29th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1829
-I present the following petition from 57 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and further marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore, humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effect of such a Bill upon our Australian society,
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present 9 petitions, identical in wording and from 7, 1 1, 20, 23, 24, 28, 48, 88 and 227 citizens of Australia respectively, in the following terms:
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974. 1. The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages. 2. The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. 3. The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petitions received.
-I present the following petition from 198 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974.
. The Family Law Bill 1 974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages.
The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family.
The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill will be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 86 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable, the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled:
The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That, in modern society which accepts divorce, the law of divorce should be fair to both parties. However, we are very concerned about proposals to alter the law in the Family Law Bill 1974. I. The Family Law Bill, 1974 would fundamentally change the institution of marriage itself; that is all existing and future marriages. 2. The said Bill does not protect the legal and social rights of women and children in the family. 3. The said Bill does not provide for either the training of suitable counsellors who can assist in conciliation procedures or for suitable initiatives to be taken prior to the breakdown of marriage.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that this Bill be tabled for 6 months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon our Australian society.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
page 1830
– (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)- Mr President, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That the Senate re-affirms the principle expressed in the resolution agreed to in the Committee of the Whole on 2 December 197 1 and adopted by the Senate on 9 December 197 1, viz, that whilst it may be argued that statutory authorities are not accountable through the responsible Minister of State to Parliament for day to day operations, they may be called to account by Parliament itself at any time and that there are no areas of expenditure of public funds where these corporations have a discretion to withhold details or explanations from Parliament or its committees unless the Parliament has expressly provided otherwise.
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That leave be granted to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the elimination of racial and other discrimination.
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move;
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to increase certain amounts of compensation payable to and in respect of seamen.
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act 1971-1973, and for other purposes.
page 1830
– I inform the Senate that Senator Willesee will be absent from the Senate today and possibly for the remainder of this week due to illness. During his absence I will receive questions which are normally addressed to him.
page 1830
page 1830
-My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As the Government has spent the past 12 months searching for a scapegoat for Australia’s soaring inflation rate- including the Senate, the Opposition, the States, prices, employers, trade unions, business, even claiming it was imported and now is blaming excessive wage claims without managing to stem, let alone reduce, the inflation rate- when will the Government formally acknowledge the AttorneyGeneral’s own belief as reported at page 640 of Hansard of 18 September 1973 and ‘acknowledge the basic duty and responsibility of the national Government for economic management’?
-The Government has always recognised the basic responsibility and duty of the Federal Government for economic management. Regrettably in this country the Federal Government is not armed with the powers to manage the economy. Honourable senators may recall that at the Constitutional Convention one of the broad propositions put forward by the Australian Government was that the Constitution should be altered so that the Federal Parliament would be able to arm the Government with the broad powers of economic management which are held by governments of other countries. It is quite absurd that the Government does not have clear powers to manage the economy and that honourable senators opposite should take up their present stand when they will recall that they bitterly opposed the constitutional referendum to enable this Parliament to have powers over incomes and prices. This is basic to the management of the economy, yet they took the stand that not even the Federal Parliament was to be entrusted with those constitutional powers.
It is quite clear that over a whole range of initiatives the Opposition has endeavoured to obstruct and delay the Government’s proposals. The Trade Practices Act came into operation only a few days ago, but it should have been in operation for the better part of 12 months. It would have been in operation if it had not been for obstruction by Opposition members of this Senate. That is one measure which everyone agrees is vital to dealing with price fixing and the rackets which have been rife in industry. The Opposition has nothing to congratulate itself on in its repeated obstruction of the Government’s endeavours, even with its limited constitutional powers, to act on behalf of the people.
page 1831
-Has the Minister for Agriculture seen reports of accusations by the leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, Mr McManus, that the Prime Minister is responsible for the present low returns to rural producers? Does the Minister agree with these accusations?
