to the Government’s monetary policies, to reserve bank policies, and to the whole of its credit policies. In doing that it must reach a conclusion which, in its best estimate, will provide for Australia a society which will grant full gainful employment with rising real wages. That surely is the domestic goal of a Budget. This Budget, of course, does none of these things. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) and his henchmen have in fact stated that it does not do these things. They have said that it is not in itself an economic instrument. It is not in itself an instrument to solve inflation. Indeed, it will not solve inflation. In fact, it will not solve unemployment, so they say.

They say that it is a socialist instrument. In that they are speaking the truth because built into this Budget- and deliberately built in- are 2 main factors. Built into the Budget is the factor of growing inflation which is apprehended by the Budget at being at least between 20 per cent and 25 per cent. Also built into the Budget is a factor of unemployment which the Budget itself measures as at least 3 per cent. Those are the tolerable figures of the Budget. Apparently they are not to be fought against or deprecated by the Whitlam Labor Government. The Government says: ‘Well, we will accept these because they are part of our social program’. The Budget itself says that people will be coming onto the employment market at a rate cf about 3 per cent, but the growth rate will be 2 per cent. In other words, it apprehends a 3 per cent unemployment rate. What a lot of humbug when the Budget contains these resounding words:

The Government is not prepared deliberately to create a level of 4 per cent or 5 per cent, or perhaps even higher unemployment.

But at least the Government did one humane thing. It said that it is prepared to tolerate a level of unemployment at which we get rid of the Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron). He said that his cut-out point is 3 per cent. So one presumes that built into the Budget is a self-destructive instrument for one of the people responsible for the unemployment policies. But the Labor Government has said that as long as it is contained at 3.9 per cent unemployment will be tolerable. These are people who ranted and raved when the former Liberal Government had unemployment at a level of 2 per cent, despite the fact that for most of the 23 years we were in office we had the lowest sustained unemployment rate of any industrialised country in the free world and the lowest sustained inflation rate, which averaged 2.5 per cent. This Government which says that it is the Party of the workers and that it has great humane concern for people, has brought forward a Budget that builds in an inflation rate of at least 20 per cent and an unemployment rate of at least 3 per cent.

Within 3 or 4 days of having brought forward such a Budget, it sets out to aggravate the situation by taking another action. The Government then brought about a 12 per cent devaluation in the Australian dollar, which it did not contemplate at the time of the Budget and which it did not orchestrate into the Budget. What will be the measure of extra inflation as a result of this devaluation? The economists suggest, and the Government does not deny, that the escalation will be of the order of 5 per cent. So are we to have an inflation rate running between 25 per cent and 30 per cent in the year ahead? These are the parameters which the Government itself says are tolerable. Honourable senators who have preceded me in the debate have made the point that this Budget, not being an economic instrument, is designed to be, and stated to be by the Government, a social instrument. In the words of Mr Whitlam, this is the first social democrat government of Australia. Those were the words he used yesterday when addressing the United Nations General Assembly. The Budget Speech states:

The relatively subdued conditions in prospect in the private sector provide the first real opportunity we have had to transfer resources to the public sector.

The socialist policy of the Government is to transfer massive resources to the public sector away from the private sector. That is its stated aim. Lest anyone should misunderstand the magnitude of this ideological policy, let me give some idea of the growth rate of spending in the public sector over the last decade. In the fiscal year 1964-65, when the Budget was brought down by a Liberal-Country Party Government, public sector spending amounted to $4.4 billion. Seven years passed and in 1971-72 public sector spending in the Budget grew by less than $4 billion to $8.3 billion. So in those 7 years the growth was less than $4 billion. But in the 3 years to this Budget for 1974-75, public sector spending has grown by $8 billion. So it has grown by $8 billion in 3 years as against $4 billion in 7 years. Almost the whole of that growth in public sector expenditure has occurred in the 2 years that the Labor Government has been in office. That demonstrates in a nutshell the transfer to the public sector of human resources to further democratic socialism. Those figures should be understood by all.

This Government says that it has cut taxation in the Budget, but its Budget papers show that the intake of pay-as-you-earn personal income tax budgeted for in this financial year will increase by 45 per cent to 46 per cent. That is a much higher percentage increase than has ever been dreamed of before. There will be almost a 50 per cent increase in income tax in this year in which the Government has allegedly cut taxation. Those people who have analysed the taxation scales have said that, allowing for the nominal cuts in taxation and taking into consideration the growth of wages which is predicted at 22.5 per cent this year but which will more likely be 26 per cent, the average wage earner will find himself in a tax scale which will increase his income tax payments by 10 per cent. What a strange world it is. In its national husbandry, this Federal Government can increase- in fact double- national expenditure at this enormous rate in 3 years. It is increasing its own spending by 33 per cent this year and throttling down the handouts to the States to 10.4 per cent of gross national income so forcing the States to impose all sorts of regressive taxation. On the one hand, a government which says that it will cut taxes has deliberately forced all States to impose regressive taxes which can only penalise the small people.

We heard the humbug of the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Bishop) last night. He talked about the removal of radio and television licence fees to help the little people. But on the other hand, this Government slugs the little person with every regressive tax that we can think of. We also heard the humbug of the same Minister who said that the Government has kept its promises. Of course, we had to remind him- he had forgotten- of the old fashioned promise that the Labor Government would remove the means test by stages and that this year it would adjust it so that people 70 years of age and over might obtain a pension without a means test. The Labor Government says now that it cannot afford to do this. But it can afford to spend millions of dollars on art works. I see that it is buying two more works of art. One is a statue, no doubt symbolic of the migratory habits pf the Government’s Ministers, called ‘Birds in Space’ and the other delightful one, which is costing $696,000, is called ‘House under Construction’. No government with a sense of honour, on a day when the building societies in New South Wales increased interest rates by 2 per cent, would announce that it was to pay $696,000 for a painting called ‘House under Construction’.

Senator Wriedt:

– What is your qualification to make a judgment?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will tell the Minister what my qualification is: I am here and interested to be here to look after those millions of Australians who are seeking to buy a home through a building society at reasonable interest rates. I am interested in this: This morning the building societies stated that they are to increase interest rates by 2 per cent and stated that it is no good for people to try to extend the time for their repayments. They have stated that if people tried to do this, they will have to extend the period from 25 years to 50 years. This will cost people $7 a week extra and since June it will cost an extra $60 a month for a person to pay for the same house. This has happened under a Government that has deliberately created these interest rates and a Government whose Deputy Prime Minister said 3 days ago: ‘We are going to lower the interest rates in future’. Today he will have to say that nobody has told him of this and that it is a wrong policy, that is, if we can catch him before he leaves for Peking. Will he say that nobody told him that in the course of this year the price of paying off a home has increased by $60 a month? The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) has asked me for my qualifications. I will give him my measurement of his Government: His Government has now suddenly discovered that restraint in spending is the important thing, that we ought to restrain our spending -

Senator Wriedt:

– Tell us about your qualifications in regard to works of art, because you were speaking on them.

Senator CARRICK:

-No. The Government says that it ought not to restrain spending on works of art but that it should deny the pensioners. It says that it should tell every person who has a child at school that it is going to reduce the taxation concession from $400 a year to $ 1 50 a year for every child at State school or an independent school because there must be restraint. Then, the Minister goes into these extraordinary flights of fancy and asks me: ‘What are your qualifications?’ My measurement is a quaint one. It is for human concern in the face of a Government that could not keep its promise on increasing age pensions, which could not keep its promise in relation to education, which could not keep its promise in relation to pre-school care. It can cut the amount of expenditure in its Budget but it can afford to buy these works of art. I simply ask: What are its values? It is no use talking to me about whether I am a judge of art. Profoundly, I am not.

Senator Wriedt:

– You have got a lot to say about it.

Senator CARRICK:

-No, what I have said is very simple. I have said that it is not a question of whether a particular object is worth a certain amount. It is a question of whether we will get our priorities straight in terms of this Budget and in terms of the real world in which people are starving and in which the need to spend more money on food and drugs for them is clamant. I asked the other day whether we wanted the people of the Third World to look at us and say that our judgment of the real problems of the world was such that we were willing to spend tens of millions of dollars on art and virtually nothing on drugs and foodstuffs for the people of North Africa and elsewhere. What are my standards of judgment? I think they are the standards of judgment of the ordinary people of Australia and not the standards of this bacchanalian Labor Party which is so out of touch with reality.