-I suppose that if the Prime Minister is responsible he must also be credited with achieving the high prices that rural producers are receiving for wheat and all the other products which are giving good returns. The statement to which the honourable senator has referred is a quite irresponsible statement to make, but of course it is typical of many irresponsible statements that were made by Mr McManus when he was in the Senate as a member of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, and of similar irresponsible statements that were made by members of the Australian Country Party. I guess that is why Mr McManus is now where he is.
page 1831
-My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the Prime Minister’s threat to introduce a new penalty tax on wage increases as a means of countering inflation. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it is correct that the Prime Minister has abandoned hopes of wage restraint by the trade unions, regardless of whether quarterly cost of living adjustments are introduced?
– I do not think the Prime Minister has abandoned any hope of dealing with the trade unions and requesting them to help to carry out governmental policy. But insofar as the rest of the question deserves some reply by the Prime Minister, I will refer it to him so that he may add something if he wishes.
page 1831
– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration comment further on the case of a girl of non-European origin who was denied employment and the circumstances of the case which were to be the basis of a ministerial investigation? The question concerns the contravention of a convention relating to employment discrimination.
– The question raises the matter of discrimination. It concerns a young lady who applied for a position and was refused it. I have seen the Press cuttings on this matter and last week I discussed it with Mr Cameron. In his opinion it was a case of discrimination and he is going to see that it is referred to the Discrimination Board. He pointed out that recently the Government has ratified the appropriate convention of the International Labour Organisation which deals with this sort of situation. I will inform the honourable senator of any other details about the case that I can obtain.
page 1831
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer the Minister to recent newspaper reports that the motor vehicle component manufacturer Borg- Warner (Australia) Ltd last week retrenched 205 employees from its Fairfield plant in Sydney, making a total of 380 persons retrenched in Sydney since mid-August. Can the Minister confirm that Borg- Warner also retrenched 72 employees in Albury 6 weeks ago and that a further 84 employees were retrenched in the same city last week? Can the Minister give assurances that companies like Borg-Warner can survive to oner the employment opportunities so necessary in Sydney and in growth centres like Albury-Wodonga? Is it a fact that there can be no growth centres without adequate opportunity for employment and that the whole program of decentralisation is threatened by today’s widespread unemployment?
-I think that the part of the honourable senator’s question which deals with retrenchments or redundancy of some employees of Borg-Warner (Australia) Ltd comes largely within the responsibility of the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, and Senator Wriedt in this chamber represents that Minister. The question refers to displacement and to industrial changes. The Minister for Labor and Immigration is concerned first with the employment prospects of people who might be retrenched or who have been retrenched and, secondly, with whether they could come under the respective schemes being promoted by the Minister. I cannot give any particular information in relation to the position of Borg- Warner; I will try to obtain it. As to whether the employees might be employable in other areas, I can only say that as the honourable senator would probably know, Mr Cameron presides over an ad hoc committee of Ministers whose aim is to set up regional employment schemes where possible. Whether the speculation the honourable senator makes as to regional displacement concerns that ad hoc committee I do not know. I will find out whether an application has been made and I think I should talk to my colleague Senator Wriedt in connection with the industry to see whether we can provide some more information.
page 1832
-Is the Minister for Agriculture aware of the difficulties at present confronting beef producers in Australia? Will the Minister indicate whether anything can be done to overcome these difficulties?
-I think it is well known that there has been a significant downturn in the world meat markets. The Government has taken all possible steps to reactivate the markets, especially in Japan and the United States of America. On Australia’s initiative a conference was held in Washington last week to determine ways to normalise world meat trade. No specific decision came out of the conference except that further official talks should take place. The Government is mindful of the position and in view of the depressed state of world meat trade one must assume that the situation will continue for some time. Nevertheless, a close watch is kept upon the trade and all avenues which will expand our exports of meat are continually being explored.
page 1832
-Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister report on a probable date of receipt of the Remuneration Tribunal report by Mr Justice Campbell in relation to academic salaries? If a delay in receipt of the application of the report is anticipated, will consideration be given to an immediate interim increase of 25 per cent? Will steps be taken to ensure that there is no delay in making funds available to enable institutions to pay adjusted salaries?