Let us look at the situation as it is. This budget has been presented in a period in which the share market is at its disastrous worst, in which great firms are collapsing, in which bankruptcies are rising steadily, in which the textile industry, the clothing industry, the footwear industry, the electronics industry, the automotive industry and now this morning the furniture manufacturing industry are all saying that they are at a point of crisis. The Deputy Prime Minister says that unemployment is not serious, that things are all right. He says: ‘We will restructure them’. What kind of socialist inflexibility of mind is that that the Labor Government thinks it can deny the right to ordinary people to do the jobs of their choice at the place of their choice? The Labor Party uses the excuse that because it wants to introduce some ideological restructuring, it can offer these people a job somewhere else. What was the case we heard about? Women were to paint some public building in Hobart as an alternative form of employment. Is this the kind of socialist nonsense that we must accept? Is this the kind of dream world in which honourable senators opposite live? The simple fact is that the same Deputy Prime Minister who says that there is nothing serious in the unemployment situation is the Minister responsible for the 25 per cent across-the-board cut in tariffs. He cannot deny this. No government using any common sense or with an understanding of tariffs could possibly introduce an across-the-board cut in tariffs. By definition, tariffs are a discriminatory instrument to help one industry and to cut back another one. Nobody had ever thought of implementing a tariff cut of 25 per cent across-the-board. This Government, by so doing, has decided that the textile industry, the clothing industry, the footwear industry, the electronics industry, the furnishing industry and now substantially, the automotive industry, ought to go out of business.

For my edification I recently looked at what was contained in Hansard in the 1960s when a former government was working upon increasing the Australian content in the automotive industry. Who were the loudest in saying that we must get the content of our manufacturing in this industry up to 95 or 98 per cent? The members of the Australian Labor Party were the loudest in saying this. Who are the people who in today’s newspapers are reported to be talking about dismantling the Leyland Motor Corporation of Australia Ltd? Mr Whitlam helped it along with a gratuitous remark. He said: ‘Do you think that we ought to help this industry? Everybody knows what is wrong with it. Its car is a dud ‘. What a remark for a responsible Prime Minister to make. What a remark that is from a responsible Prime Minister.

At this moment we have a Government which says that it was responsible for getting Australian content up by setting up at the very least an assembly line in Australia for foreign manufactured goods. It is a Government which ranted and raved in this place about foreign ownership and foreign investment until, of course, Dr J. F. Cairns in a fine flight of fancy 3 days ago said: ‘I do not think there is anything wrong with multinationals at all. When I deal with them I find them good to deal with- better than the others. ‘ Suddenly all this wickedness that was talked of does not exist. But all the inveigling against foreign ownership in Australia, an ownership which provided Australian employment, is offset by the fact that the Government’s tariff policy transferred the workmanship to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and to Asia generally where the capital was foreign owned, where the factory was foreign owned and where every employee was a foreigner. That was good enough for the Whitlam Government and that is what the textile people in Tasmania should talk about. These are the people, the Government supporters- they are talkative now- who said they had a concern for the ordinary individual.

Australia is a country whose great wealth comes from 2 main sources which are not labour intensive- agriculture, which provides some 50 per cent of our export earnings, and the minerals industry. The 2 industries that provide our great wealth do not provide substantial employment. My memory is that agriculture provides some 8 per cent of employment. It is the duty of an Australian Government to ensure that there are in Australia sufficient industries of a labour intensive nature to provide employment, the employment of his choice, for every Australian. To do so we must have some arbitration of the kind of industries we have. Clearly there are industries that, for defence purposes, are necessary. Surely the electronics industry is one of those.

Of course, defence is a non-event for a government which, having promised an amount of 3.2 per cent of gross national product, cut defence expenditure to 2.6 per cent, according to the Minister’s announcement last night. That was the action of a government which said there will be no threat for 15 years. But the speech writer who wrote Mr Whitlam ‘s speech for the United Nations was not told that and Mr Whitlam now sees the possibility of world conflagration within the next 2 years. Why in the name of goodness does the Government not have an interdepartmental committee to co-ordinate his speech writing? Here we have the cutting down of the electronics industries, the textile industries–

Senator Milliner:

– What did he say?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will give the honourable senator a copy of the Prime Minister’s speech and if he can read he can read it to his edification. He will see that if he goes to where it was delivered he will learn more than he would learn from the Australian Prime Minister in the Parliament of Australia. Why do I have to pick up a newspaper today and learn that ‘Whitlam Toes the Arab Line’? Why do the people of Australia have to learn from a Press conference in America what were the negotiations between the Shah of Iran and this Government? What is the explanation? Are we going to align ourselves in our economic and fiscal policies with the Arab world? It would be well if someone told us. It would be well if we had a debate on these matters. But there it is. And again I ask: Why? The article in this newspaper goes on to say that this is in opposition to the American and British policies in terms of world currency. The simple situation is that Australia is a country with 70,000 factories employing an average of 22 persons a factory. Non-clothing textile factories number 1 ,500 and they employ about 74,000 people. The clothing factories number 7,000 and employ 1 12,000 people. Then there are the glassware, footwear, electronics and furniture factories and these are the factories that are being closed down day by day.

The Budget managed in a real world to avoid mention at all of the energy crisis and any mention of the massive and perilous consequences that are likely to flow from the international currency problems. It managed to ignore anything to do with the real food and disease problems of the underprivileged countries, problems that are being pronounced day by day as more perilous. The statesmen of the world- President Ford is one- have talked about doomsday in relation to the combination of these problems. And what has Australia done? It has shut itself up in a cocoon. Where is the Government’s energy policy? When we struggle to find what the energy policy of Mr Connor is we learn that apparently he proposes to put a mill in the Northern Territorya government one- and to stack up and stockpile yellow cake uranium until 1977. Let us hope that the world is stable and around in 1 977. Of course, by then the energy crisis will have been met. Our duty to provide to the world uranium, black coal and other fuels and foods is totally ignored in the Budget. Where is there any statement of our attitude to the currency crisis?

I said in this House some days ago that the total amount of money available for surplus trade reserves runs to about $160 billion in a year. Today, with the quadrupled oil price, oil is taking $120 billion of that $160 billion. It is destroying the whole concept of international monetary negotiations and therefore is bringing the world to the peril of war. But nothing is said; nothing is done. Yet we learn from a Press conference that there have been some talks with the Shah of Iran and that there will be some nation to nation deals. Presumably Iran and other countries will have some share investment in our own minerals, in our own resources. This is the atmosphere in which this Budget has been brought forward. This is the atmosphere in which the building industry has collapsed and the rate of building has been reduced by 60 to 70 per cent. By every test there is a crisis. It is not for me to look down a long nose and predict unemployment but certainly unemployment will run to 3 or 4 per cent or more.

Why is this being done? We look very simply for our answer to the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Australian Labor Party just before the 1972 election and he gave a Fabian lecture. The whole text of his lecture was: ‘People say that if Labor got in there would be no radical changes; there would only be gradual changes. ‘ He went on to say: ‘I reject that. A Labor Government in its first 3 years of office will bring about radical changes. It will change the face of society.’ He said: ‘Some feel that the Australian people are too conservative to accept radical change. I reject these views. ‘ He then laid down the blueprint to change the face of Australia, to use his own words, to that of a democratic socialist country, a country in which the public sector is increased more and more, as is shown by the figures I have given. But lest it be thought that I am taking the views of only one person, Dr J. F. Cairns says that the system is wrong and that the cure is to change the system and bring about a socialist country. Mr Hawke, who was somewhat frenzied in his recent appearance on ‘Monday Conference’ because the realities of life are pressing upon him, said the same thing- the system is wrong and socialism is the cure for this. A newcomer to this chamber, Senator Button gave us some enlightenment- no doubt it was an early pre-selection speech for the Victorian when he said, according to a report in Tuesday’s ‘Australian’, that industrial unrest, power struggles and militancy now being experienced in Australia are healthy signs. He then went on to say:

We should work toward the position of Yugoslavia where workers elect the management and run the company.

That statement proves beyond doubt that there is no sense of humour in the Labor Party. Does anyone really believe that Yugoslavia is a democratic socialist country? The world knows that it is notoriously a communist, totalitarian country. The Labor Government could not or would not send its Australian representatives to visit Australian citizens who were held in gaol for 6 months and then executed. We are to follow the pattern of Yugoslavia.

Senator Milliner:

– That is totally untrue, as has been proven.

Senator CARRICK:

– What I state has been proven to be true. On the floor of the Senate the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) announced that he was wrong when he said that these people had been killed in action; they had in fact been held in gaol for the best part of a year and then had been taken out and executed. He admitted that our people did not know they were there and had not visited them. Apparently the same difficulty occurred with Ermolenko in Australia. This is the kind of nonsense that is being advocated.

This is not a Budget of social reform which increases benefits, but one which restructures the power base of socialism. There is much talk of the increase- in nominal figures- of 78 per cent in education. Honourable senators opposite should remind themselves that in the year before that with which they are comparing there were benefits from the Karmel Committee report for only half a year and some other benefits for a third of a year. Therefore, they are comparing half a year with a full year. They should tell themselves that every education department in Australia has said that construction costs and salary increases in Australia this year will be approximately 40 per cent. So taken together there is not a penny extra to jingle in the whole education system, and the Government is talking about increases. The building program is in ruins and is disastrous. This Budget produced nominal figures showing a 33 per cent increase in public sector spending. That is an incredible increase at a time at which the private sector should have been stimulated.

It can be rightly said that the basis of what I have said has been negative, destructive and analytical of the Labor Party. That was the purpose of analysing the Budget. But one should look towards constructive things. The task at this moment is to give stimulus to the private sectorthat three-quarters of the Australian community which creates employment, and generates production and wealth. If you want to solve this problem you must enlarge and create wealth in order to distribute wealth. You cannot solve a problem simply by sharing little bits equally in this situation. The Budget is totally silent on any stimulus to take up employment. The manufacturing policy of this Government is in shambles. Can anyone tell me what the manufacturing policy is? What industries does this Government aim to sustain? Does this Government want a textile industry, a footwear industry, a clothing industry and an automotive industry? If so, why is it doing the things that it is doing? My Party is emphatic that in a country that demands labourintensive industries it is our duty to sustain industries by proper tariff walls which are sufficient to sustain them, so people can have gainfull employment of their choice, so we can buy Australian footwear and Australian electronics and so we can, to the largest extent possible, be selfsustaining both in peace and in peril. It is against that background that this whole Budget is utterly silent. There is literally no policy at all in this Budget.

The rural sector is in an incredible situation. This Government has railed and said that the rural sector was getting it better than ever before. We face a year in which costs will rise by at least 20 per cent and earnings will fall by at least 25 per cent. In general, rural industry faces a serious crisis, heavy indebtedness to the banks and finance houses and a rising pressure of costs. More than 70 per cent of all costs incurred in rural industries are incurred off the farms- in the cities, in freight rates, water, power and rates. What has this Government done? It has removed entirely all the incentives to the rural industries and said that they can swim alone. The basis has been that this Government has actively incited the militant trade unions to further militancy. Mr Whitlam says that the trade unions have never been in better hands, although Mr Hawke thinks that Mr Mundey is a bit naughty. But the federal bodies of the Seamens’ Union of Australia, the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, the Ship Painters and Dockers Union, the Australian Railways Union and the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union are communist controlled. The AMWU has 65 full time communist officials. Mr Hawke says that he does not like Mr Mundey and what he says. But Mr Hawke has his power base as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions because of Mr Carmichael, Mr Halfpenny, Mr Elliot V. Elliott and Mr Owens, all of” whom are of the same communist ideology as Mr Mundey. Mr Whitlam says that the trade unions have never been in better hands. The community is being held to ransom, not by decent trade unionists. I make the point that if I were working for a wage as a unionist, as I have done, I would be seeking more and more nominal wages to try to catch up with the inflation that this Government has created. I make no comment at all upon the decent unionists. I make the comment about the militant communist and pro-communist leaders who are seeking, for their ideological reasons, to destroy the system. I conclude by saying that this Budget -

Senator Milliner:

– You are kicking the can again.

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I think it has been suggested that we are kicking the communist can. The only people who are kicking the communist can now are the Labor Party by way of alibis. It is Mr Egerton from Senator Milliner’s State who is now kicking the communist can hard. It is Mr Hawke who is now kicking the communist can about Mr Mundey. It is all right when they do it. It is all wrong when we do it. This Budget stands condemned because it ignores the world outside and the world within. It ignores economic policies. It ignores the promises that the Labor Party has broken. It stands condemned because it is not an economic instrument at all. It is an instrument of socialist power to transfer more and more power to the socialist sector for the ideological aggrandisement of the Labor Party.

It has been said with great glee that it was a great thing to wipe out the television and radio licence fees. In parallel with that is a move by this Government to increase massively the national radio and television networks throughout Australia, both in the formal sense and in the community access sense. This will add tens of millions dollars more to the bill. The primary reason why licences have gone is no sense of pity for the little person because the Government knows that the little person would reject a licence bill, which was $50, $60 or $70, to pay for a propaganda machine, the prospective size of which this country has never seen previously. Indeed the Labor Party and its own apologistsits own columnists of the Press who have been its apologists for years- are now saying it is in retreat and in disarray. The Labor Party now believes that it can buy out of taxpayers ‘ money a massive propaganda machine to defend itself from the people of Australia. Thank God the Australia Party has woken up to that. As was stated by Mr Gordon Barton this morning this of course will mean that the Government will go more and more for the first past the post system of voting. It will attempt to destroy any minority party. Thank God that the eyes of the Australian people are being opened wide- the people who by mistake and by a narrow margin put this Government back into office. I believe that no budget since Federation has been as disastrous as this Budget. I understand that senior Treasury officials have said in precisely these words: ‘This is the most disastrous budget since federation ‘.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– In speaking to this Budget the Government deserves all the criticism and, indeed, the censure which is embodied in the amendment moved to the motion of the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) that the Budget papers be noted. Every word of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, (Senator Withers) could be substantiated. The amendment moved by Senator Withers states:

The Senate is of the opinion that the Budget fails to tackle Australia’s economic crisis, in that:

unemployment is permitted to grow and the prospect for school leavers is prejudiced;

inflation is accelerated;

existing poverty is ignored and new poverty is created;

personal income tax is increased forty-five per cent;

living standards will be lowered;

f) private enterprise is stifled;

government power is further centralised;

individual incentive and thrift is penalised;

a double tax is levied on estates; and because the Government:

1 ) has made the Budget a socialist vehicle to intensify the attack on the States and break down the free enterprise system;

believes the absurdity that the Government can spend without people paying or can build without people producing; and

has preached private restraint but has threatened its achievement by its own Government extravagance-

Every word of that is, in my opinion, irrefutable. The question uppermost in the minds of responsible and thinking people is where in the world is Australia going economically. One hears this question everywhere. There is an air of real concern and fear at the economic course this Government is taking. The concern, the fear and the lack of confidence stems directly from the Government’s disastrous economic policies which have spurred inflation on to the impossible levels now existent. The Government has euchred our previously sound economic base which was set to provide full employment, and rising living standards in real terms.

It is past high time that the Government realised the futility of its pet theory of so-called democratic socialism and got back to some basic business principles- one of which is that one does not spend money before one makes it. One should nuture, encourage and develop the real base from which wealth is created. That base is without a shadow of a doubt, free enterprise. Much has been said about the difficulties besetting us as being of overseas origin. It is said that we have imported them and that we have had unavoidably thrust upon us our inflationary conditions. This is not right. To a degree we have felt the effects of inflation in other parts of the world where the energy crisis has led to the exorbitantly high prices being paid now for petroleum and fuel generally. In our imports we have the reflection of these increased costs. But here in Australia we have not had that basic reason which has generated inflation in most other countries. So, the idea that it is not our fault and that it has been thrust upon us is quite ridiculous. It is not sustainable.

I think that our inflation is fundamentally due to the ineptitude of the Government in assessing what our own economy can afford in governmental expenditures. Our troubles began when the Labor Government, in its first Budget in 1973, increased its expenditure from $ 10,000m to $ 12,500m- an increase of 18.9 percent. It was an increase at a time when we had our inflationary situation held at about 4 per cent. But there were forces latent in the economy then which had to be watched carefully. The injection of the extra $2, 500m into public expenditures at that time sparked off what has now become rampant inflation. The most recent Budget of $ 16,500m, which is an increase of some 32 per cent over the previous Budget, is only further spurring this horrible situation of inflation. This huge Budget we have before us now is not being provided from sound and real productivity but is largely fictitious money arising from bloated Government revenues derived largely from the inflated incomes which are now prevailing. But they are only figures. It is not that there is a real collateral or matching of wealth which creates the figures which now form our Budget. It is hard to believe that in a couple of years our economic position could so deteriorate. We had about $4,200m in credit in our overseas trade balances when this Government came into office. This has now been halved and it is being eroded at the rate of approximately $200m a month. One can see under present trends that we will be bankrupt in overseas balances in the not too distant future.

Our share market has suffered an enormous fall this year. The fact is that the market has halved in less than 6 months. It is a fall of 1929-30 proportions. This is of tremendous significance. It means that about 4 million investors in Australia have seen the value of their investments halved. It means also that the value of practically every superannuation fund and every life assurance policy has been seriously affected. This Government has generated a real fear in the minds of the people. There is no confidence in the Government’s direction of the nation’s affairs. There has been too much intrusion, in my opinion, into the affairs of private enterprise. It cannot be overstressed that free enterprise has given us our prosperity. It provides 75 per cent of jobs in the community. It creates the community wealth and tax revenue for the sort of social welfare programs we all want to see.