-I would like to obtain the information necessary to give a full answer to the honourable senator’s question. I do not appear to have it immediately available to me. Everyone is conscious of the need for adjustment of academic salaries. It is vital to any community that those people who are concerned with the advancement of knowledge and with the education of our young people who are to take leading parts in every walk of life should be adequately remunerated. I will endeavour to find out the exact position and let the honourable senator know.
page 1832
– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Can he inform the Parliament of the present position concerning the giving of reasons for their decisions by determining authorities under the repatriation legislation?
– I replied earlier this year to a question from Senator Keeffe on this subject. Since then some progress has been made in this matter which the Government believes provides for a better administration of the tribunals making determinations which are so important to people who apply for repatriation benefits. The war pensions entitlement appeal tribunals have been making available to applicants the reasons for their decisions since 1 June last. The intention of the Government is that all such tribunals should make the reasons for their decisions available to applicants. Naturally, some problems have to be overcome in doing so. It is not entirely simple after many years of merely providing a decision to make the appropriate arrangements for the reasons behind the decision to be provided. However steps have been taken to see that the repatriation boards will commence to give reasons for their decisions as from 1 July 1975. At present arrangements are in hand to make the appropriate amendments to the repatriation regulations.
page 1832
-Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the Senate whether provisions of the Trade Practices Act will apply to extravagant claims by political candidates, such as the now well known misrepresentation: ‘Only Whitlam has reduced inflation by one-third’.?
-The Trade Practices Act is confined in its operation to goods and services.
Mostly it is founded on the financial corporation power of the Commonwealth. I will concede that it does apply, in the Territories, to individuals. It is, I suppose, a pity that political candidates are not subject to some kind of tribunal. Perhaps if the penalties which attach to those who engage in false representations under the Trade Practices Act were applied to political affairs, the community would hear a lot more good sense and a lot less false representation.
I would have thought that if one were to examine the conduct of the various political figures and the parties in recent years, it would be pretty obvious that the public has rejected as false and misleading the proposals put forward by the now Opposition on 2 important occasions. The people of Australia were consulted twice and were able to consider the falsity of the representations being made to them by Opposition senators which kept them in Opposition. If the Opposition foolishly thinks that the people will not see through the falsity of its promises, it will find this out on the next occasion on which we go to the people.
page 1833
– Has the Minister for the Media seen a report that the New South Wales Minister for Education, Mr Willis, was astounded recently to discover that the average school age child in Australia watches television for 28 hours a week? Has he noted that this report quotes Mr Willis as saying that he had a check made by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to discover this figure? Can the Minister indicate what power the New South Wales Minister for Education has to direct the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in its audience research activities?
– I have seen the report in one of this morning’s newspapers which states that the New South Wales Minister for Education had said that he had had the Australian Broadcasting Control Board make a check on the figures relating to programs watched by school age children and their viewing habits. Mr Willis appears to have been astounded by information that certainly is at least 3 years old and which has been made available to the public for at least 3 years. The figures that he has quoted are taken from the report on research that was done for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board by its senior research officer as long ago as 1971. The report was titled ‘Television Viewing by Young Secondary Students’. Mr Willis, like any other member of the Australian public, is entitled to information of a public nature that has been obtained and made available by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I doubt whether it can be suggested in those circumstances that the New South Wales Minister for Education has directed the Board to make the check to which the honourable senator referred.
page 1833
– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer refers to the proposed capital gains tax. Has consideration been given to whether property owners whose land is resumed by either a State or Federal government and who are in effect forced to dispose of their property in this way will be required to pay capital gains tax in this situation when it may well be that they would not have decided to dispose of their property at that particular point of time?
-As I have indicated earlier, no final decisions have been made on the details of the capital gains tax that was announced in the Budget. I think it is proper that the question be forwarded to the Treasurer so that a reply can be provided.
page 1833
-Has the attention of the Minister for the Media been drawn to a Press report in this morning’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ which states that colour television transmission hours are certain to be extended because of the runaway success of its weekend debut. Is there any intention to extend the present hours of transmission?