It is worthwhile noting the words of one of our most notable businessmen, Sir John Dunlop, the chairman of Colonial Sugar Refineries Co. Ltd at its recent annual meeting. Here we have one of the best business brains in Australia saying:

This system of private enterprise, of which CSR is a part, has succeeded, as no other system in history has succeeded, in producing material abundance. It is the prime force which provides food, clothing, shelter, education, medical services, necessities and luxuries on a scale undreamed of a few centuries ago. Those societies which have chosen to leave the production of goods and services largely in the hands of private individuals and companies also enjoy a degree of personal liberty and political freedom that has been rare in history. The changes that are happening about us, particularly those changes in people’s ways of living, in their attitudes and values and aspirations, are to a large extent brought about and made possible by heightened material standards and a wider share of increasing wealth. Expression of these attitudes and aspirations is largely possible because of that personal liberty and political freedom inherent in private enterprise.

I concur wholehearedly in that statement. It is plain commonsense. This Government has shown itself not to be a friend of private enterprise. It is engrossed in attaining its stated objective- the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange. In the process we find ourselves in the shocking mess we are in now. Heavens above, the result has been shown in those countries where democratic socialism has been thought to be the way to Utopia. The great United Kingdom is in its present predicament largely because of the addiction of successive governments there which have espoused the cause of socialism. It now is in a very sad economic situation. Here the Government seemingly is intent on following the same pattern.

Lest it be thought that I am criticising from a biased point of view I refer to a report of a statement by the Premier of South Australia a few days ago. He made a special plea for aid to South Australia in the present economic difficulties generally. This newspaper report states:

The Premier . . . has called for special Federal consideration to protect S.A. against any downturn in the economy.

He said yesterday that in the interests of national efficiency and regional growth, the Federal Government could:

Provide a ‘sufficient’ level of tariff protection for S.A.’s most vulnerable industries.

We in South Australia are particularly sensitive to adverse effects in the electronics industry, and the motor vehicle and household appliances industries. The present economic climate is such that we in South Australia are being hit as perhaps no other State is being hit at the present time, bad as it is generally. But in South Australia we are particularly sensitive to the sort of economic climate we are now experiencing. In that newspaper report the South Australian Premier said that the Commonwealth Government could provide compensatory subsidies or support to industry already in, or planned for, outside major population centres. He asked also that the State Government be provided with special money to reduce the added costs of industry in fringe areas. He also said:

We have cause for anxiety in the short, or even medium, term.

The Premier also was reported as having said:

Australia was going through a period of strain, with rising unemployment, strong cost and import pressures on local manufacturers, inflation and restricted lending. South Australia had not been too badly off so far but Australia ‘s unemployment was rising and the pattern of recent years was that S.A. had suffered disproportionately.

The South Australian Premier said that the situation was such that there was cause for deep anxiety. The Labor Premier of that State has been criticising and pointing to the disabilities the economy is now suffering. That criticism comes from a source which would rather seek to allay the fears we are now experiencing, not forthrightly to condemn.

I want to make a brief reference to the Government’s attitude to a very important industry in South Australia. I use this example because I think it is typical of the attitude towards many industries. I refer to it particularly because that which has occurred since this Government came to office is so different from that which it promised would be the situation. Before the 1972 election, Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia, as chairman of the Australian Labor Party Federal Election Finance Committee, wrote to producers of wine and brandy in South Australia seeking funds for his Party. I have no objection to anybody seeking funds for his Party. That is quite all right. However, in that letter to the producers he said:

The only solution that will guarantee prosperity for the wine industry and the many thousands of growers who supply it, is complete abolition of the excise and its nonreplacement by a sales tax or any other imposition. You have already spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars on the wine tax and on collecting the information required by the Customs and Excise Department. The election of a Federal Labor Government will save you these costs in the future.

At the time there was a 5c a gallon excise on table wines. The promise was that those charges would be abolished and that no alternative charge would be placed on the industry. But what has happened? From the situation of 5c a gallon there now are such imposts in the form of brandy excise as will act to the detriment of the industry in our State in a very serious way. Because of the huge increases in brandy excise, sales have fallen by some 25 per cent.

The disastrous effect of the Government’s complete disregard for the industry can be seen in the clearance figures for Australian brandy for the period 1 September 1973 to 30 April 1974 which show a decrease in clearances of 19.16 per cent in comparison with the corresponding months in 1972-73. The present deterioration in releases indicates that sales have fallen by 50 per cent. Loss of production, together with no action being taken by this Government to protect the industry against imports of large quantities of cheap overseas brandies- imported brandies are not made in the way Australian brandies are made, so far as source, maturation and so on is concerned- means that we are facing a situation wherein 20,000 tonnes of grapes will not be processed as they were processed 2 years ago. This will be to the detriment of the growers, the makers and the distributors and it is the result of a breach of promise by the Government. That is how this industry has been served. No thought has been given for its wellbeing in respect of the determination of tax on wine stocks. This matter is of vital importance to what is, or has been, a major family organisation business. The system of collecting taxes, one based on stock at selling values, not on the cost of production as shown in a balance sheet, is crippling. The whole background of this industry has been greatly weakened as a direct result of this Government’s actions.

As we will have an opportunity to discuss many aspects of this Budget in debates on various Bills emanating from it, both in the Senate and in the Committee of the Whole, I do not propose to keep the Senate any longer now in discussing the Budget generally. I desire to express my feelings and attitudes towards the overall question of the Budget, its effect on our economy and, via the economy, on the people. It is a sad story that what is coming from the Labor Party’s policy is inherent in and is the basis for the Budget. I warmly support the amendment. I condemn the Budget which is now before us because it is so detrimental to the interests of our nation.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I believe I am the last speaker in the Senate in the Budget debate. I have agreed to confine my remarks to suit the purposes of the Government and the Opposition. The Budget has been debated over many days. I offer my congratulations to the newly elected senators who have made their maiden speeches in the Budget debate. Mr Acting Deputy President, I am sure you will agree with me that they have demonstrated a quality which will be of great benefit to the Senate in future years. Indeed, I am so bold as to say that probably the best speeches on the Budget which have come down in this session were given by newly elected senators. I heartily congratulate them. We are debating the Budget which has been presented by the Australian Labor Party or, should we say, the Australian socialist democratic government which we have at the present time. An amendment in length has been moved in relation to the Budget by the Opposition. That motion is to be voted on this afternoon. I support the amendment. Items which have been noted in the amendment show the Opposition’s fear that the Budget will not be in the interests of the community. I believe that the points which are made in the amendment will prove to be correct in the coming year. At this time I stand in abject fear for the economy of Australia.

It concerns me that undoubtedly Labor believes that it has brought in a Budget which is designed to do something for the good of this community. One must give Labor credit for that. Back bench members of the Labor Party have been very scant in their support of the Budget. I think that at least the last half a dozen speakers have all come from the Opposition side. There has been no retort to any of the suggestions which have been made about the disadvantages which will flow from this Budget. I imagine that honourable senators believed when Labor took office that the action it would take would be for the benefit of the community. After those 20 months of office I wonder whether there is anything to which they can point. To what can Labor point to show that it has advantaged the Australian community? I make the same point in relation to the proposals which are put forward in the Budget and which give me great concern. As a person who has belonged to unions in my time, who has supported Labor members of Parliament to get into office in the early years, who has been a good member of the tally clerks union on the South Wharf at Melbourne and who was a member of the Australian Timber Workers Union in my early days, I have a respect for many of the individuals I have met. But I cannot say that I have respect for our present Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) or for the Ministry of the Labor Government.

I believe that what these people are doing to Australia is something which has never been seen in the 70 years of Federation. We are on the edge of a precipice, whether Labor wishes to believe it or not. So far as I can see its actions are not directed to taking this country away from that precipice. Is Labor aware of the situation as it involves the use of money in this community? It is all very well for Labor to say that perhaps the main point of the Budget is that the Government has decided in this year to expend some 32 per cent more of its funds than it spent last year. This year in all the capital projects which this Government will attempt with the additional 32 per cent expenditure it will achieve less in a capital form than was achieved last year. If we look at any of the housing authorities we will see that cost of construction both in residential and industrial works is currently more than 50 per cent above the figure of a year ago. We need the expenditure even to maintain what we were doing previously.

The Budget will be a disaster in the State sphere for the State governments which have set up housing and education projects. For instance, my State of Victoria finds it wise to allocate over 40 per cent of its budget to education. It will achieve less this year. The school building program must go to pieces before the end of this year. Surely Labor should have seen what it was bringing about with its initial philosophies and policies because of what happened in its first year in office. The question is asked of the Opposition: ‘What would you do to overcome inflation?’ I am afraid that I have to say to anybody who asks me that the community will just have to ride out Labor’s next year of office until there is a reversal of those early policies. They were attractive to the labouring community. It was told: Go for extra wages. Go for extra benefits in the community. Have no consideration for productivity in what you are attempting to achieve’. Labor, in its relationship to private industry, certainly has had a stated philosophy which is that it hopes for total government control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. If one reads the Budget one finds that it is the greatest advance that Labor has ever taken in that sphere. I noted the words of an industrialist the other day. I think it was Mr Valder, the Chairman of the Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd. He rightly stated the position. The fact is that there is fear of this Government in the community today. I believe the people do not see it that way but they fear the proposals which are coming about in the community. Labor has introduced philosophies which have laid the ground for the greatest financial disaster that this country has faced. I am sure that this will prove correct in the next months.

If there is an interest for Labor in this matter, surely it is for the employees in the community.

Heavens above, we heard Ministers saying before the last election: ‘The one thing that Labor will not do is countenance unemployment in the community’. I would have been taken in by Labor. I would have thought that it genuinely believed that. But what do we find today? We have a Budget which, in the words of Labor, says: ‘We certainly will not stand more than 5 per cent unemployed in the community’. The Minister for Labor and Immigration (Mr Clyde Cameron) said that he would resign if the figure got to 3 per cent. But Labor is now willing to envisage an unemployment rate which was never countenanced under a Liberal-private enterprise philosphy. Why is it that if Labor’s policy on private industry proves fruitful we will have over 200,000 unemployed in January of the coming year? Labor’s philosophy is designed to be against private enterprise. It hopes to get rid of private enterprise. It has moved very successful in that direction.

Today we saw the introduction of Bills which are designed to put private enterprise out of business and to bring about government control. This was the philosophy. But the Government has moved so quickly that the unemployment situation in the community will be disastrous for many people. When one looks at the various attitudes of the Ministers one sees stupidity. We need only look at unemployment to illustrate this. Today I heard a Minister say: ‘Clyde Cameron has done all he can. What a great white father he is to do these things for the unemployment situation’. Labor is going to set up a national employment and training scheme but if you ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration what classification of work he will train one man for to assure him of a job he cannot tell you. He says: ‘We are going to have a great retraining scheme. We will not leave an employee in the classification of work that he has chosen. We say that during his lifetime he may have 3 or 4 jobs. If he loses his job because of Labor’s policy we will retrain him’.

Labor cut tariffs by 25 per cent although it swore to the Senate that there would be no cut in tariffs until the matter was referred to the Industries Assistance Commission. Because of its philosophy it cut tariffs by 25 per cent and it was evident from the day the cuts took place that trouble was looming. I do not doubt that Dr Cairns and Mr Cameron intended to put the textile industry and the rag trade out of business. They have been successful. They have put the boot trade out of business. Either they were totally ignorant or they knew what they were going to achieve. They have not reversed that policy so people who were attracted to the textile industry and wished to spend their working lives in it will have to be retrained for something else. It seems to me to be utterly stupid to say to one class of people in the community: ‘Because we as the Government have put you out of business you will lose your employment. We acknowledge that we have done it but we will give you 6 months, or until you get a job, on full money and we will retrain you for a job. ‘ Why should that occur for one class of people whom the Government says it put out of business or for whom it reduced employment opportunities? At the same time others are losing their jobs because of the fiscal policies of the Government.

The Government is setting up a class differential and it is not entitled to do that. Either everybody should be on 6 months wages or the Government should say that the desire in the community is that people should attempt to find their own jobs, while encouraging industry to maintain the fullest employment possible. This Budget takes away all initiative from any private person who has respect for himself and is attempting to achieve something in the community. The fear of the businessman is that for private companies, the small businesses in the community, the Budget takes the rate of taxation up to 47 Vi per cent, equivalent to that paid by the multi-national groups such as General MotorsHolden’s Pty Ltd and the other big companies in the community. Why has there been a 10 per cent rise since Labor came into office? The fear is there. The Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), who is at the table, has not been willing to give a reply to my query. Now that Labor has put private companies on the level of public companies I have asked whether the Government will consider allowing some reduction in the enforced distribution of profits by private companies. Public companies do not have to distribute any dividends if they do not wish to do so. This Government forces private companies to disgorge 50 per cent of their retained profits. It is unfair. We should be attempting to encourage smaller businesses in the community to grow in strength, but that is against the philosophy of the Labor Party. It wants to see them out of business and looks like succeeding. It is a disaster in the community.

Labor has brought in a capital gains tax. It is a classic case of the pea and thimble trick which is subversive to the economy. Labor says: ‘We think that the application of death taxes is unfair to some people and we will relieve you of that.’ But then it brings in a capital gains tax on assets. Inflation is running at about 20 per cent and in a very few years it may reach 50 per cent so that the value of $100 may be cut by half. The Government says: ‘The day before you die we will calculate the increment within your estate and we will take one-third of that away from you.’ It is a disastrous tax. The Minister for Agriculture has presided over the greatest ever withdrawal of benefits from the rural industry in Australia.

I have a list of those reductions before me and I could go through and name one after the other the benefits which have been withdrawn from primary industry. The Minister was a party to the introduction of the capital gains tax. I hope that when he talks to farmer organisations he will be truthful enough to tell them that he was a party to bringing in a capital gains tax. A small farmer may devote his life’s work to clearing and improving his property to such an extent that it is worth 100 per cent more; due to inflation it could be even more. He will lose one-third of that notional benefit. The Government will break every estate in Australia. The Minister cannot expect to retain the image which some people have of him.

Senator Wriedt:

– You must not be personal.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am not being personal. The Minister should be glad that I am not being harder on him by going through the list of what he has done during the time that Labor has been in office. We could spend a little time discussing dairying. Today at question time the Minister said in answer to a question: ‘You know, we find that Kraft will pull out of our equalisation scheme. There will be some trouble, but if everybody would only work together we would not have this trouble. ‘ The Minister stood up here and said: ‘To hell with the Australian Agricultural Council. I, the Minister for Agriculture, will see that the agreements made at the Agricultural Council meetings are broken by the Federal Government. We will not even discuss them at the Agricultural Council.’ So Labor threw the margarine business into the field and broke down the proposal completely.

Senator Wriedt:

– Tut, tut.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Minister can say tut, tut’ but great harm is done by that action. He has lost the faith of the State Ministers associated with the Australian Agricultural Council. The Minister should ask some of them what they think of the proposal. He influenced the South Australian Minister. He must have given approval to Ministers who attend Agricultural Council meetings to make up their own minds. Now before attending they will hold discussions and make up their minds as to how they will perform. The Minister wants consideration. He wants everybody to work together but he has lost the faith of people in that very important sphere. The list goes on and includes higher interest rates, increased taxation for private companies, withdrawal of the fuel subsidy, the depreciation allowance for plant, provision for water and fodder storages, benefits for fencing and work against soil erosion, investment allowances and the superphosphate bounty. The Budget reacts against primary producers in respect of telephones as compared with the people Labor was elected to look after, the city folk.

The removal of the fuel subsidy has resulted in increased costs in the outer areas of Australia, including the Northern Territory. The whole situation is a disaster for the most important productive sector in the community. Primary products count for 50 per cent of our income and as that declines, after the money fails to come in, the effects will be felt in the metropolitan areas. Because the support has been taken away we will see disaster in the rural industries. I myself predict that very shortly land values will collapse. As my Whip has indicated to me that my time has almost elapsed, there is an interesting point that I will make about the Government’s capital gains tax- a tax, according to the Government’s wording, on unearned income, whatever that may be. When proposing its 10 per cent extra tax on unearned income, this Labor Government forgot to tell the small people in the community that it was levying a $25m tax on people who earned less than $5,000 a year. That is what the Ministers did; that is what the Cabinet did. Thank heavens, there is in the Labor Party some kind of back bench which calls itself the Caucus, which reversed that decision. But the Labor Government proposed to levy this impost of $2 5 m on those people who had an income of less than $5,000 a year. The Ministers in this chamber must feel ashamed of themselves. If I were to refer to the most important quote that has been made during the Budget debate I would have to refer to that made by my own Leader. He quoted Abraham Lincoln, who said:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money alone. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help a man permanently by doing for him that which he can and should do for himself.