– I did see this morning’s report in the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, and I must say frankly that the report makes assumptions which I believe are quite dubious. It is by no means certain that colour television transmission hours are to be extended before 1 March 1975 beyond the hours that are already approved by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The matter is completely the responsibility of the Control Board which indicated in a circular to television stations as long ago as last May that the rules for colour television transmission hours would be kept under continuous review. The Board has since indicated its approval of some hours of colour transmission tests leading up to the actual C day on 1 March next year. Doubtless these arrangements can be reviewed from time to time, but it is by no means certain that they will in fact change. Certainly I see no prospect of bringing the introduction of full colour transmissions forward to a point earlier than 1 March, which was the date set by the previous Government as long ago as 1972 and adhered to by this Government. The Board has agreed to the transmission of some colour television programs, particularly in the interests of viewers who are purchasing sets, to ensure that when the purchaser receives his set he can be confident that it has been tested for reception on all channels and not just one or two channels that happen to be transmitting at the time.
page 1834
– My question which is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise refers to the widespread reports last week of the illegal export of wildlife from Australia to various parts of the world. I ask the Minister whether he has any information in regard to the smuggling out of Australia of wildlife in large numbers and whether the Government is taking any particular action in regard to it.
-Yes, I have some information on this matter. For some years there has been a great deal of obviously organised smuggling of wildlife, especially birds, from Australia. This smuggling occurs through Singapore and across to Europe. Sometimes the birds are smuggled through Great Britain. The British have tightened up their laws, I believe as a result of some requests made by me when I was in London last January. The smuggling is very difficult to stop. I recall that when Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson was the Minister in charge of this matter many questions were asked of him and he made many statements about it. A number of couriers have been caught taking birds, for example. It seems pretty obvious to me that only what they describe as the small fry smugglers have been captured. I am not satisfied with the efforts that have been made to stamp out this traffic and I have made my attitude on it very clear.
– In Holland, too?
– Yes, there is a great deal of it throughout Europe. I think partly the answer may be to allow some legal export so that it can be controlled and supervised to avoid the cruelty which presently occurs. Probably some of the birds which are smuggled out now could very reasonably be allowed to go out legally under proper conditions after seeing to it that there was proper conservation of the species. As to the rest, I think there ought to be a stamping out of what has gone on because it is extremely dangerous. Perhaps even more dangerous for Australia is the smuggling in of wildlife, particularly birds. Everyone would understand the grave danger of the introduction of exotic diseases into Australia. Perhaps that is of even greater concern. I assure the Senate that in recent days, even, I have taken action to ensure that all that can be done to stamp out this practice is done.
page 1834
– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General who would agree that members of the the community who are totally blind are at a tremendous disadvantage in communicating. In view of this would the Minister consider allowing such people either telephones free of rent or free telephone calls?
– The question should be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I will discuss the matter with him but I would like to say in a general way that, as everybody knows, recently we have had to put up tariffs- a move which has been resisted in the community- to ensure that the Post Office is viable. However, in the light of those general remarks I will consider with the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security what can be given in reply to the honourable senator’s question.
page 1834
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy and I refer to a report from Japan that Australia and Brazil have entered into an agreement for joint action in relation to the export of iron ore. Is the report correct? If so, will the Minister provide full details of the agreement?
– This matter has certainly not been brought to my attention. I am unaware of it. I will refer the question to the Minister for Minerals and Energy to obtain an answer.
page 1834
– I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Has his attention been drawn to an editorial in the Pinnaroo ‘Border Times’ of 17 October asking why an advertisement about the Trade Practices Act did not appear in that newspaper? As country newspapers, such as the
Pinnaroo ‘Border Times’, are an important part of community life in country areas, will the Attorney-General consider the smaller provincial newspapers when placing future advertisements?