The socialist philosophy is a disaster for Australia.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that this is the last day of the Budget debate, it was my intention to reply to this debate in a low key- almost in a conciliatory way. But in view of the comments made by Senator Webster it is necessary for me, I think to make one or two remarks which indicate that the subversion in this Parliament lies in the Opposition. The claim has been made that it is this Government’s intention to destroy private enterprise. In fact, there is a well organised campaign of subversion going on in Australia, and it is being organised by the people whom Senator Webster represents in this place. Nothing will destroy this economy more quickly than lack of confidence. Nothing will undermine the confidence of the manufacturer or of the businessman or of any other section of the community more than if people believe that this disaster about which Senator Webster talks is about to happen. He says that we are on the edge of a precipice. He is not even sufficiently interested to listen to my remarks. When he was speaking I was good enough not to try to answer his queries. The fact is that is where the subversion lies.

I am sure that Senator Webster would like nothing better than for land prices to collapse in the next few months. He would like nothing better than for there to be 500,000 unemployed. I am quite sure that he would be quite happy to return to the situation which existed when the Party that he represents was in Government, when the only weapon available to that Government was to create unemployment. The unemployment that exists in Australia today is quite different from the type of unemployment that existed during the time of the previous Government. In the days of the Liberal-Country Party Government, as soon as inflation got out of hand, as Mr Snedden indicated in his Budget of 1971-72, the Government said: ‘We have got to exercise tight monetary control. ‘ The surest way to overcome the inflation problem was simply to put 250,000 Australians out of work. But the present position in Australia is quite different, and I will return to it shortly.

Because the time is limited I will make one additional quick point in reply to Senator Webster. He referred to the so-called destruction of agriculture. He represents Victoria and he is always making lots of noises about the dairy industry. I say this again to other Liberal and Country Party senators from the other States: While the dairy industry was receiving the bounty under the Liberal-Country Party Government, two-thirds of it was being chewed up in Victoria, going to the people who needed it the least, while the dairy industries in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia were being allowed to die on their feet. That is the essence of the problem facing the dairy industry in Australia today. Senator Webster sits back and has the effrontery to tell this Parliament and his own colleagues that the dairy industry in those States can die as far as he is concerned. What about the 20,000 dairy famers who literally did die economically because of the system that Senator Webster supports? What a contradiction it is when he stands up here and castigates this Government for reducing tariffs by 25 per cent. He says to me: What will I say when I go out into the country and talk about the capital gains tax. I say to Senator Webster: You go out into the country and tell your farming friends whom you claim to represent that you believe that tariffs should be restored to their old level. For years the farmers have said that tariffs should be reduced because they were being disadvantaged It was this Government that had the courage to do something about reducing tariffs, which was more than Senator Webster’s people could ever do.

In the whole of this debate there has been a general attack on socialism as being some evil that should never have been allowed to happen. It is interesting that for the Opposition the ‘in’ expression, if I may use that term, now is ‘free enterprise’. We never hear that dirty word ‘capitalism’ used. Honourable senators opposite would never admit that they are capitalists or that they support the concept of capitalism. Capitalism is a carefully avoided word. But we make not apologies for the fact that when we came to office we believed that certain changes should be in this economy.

Senator Jessop:

– They certainly have.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Changes certainly have been made, as Senator Jessop has said quite rightly. We set out to help the people who for years and years had been neglected under the previous Government. Of course we have put a lot more money into education, health and social security. We have given pensioners the first real hope that they have had in 20 years. In fact, one only has to go back two or three years and recall the fact that the amount paid to pensioners was a real political issue in Australia. Pensioners were receiving only 19 per cent of average weekly earnings. Within 2 years that figure had been lifted to 24V5 per cent. No one is suggesting for a moment that we have overcome all the problems facing pensioners, but at least it is quite obvious to the community at large that for the first time in many years we have taken the trouble to ensure that pensioners get a reasonable deal.

How have we allegedly damaged private enterprise in Australia? From the time it came to office the Labor Party quite clearly has endeavoured to work with the private enterprise system as smoothly as it possibly could. No one was more successful in doing that than Dr Cairns when he was the Minister for Secondary Industry. When he left that portfolio it was the captains of big business who said publicly that they had never got on better with any Minister than they had with Dr Cairns. Was he out to destroy private enterprise in Australia? Let me look at the figures which show the disastrous situation with which we were confronted. I refer to the figures relating to new capital expenditure in industry to the June quarter of 1 974. There was a total increase in all industries of $ 188m, which was an increase of 26 per cent over the figure for the same quarter in 1973. This is the distastrous situation in which private enterprise finds itself! Is it any wonder that the survey that was conducted by the Bank of New South Wales not long ago indicated that it was only 5 per cent of manufacturers who said that they were really concerned about a liquidity position? We support these increases in expenditure in the private sector because it is necessary to maintain a healthy private sector in the economy. Far be it from this Government or any other government to try to destroy what is part of our economic system. It is the same kind of people about whom Senator Webster talks who would take the line that we completely destroy one section or the other, that we will wipe out government enterprise or we will wipe out private enterprise. That is not the answer, and the country would be worse off if any government followed that course.

I can recall previous occasions when the same sort of argument has been levelled at this Government. There was the argument about the Australian Industry Development Corporation legislation which was recently put through this chamber. Was it not designed to help Australian private enterprise and to ensure that Australian private enterprise remains healthy and that it remains within Australian hands? Senator Webster is very concerned these days about multinationals. I suppose he is concerned not only with multinationals but also with private enterprise because he is worried that maybe they will not be able to put as much of their funds into the Country Party as they have put in the past.

Senator Webster:

– What did Unilever give to the Labor Party?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I do not know. The honourable senator has asked me the same question on many occasions.

Senator Webster:

– You are not going to were are you, because you are involved yourself?

Senator WRIEDT:

-No, because I think the honourable senator will find that the truth will come out- all of these things will come out- in the debate on the legislation which is proposed and which the honourable senator committed himself to support. Only last week he said that he wants made public the source of funds given to political parties. I am sure that more eyes will be raised over what has gone into the coffers of the Country Party and the Liberal Party than over what has gone into those of the Labor Party.

Coming back to the matter of unemployment, this Government recognised that when it made certain structural changes certain effects would be felt. As a result of that we established the machinery to cushion the effect of these changes. Senator Webster and others seem to have just written off the significance of the fact that the Government has been prepared to pay those workers who have been displaced by structural change. We accept the fact that they constitute a significant proportion of the people out of work.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Senator Jessop did not like the maternity allowances being introduced.

Senator WRIEDT:

– That is quite understandable. The Budget is a document designed essentially to ensure that Australians in this country are part and parcel of the development of the country, that we are in fact moving forward, and that we are as much as is possible equitably sharing in the benefits of the development of this country.

Several other points were raised with which I had hoped to deal specifically, especially some matters raised by Senator Hall. But obviously time will not permit me to deal with all the points, so I will mention only one of them. It was raised by Senator Carrick this afternoon. He was critical of this Government and of our Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in his approach towards our relations with other countries. History will show that no other Prime Minister in this country has done more to initiate friendly relations with other countries around us. This is what we should have been doing years ago. These initiatives were taken in direct contrast to the deliberate sort of antagonism- and I would even say the mentality of hate- which is often demonstrated in this chamber by Opposition senators.

Senator Sim:

– Against whom?

Senator WRIEDT:

– Against many countries.

Senator Sim:

– Name one.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I will give an example. I refer to the debate on the Ermolenko affair, in which Senator Sim took quite a part, and the recognition of the Baltic States. I do not mind going on record as saying that it concerned me, although I did not have a chance to take part in the debate, that there was such a diatribe of hate against one country, namely, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I do not apologise for one moment for the sort of things that might happen in that country, but it is not our role to give continual expression to this distrust and embitterment against other nations. Although we are on a different course, we are one world. That is why in this Budget we have provided for a 28 per cent increase in the finance allocated to assist the countries about which Senator Carrick was talking.

Senator Carrick was very critical in relation to the production of food. He said that we have destroyed all incentives, the farmers no longer want to produce and so on. Senator Webster talks about the same sort of things. The real incentives, of course, are the markets, and because we can trade on a friendly basis with other countries we can help ourselves, as well as helping them. That is the whole purpose of the change in foreign policy which has occurred in the last 6 months. This Budget will, I believe, adequately serve the needs of the Australian community in the next 12 months. It is true that there are many things which all of us would like to see done. Some of us would rather see greater emphasis in one direction than in another. But in the light of all the circumstances this Government is concerned to ensure that we go on developing and expanding as a nation and that the Australian people share the benefits of it. I am certain that this Budget, combined with other aspects of Government policy, will ensure that.

Question put:

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

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator Withers amendment) be inserted.

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Justice O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 26

NOES: 24

Majority……. 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

page 1686

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

-Mr President, I bring up the second report from the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 1686

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 5 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 5.2 p.m.

page 1687

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd: Bedford Trucks (Question No. 127)

Senator Primmer:
VICTORIA

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

  1. Were Bedford trucks placed on the market with a reverse gear which slipped out on steep grades.
  2. Would such a fault affect the safety of the trucks.
  3. How many such trucks were sold and what steps did General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd take to overcome the fault, and at whose cost.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer:

My Department has received no complaints about the matter raised in the question. It was discussed with General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and they provided the following information:

1 ) The condition described was first reported to GMH by the Public Works Department of Tasmania. Only one other report was received, and that was from the Ringwood Shire in Victoria.

In the Tasmanian case, the vehicles in which the problem was exhibited were a water carrier and a gravel spreader.

The problem only occurred when backing down steep approaches, either to rivers or highway construction slopes.

In the case of the Ringwood Shire vehicle, the transmission had had considerable use and there was evidence of wear in the components.

The only transmission involved was an Eaton 475 SMA. However, when it was brought to our attention, an investigation was instituted through GMH Service Department, Quality Control, and Engineering.

A service fix was designed and we made this information available to all dealers, all Fleet Owners, including Government Departments, in a Service Letter dated 19 April 1973, page 109.

We had no reported incidents where safety was involved. In the circumstances where the problem arose, at extremely low speed of the vehicles, the braking system would adequately safeguard the driver and his vehicle.

The transmission was introduced into Bedford production more than ten years ago. Sales records do not extend that far back.

Although no other cases were reported, the modified pan concerned was made available in our supplier stocks.

In the vehicles in which the condition appeared, the pan was replaced at no cost to the owner. ‘

In July 1972, the Australian Transport Advisory Council approved, on a trial basis, a uniform code of practice for safety related defect campaigns which had been prepared by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The operations of the scheme were to be reviewed, and in fact, several weeks ago 1 asked myDepartment to convene a meeting to review the operation of the Code. These deliberations will include consideration of the extent of the Code’s coverage, but I should add that the matters raised in this question would not come within the scope of the Code as it is framed at present.

I repeat the invitation I issued last March, for people with complaints about the quality of their vehicles to submit them directly to me. Special ‘hot line’ contacts have been established between myDepartment and motor vehicle manufacturers to ensure that legitimate complaints receive prompt attention.

I might also add thatI will ask the new National Authority on Road Safety and Standards, as soon as it is established, to investigate the incidence of defects in motor vehicles, not necessarily related to safety, which are causing concern to consumers generally.

General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd: HQ Holdens (Question No. 128)

Senator Primmer:

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

  1. Did General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd produce HQ Model Holdens in 1973 which were fitted with defective clutch plates, if so, how many cars were produced with this fault.
  2. How many such cars were recalled or what procedures were adopted to replace any faulty clutches and at whose cost.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer:

My Department has received no complaints about the matter raised in the question. It was discussed with General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and they provided the following information:

1 ) At this time, we received sufficient reports of clutch shudder to cause us considerable concern. This condition could be produced by several kinds of faults such as engine mountings, clutch linkages and brushes, as well as faulty or oil fouled clutch plates.

The vehicles were not recalled but where a fault was evident, we replaced the clutch plates under warranty and, beyond the warranty period, in high mileage vehicles, accepted the cost as a policy adjustment.

In July 1972, the Australian Transport Advisory Council approved, on a trial basis, a uniform code of practice for safety related defect campaigns which had been prepared by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The operations of the scheme were to be reviewed, and in fact, several weeks ago I asked myDepartment to convene a meeting to review the operation of the code. These deliberations will include consideration of the extent of the Code’s coverage, but I should add that the matters raised in this question would not come within the scope of the Code us it is framed at present.

I repeat the invitation I issued last March, for people with complaints about the quality of their vehicles to submit them directly to me. Special ‘hot line’ contacts have been established between my Department and motor vehicle manufacturers to ensure that legitimate complaints receive prompt attention. 1 might also add that I will ask the New National Authority on Road Safety and Standards, as soon as it is established, to investigate the incidence of defects in motor vehicles, not necessarily related to safety, which are causing concern to consumers generally.

General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd: Faulty Fuel Tanks (Question No. 129)

Senator Primmer:

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

  1. Did General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd place on the market HQ Holden and LJ Torana vehicles with fuel tanks subject to leaking at the seams: if so how many such vehicles were produced and what steps were taken to overcome the fault.
  2. Would such a fault affect the safety of the vehicles.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer:

My Department has received no complaints about the matter raised in the question. It was discussed with Genera] Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and they provided the following information:

1 ) We did experience weepage of the fuel tank and we have kept a constant check.

A total of 374,649 HQ vehicles were produced to July 1974, and we have replaced at our cost, all tanks in which faults were reported, totalling 3567, or 0.95 per cent of our production.

We requested and received tanks that had been removed and replaced to assist us in our investigation into the problem. We are still observing.

Action was taken in production to overcome the problem and our field reports have proved the effectiveness of the change in our technique.

With regard to safety, the fuel tank is isolated from the inside of the vehicle and the exhaust system extends well beyond the fuel tank region.

We have had no cases of fire reported to us from the field organisation, and we consider any danger in this area remote. The extent of weepage from the seams was such that in by far the majority of cases the fuel evaporated.

In July 1972, the Australian Transport Advisor)’ Council approved, on a trial basis, a uniform code of practice for safety related defect campaigns which had been prepared by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The operations of the scheme were to be reviewed, and in fact, several weeks ago 1 asked my Department to convene a meeting to review the operation of the Code. These deliberations will include considerations of the extent of the Code’s coverage, but I should add that the matters raised in this question would not come witin the scope of the Code as it is framed at present. 1 repeat the invitation I issued last March, for people with complaints about the quality of their vehicles to submit them directly to me. Special ‘hot line’ contacts have been established between my Department and motor vehicle manufacturers to ensure that legitimate complaints receive prompt attention.

I might also add that I will ask the new National Authority on Road Safety and Standards, as soon as it is established, to investigate the incidence of defects in motor vehicles, not necessarily related to safety, which are causing concern to consumers generally-

General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd: Safety of Vehicles (Question No. 130)

Senator Primmer:

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

  1. 1 ) Were a number of Holden HQ and Torana LJ cars produced in which the head rest would not remain in an extended position.
  2. Were a number of HQ Holden Sedans, coupe and station wagons placed on the market with rear springs of insufficient strength to safely allow the towing of trailers or caravans: If so, how many.
  3. Were such vehicles recalled.
  4. Did General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd recently carry out an advertising campaign urging the public to buy AC Spark Plugs to reduce pollution: If so, does this advice in any way conflict with the fact that on some Torana LJ engines it has been found necessary to remove a restrictor on the air cleaners.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer:

My Department has received no complaints about the matter raised in the question. It was discussed with General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and they provided the following information:

1 ) No. We believe the question alludes to our Service Letter of February 1972, page 24, and, perhaps, our Service Letter of August 1973, page 249, to all dealers, Fleet Owners, and Government Departments.

What we have advised dealers and also purchasers of our vehicles is not to extend the head restraints beyond the uppermost setting, and this can be seen in the relevant Owner Manuals.

Provided the head restraint is placed in our suggested position, where the appropriate lock-in operates, there should be no problem for the operator.

The initial production of the HQ model was fitted with springs, the deflection rate of which would provide increased riding comfort. The springs were of sufficient strength to safely allow the towing of caravans and trailers, provided owners followed our written instructions contained in the Owner Manual supplied with the vehicle.

It has been our experience that people purchase caravans and trailers without due regard to the weight placed on the rear suspension of the towing unit.

We did receive complaints from customers on the subject, although we had an option to meet the needs of those customers who wished to use caravans or trailers regularly, such as tradesmen, or people constantly travelling over rough terrain.

In the interest of our product’s name, and knowing that many people in Australia enjoy caravaning it was decided to fit what had been an optional rear coil spring, as standard equipment.

As with the previous items, our field organisation and Fleet Owners were advised.

Our recommendation for caravan loading had been a maximum laden weight of 2000 lb, provided independent brakes had been fitted to the caravan and the load on the coupling was in accordance with our suggestions.

As the trend in caravan construction has been to bigger and more luxurious units, in order to keep abreast with

I might also add that I will ask the New National Authority on Road Safety and Standards, as soon as it is established, to investigate the incidence of defects in motor vehicles, not necessarily related to safety, which are causing concern to consumers generally.

General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd: Faulty Fuel Tanks (Question No. 129)

Senator Primmer:

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

  1. Did General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd place on the market HQ Holden and LJ Torana vehicles with fuel tanks subject to leaking at the seams; if so how many such vehicles were produced and what steps were taken to overcome the fault.
  2. ) Would such a fault affect the safety of the vehicles.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer.

My Department has received no complaints about the matter raised in the question. It was discussed with General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and they provided the following information:

  1. 1 ) We did experience weepage of the fuel tank and we have kept a constant check.