– In reply to the first part of the question, yes, it has. I will consider the position of the smaller provincial newspapers. The Trade Practices Act advertisement appeared very widely. I thought it was important and should appear widely. I am conscious of the fact that many people read only the suburban or smaller provincial newspapers, and sometimes trade papers, and I will do what I can to see that those who read the Pinnaroo ‘Border Times’ are no worse off than other persons. I think they would certainly get as good a knowledge of international affairs as anybody who reads a national newspaper. I will see to it that the Pinnaroo Border Times’ is not overlooked on the next occasion of such an advertisement by my Department. In fact, the honourable senator having raised the matter I will insist that it go into the Pinnaroo ‘Border Times ‘.
page 1835
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration and it refers to the estimated 230,000 young people who in the weeks immediately ahead will be leaving schools, colleges and universities and seeking employment consistent with their talents and training. I ask: What specific steps is the Government taking to ensure that these young people enter the careers of their choice? Can the Government give an undertaking that the appropriate jobs will be available for these people? Alternatively, is the Government taking the defeatist attitude, expressed by some of its spokesmen, that unemployment, now rising at 1,000 sackings a day, will continue to accelerate in the months ahead? Finally, what alternatives to dole or relief-type measures does the Government propose to solve this grave problem?
– The question is a very general one and deals with the responsibilities of the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Treasurer.
– I do not mind if they answer it.
– Let me reply, senator. I will give you what information I can. The Minister for Labor has been quite honest in evaluating the employment trends.
- Mr Egerton did not think so.
-Will you let me reply? You can ask another question afterwards. He said last year, in an honest way, that unemployment will grow. He has stated that in his opinion it will increase but that he does not support the figures which are now being speculated upon by a number of employer groups and other people. Last year he promoted a number of important schemes to remedy these tendencies. For example, he was the first to propose a scheme of supervision training, providing subsidies to employers to enable people to train to be better managers and to be more effective in regard to productivity. In addition he developed the National Training Scheme, which has been operating since 1 October and which is designed to do the sort of thing that Senator Carrick mentioned. This is the first time that we have ever had a manpower policy in Australia.
Recently the Minister developed and now chairs the meeting of the Regional Employment Development scheme, or the RED scheme, which is designed to deal with regional unemployment not really related to structural displacement. There are some other matters relating to general structural maladjustments upon which Senator Wriedt could more precisely report. In regard to the general employment queries I can only say that the measures which have been introduced by the Minister for Labor ought to be able to deal with the growing unemployment situation. The National Training Scheme should be able to divert young people from employment careers which would not be available at present to careers which might be available if some readjustment occurred. In those general answers I have outlined the remedies which the Government is trying to take. Perhaps Senator Wriedt can state whether anything new is under consideration- I am not sure of that position- by means of which the Government can avoid the growing unemployment situation which we know is developing in this country.
page 1835
– Has the Minister for the Media read recent reports of proceedings at a public inquiry into allegations of suppression of news about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Prices report on soaps and detergents? Has he noted an apparent change in editorial attitudes towards this inquiry coinciding with evidence at the inquiry that the sales managers of 2 stations had consulted each other about a news item before it was withdrawn from news and current affairs programs on each of the 2 channels? Will the Minister ascertain whether commercial broadcasting and television stations have provided a reasonable coverage of news of this inquiry? Finally, does the Minister believe that public interest is best served if stations are allowed to regulate themselves?
– I have noticed that reports of the proceedings being conducted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in public hearing are not as full as they were initially. I have also noticed that one newspaper, namely the ‘Australian Financial Review’, now appears to consider the inquiry as being no longer an important news item. This seems to me to be rather strange because when the inquiry started this particular newspaper, which is part of the Fairfax chain, ran extensive reports of the proceedings. I do not know whether the commercial broadcasting and television stations are running any news stories relating to the inquiry of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, but I certainly will check for the honourable senator and provide him with the information. As to the last portion of the honourable senator’s question, I note that I have been accused by some commercial station personnel of trying to set up dictatorial controls over broadcasting and television stations. One or two stations in particular have made extensive attacks. I have deliberately refrained from replying because at this stage I am still in the course of holding discussions on certain of these matters with the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and also, as a result of a conversation which was had with me this morning, with the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters.