A total of 374.649 HQ vehicles were produced to July 1974, and we have replaced at our cost, all tanks in which faults were reported, totalling 3567, or 0.95 per cent of our production.

We requested and received tanks that had been removed and replaced to assist us in our investigation into the problem. We are still observing.

Action was taken in production to overcome the problem and our field reports have proved the effectiveness of the change in our technique.

  1. With regard to safety, the fuel tank is isolated from the inside of the vehicle and the exhaust system extends well beyond the fuel tank region.

We have had no cases of fire reported to us from the field organisation, and we consider any danger in this area remote. The extent of weepage from the seams was such that in by far the majority of cases the fuel evaporated.

In July 1972, the Australian Transport Advisory Council approved, on a trial basis, a uniform code of practice for safety related defect campaigns which had been prepared by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The operations of the scheme were to be reviewed, and in fact, several weeks ago I asked my Department to convene a meeting to review the operation of the Code. These deliberations will include considerations of the extent of the Code’s coverage, but I should add that the matters raised in this question would not come witin the scope of the Code as it is framed at present. 1 repeat the invitation I issued last March, for people with complaints about the quality of their vehicles to submit them directly to me. Special ‘hot line’ contacts have been established between my Department and motor vehicle manufacturers to ensure that legitimate complaints receive prompt attention.

I might also add that I will ask the new National Authority on Road Safety and Standards, as soon as it is established, to investigate the incidence of defects in motor vehicles, not necessarily related to safety, which are causing concern to consumers generally.

General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd: Safety of Vehicles (Question No. 130)

Senator Primmer:

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

  1. 1 ) Were a number of Holden HQ and Torana LJ cars produced in which the head rest would not remain in an extended position.
  2. Were a number of HQ Holden Sedans, coupe and station wagons placed on the market with rear springs of insufficient strength to safely allow the towing of trailers or caravans: If so, how many.
  3. Were such vehicles recalled.
  4. Did General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd recently carry out an advertising campaign urging the public to buy AC Spark Plugs to reduce pollution: If so, does this advice in any way conflict with the fact that on some Torana LJ engines it has been found necessary to remove a restrictor on the air cleaners.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer:

My Department has received no complaints about the matter raised in the question. It was discussed with General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and they provided the following information:

1 ) No. We believe the question alludes to our Service Letter of February 1972, page 24, and, perhaps, our Service Letter of August 1973, page 249, to all dealers, Fleet Owners, and Government Departments.

What we have advised dealers and also purchasers of our vehicles is not to extend the head restraints beyond the uppermost setting, and this can be seen in the relevant Owner Manuals.

Provided the head restraint is placed in our suggested position, where the appropriate lock-in operates, there should be no problem for the operator.

The initial production of the HQ model was fitted with springs, the deflection rate of which would provide increased riding comfort. The springs were of sufficient strength to safely allow the towing of caravans and trailers, provided owners followed our written instructions contained in the Owner Manual supplied with the vehicle.

It has been our experience that people purchase caravans and trailers without due regard to the weight placed on the rear suspension of the towing unit.

We did receive complaints from customers on the subject, although we had an option to meet the needs of those customers who wished to use caravans or trailers regularly, such as tradesmen, or people constantly travelling over rough terrain.

In the interest of our product’s name, and knowing that many people in Australia enjoy caravaning, it was decided to fit what had been an optional rear coil spring, as standard equipment.

As with the previous items, our field organisation and Fleet Owners were advised.

Our recommendation for caravan loading had been a maximum laden weight of 2000 lb, provided independent brakes had been fitted to the caravan and the load on the coupling was in accordance with our suggestions.

As the trend in caravan construction has been to bigger and more luxurious units, in order to keep abreast with those developments and to maintain our safety record, a gross load package was developed as an option.

The Holden HQ is capable of towing the larger caravans, but it must be realised that our vehicles are produced as passenger carriers and therefore some earnest consideration must be given if one wishes to place an additional load on the vehicle, and this all-up load can vary from small caravans of 1200 lb to caravans of 4000 lb.

The important factor is not whether the vehicles will pull the caravan or trailer but the load placed on the coupling. The recommended load is clearly set out in our Owner Manuals. We consider that caravan manufacturers should advise purchasers of the need to employ the correct type of hitch or coupling.

The vehicles were not recalled as this is not a safety related item.

Our Parts and Accessories Division did carry out advertising on AC Spark Plugs. The advertisement was designed to advise customers that by fitting AC Spark Plugs which are manufactured within the correct heat range of the engines used in our production, and by maintaining the engines with spark plugs that operate correctly, this would avoid engine miss.

When an engine does not fire on each combustion stroke, the unburned gases which contain hydro carbons are carried out through the exhaust system, thus adding to the pollution factor.

There is no connection between that advertisement and the contents of our Service Letter of August 1973, page 254, in which we advised dealers that to improve fuel economy of Torana LJ fitted with overhead cam engines, a rework of the cleaner assembly could be made, part of which was the removal of the restrictor’

The Advisory Committee on Vehicle Performance is currently preparing new Draft regulations for caravans and trailers. These regulations will cover the limitation of weight of a trailer (including a caravan) with respect to the vehicle which is towing it.

In July 1972, the Australian Transport Advisory Council approved, on a trial basis, a uniform code of practice for safety related defect campaigns which had been prepared by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The operations of the scheme were to be reviewed, and in fact, several weeks ago I asked my Department to convene a meeting to review the operation of the Code. These deliberations will include consideration of the extent of the Code’s coverage, but I should add that the matters raised in this question would not come within the scope of the Code as it is framed at present.

The operations of the scheme were to be reviewed, and in fact, several weeks ago I asked my Department too convene a meeting to review the operation of the Code. These deliberations will include consideration of the extent of the Code’s coverage, but I should add that the matters raised in this question would not come within the scope of the Code as it is framed at present.

I repeat the invitation I issued last March, for people with complaints about the quality of their vehicles to submit them directly to me. Special ‘hot line’ contacts have been established between my Department and motor vehicle manufacturers to ensure that legitimate complaints receive prompt attention.

I might also add that I will ask the new National Authority on Road Safety and Stanards as soon as it is established, to investigate the incidence of defects in motor vehicles, not necessarily related to safety, which are causing concern to consumers generally.

General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd: Faulty Oil Pumps (Question No. 131)

Senator Primmer:

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

  1. 1 ) On how many Holden HQ, Bedford CF and Torana LJ Model cars did General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd replace oil pumps, and at whose cost.
  2. Was the fault a result of incorrect checking procedures on the transmissions of these vehicles.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer:

My Department has received no complaints about the matter raised in the question. It was discussed with General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd and they provided the following information.

We presume the question refers to the oil pump in automatic transmissions rather than the lubricating oil pump. A Service Letter first issued in December 1972, covered Trimatic transmissions fitted to Holden, Torana, and Bedford CF. In it we advised dealers of a sleeve with a smoother surface finish that would be fitted to the transmission oil pump to obviate the possibility of misalignment in the pump, which could lead to two sealing rings, jamming. We replaced this component at no cost to the owners, in vehicles where the fault developed. These totalled 391 vehicles, or 0.1 per cent of our production of these models.

In January 1974 we issued a further Service Letter, listing serial numbers, informing dealers of the introduction of changes to the transmission oil pump.

The oil pump in the Trimatic Transmission provides the hydraulic pressure for shifts in gear ratios.

There was no operating fault in the original components. However, a problem known as hunting had been experienced between 2nd and 3rd gear, especially by some owners when towing caravans and, to help to overcome this condition we advised our dealers of what we had done to prevent owners operating under towing conditions experiencing this hunting.

Where the fault appeared, we arranged for the new components to be fitted at no cost to the owners. This applied to a total of391 vehicles orO.l per cent of our production of these models.’

In July 1972, the Australian Transport Advisory Council approved, on a trial basis, a uniform code of practice for safety related defect campaigns which had been prepared by the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries.

The operations of the scheme were to be reviewed, and in fact, several weeks ago I asked my Department to convene a meeting to review the operation of the Code. These deliberations will include consideration of the extent of the Code ‘s coverage, but I should add that the matters raised in this question would not come within the scope of the Code as it is framed at present.

I repeat the invitation I issued last March, for people with complaints about the quality of their vehicles to submit them directly to me. Special ‘hot line’ contracts have been established between my Department and motor vehicle manufacturers to ensure that legitimate complaints receive prompt attention.

I might also add that I will ask the new National Authority on Road Safety and Standards, as soon as it is established, to investigate the incidence of defects in motor vehicles, not necessarily related to safety, which are causing concern to consumers generally.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 3 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741003_senate_29_s61/>.