Pending those discussions and the debate in this Parliament I do not intend to reply to these attacks. In the meantime, however, let me say that I think the proposition that stations should be left to regulate themselves is merely an open invitation to what one might refer to as commercial mayhem which no government could seriously contemplate. This certainly was not contemplated by the previous Government and it is not contemplated by this Government. As far as I know it is not contemplated anywhere else in the world. It does not happen in the United Kingdom, the United States of America or Canada. I say frankly that it will not happen here. The air waves are public property. Those who use them use them as a privilege and not necessarily as a right. I believe that they have to account to the public for their use of the air waves.
page 1836
-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade say whether clothing imports from Korea, Taiwan, India and Hong Kong have almost entirely stopped in recent weeks? Is it a fact that no quota exists with respect to the import of goods from communist China and that such imports are flowing freely into Australia? Is the Minister aware of the confusion and uncertainty caused to manufacturers’ agents throughout Australia who are unable to fulfil orders due to the Government’s stop-go trading policy?
– As the honourable senator would know, the Government had negotiations some three or four months ago with the countries mentioned. By agreement voluntary restraint was placed on the export of textiles from those countries to Australia. I am not aware of the specific quotas which now apply but my understanding is that the level of imports has been set currently at 20 per cent above the 1972-73 level. This will enable Australian manufacturers to get the share of the market which they had before the 70 per cent lift in imports of textiles during 1973-74. But to get the precise information which the honourable senator seeks I shall have to refer the question to the Minister.
page 1836
-Has the Minister representing the Prime Minister noted the result of the election for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly wherein the Country-Liberal Party achieved a complete victory and the Australian Labor Party is unlikely to win any seats. Does the Minister see any consistent pattern of disaster in this and other recent elections? Does he also pass off this electoral failure as a result of lack of electors’ interest, as he has done in the past, or will he not now agree that it represents the absolute repudiation of Australian Labor Party performances in Government?
– I think we see a pattern of disaster if we look back. What has been done in the last few days is unfortunate. It was a decision of the people of the Northern Territory and it may well prove disastrous for them. If we go back a little further to May of this year we find that a very important election was held all over Australia and it was a disaster for those who brought it on themselves. That disaster was reflected in this chamber where we once had a Democratic Labor Party. Five members of that Party have gone, four of them as a result of that disastrous election.
– One is an ambassador.
-I suppose that he might have been able to see the disaster that was coming for his colleagues, and he avoided the disaster like the wily old politician that he used to be. I think that the Opposition ought not to remind the people of the disastrous period that it had in office and its disastrous steps in forcing a government, which was properly elected, to go to a premature election at which the Opposition was defeated. The Opposition has not learned its lesson. It rumbles still and talks about what it might do to prevent the properly elected Government of Australia carrying out its mandate.
page 1837
-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
-ls it to elicit further information?
– Yes. Is the statement by the Attorney-General that the result of the election last Saturday may be a disaster for the people of the Northern Territory to be taken as some threat to them?
-Obviously it is not. The honourable senator asked a political question and he got a political answer. The policies of the Liberal-Country Party have proved to be disastrous wherever they have operated. I think that we will probably find that the same thing will happen in the Northern Territory. The people of the Northern Territory will join then with the rest of Australia in electing a government which is representative of the Party to which I belong. I think that the honourable senator ought to recognise that he is with the tide that is flowing out all over the world. This is a democracy and the people of the Northern Territory are entitled to have their wish. If they want to have those disastrous policies which are associated with the Liberal and Country parties inflicted upon them, that is their wish and they are entitled to have it carried out.
page 1837
– I will consider whether a statement should be made. As the honourable senator would be aware, whenever proceedings are taken against any person there are a number of matters to be considered. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the administration of Customs in this and other respects has been quite vigilant.
page 1837
– I ask a question of the Minister for Agriculture. Was any Australian Meat Board member present at the conference on meat held last week in Washington? If not, why not?
-As far as I know, no member was present. I would have to refer the question to my colleague, Dr Cairns, as the meeting was held under his auspices, to fmd out exactly the composition of the delegation.
page 1837
-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister that it was in the national interest that unions should not make unreasonable or excessive wage demands. Will the Leader of the Government assure the Senate that the Prime Minister’s statement is the policy of the Government? Will he give an indication to unions and union members of what are in present economic circumstances unreasonable or excessive wage demands?
– I suppose it follows as a matter of sheer logic and language that nobody, unions or anyone else, should be making unreasonable or excessive demands. The nature of the question is such that it must receive that reply. Unfortunately, as the honourable senator would know, unions are compelled by the peculiarities of our Constitution to make excessive demands. One of the most extraordinary features of our Constitution as it has been interpreted by the courts is the arbitral power. The power of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to make an award is limited by some very technical interpretations which mean that it can make an award only within the ambit of the dispute between the parties. When there is a changing situation especially an inflationary one, a federal union making a demand for, say $10 a week must serve a log and is put to enormous expense to claim that $10, yet after the passage of time with protracted hearings the union should perhaps more appropriately be claiming more than $10 a week. But the Arbitration Commission cannot move outside that claim for $10 because that is what the original dispute was about.
So over the years, as everybody knows, the unions have adopted the device of claiming more than they are really seeking. The result is that what appear to be extravagant demands are made for the sake of what is referred to as the ambit so that they will not have to rush along after a few months or a year and serve another log of claims, again at great expense. This is a stupid situation. That element should be taken out of the arbitral system. Some day there may be a different interpretation of that aspect of the Constitution, but it would be better if we were to amend the Constitution to remove that absurd operation of it from our industrial affairs. In answer to the honourable senator I say that nobody wants unreasonable demands made, but some way should be found to enable industrial differences to be resolved without the technicality which results in what might be called excessive demands being made. The present situation is not the fault of the trade unions, which are subjected to the system.
page 1838
– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer received protests against the Government’s proposed capital gains tax and representations from sections of industry calling on the Government not to proceed with the tax? Will he tell the Senate which industries are protesting and whether their arguments have merit?
– I am not aware of specific protests having been made. Protests could have been sent to the Treasurer but I am not aware that any have come to me. If they have I shall provide the honourable senator with a list of the organisations which have lodged protests.
– And as Minister representing the Treasurer?
– I shall put the request to the Treasurer to see whether he also is prepared to provide that information.
page 1838
– I appreciate the question that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has asked and his interest in the matter. I am aware of the reports from the Philippines and I think that they could be particularly disturbing in view of the fact that contact between Australia and the Philippines is now much greater than it was a few years ago, particularly with the number of regular direct flights between Australia and Manila. Obviously this is a matter with which the Minister for Health himself will have to deal. I shall put to him the matter that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has raised today, and as soon as I have received a reply on this matter, which I agree is a matter of some urgency, I shall advise the Senate of what action the Department of Health is taking in order to prevent any possible introduction of cholera into Australia.
page 1838
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does not the result of the elections held in the Northern Territory last Saturday now prove beyond all doubt that allegations made by the Leader of the Australian Country party in another place, that the Australian Labor Government manipulates redistributions of electorates and methods of voting to its own advantage, are completely misleading and without foundation?
-I think it does.
page 1838
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. H e will recall that earlier this year the Prime Minister and some other senior Ministers were declaring that the rate of inflation was dropping and that in any case Australia had to learn to live with it. In view of the concern now being expressed about the state of the economy by the same Ministers, I ask: When did the Government first realise that spiralling inflation would lead Australia into economic chaos? Was it before the framing of last month’s Budget? If so, why did the Budget not reflect that realisation and a determination to reverse the trend?
-I think that everyone should be aware that inflation is world wide. To speak of it as if it is somehow the fault of the present Ministers or of the Budget is absolute nonsense. Inflation is raging all over the world. The reasons for it are, I think, capable of being known and understood, and they ought to be discussed more than they are in this Parliament. The prime causes of inflation are certainly outside Australia. Inflation is raging in countries whether there is employment or unemployment in those countries and whether the countries are developed or developing countries. In Australia we are trying to do the best we can to cope with the inflation and to maintain the high standard of living of the Australian people. The Budget was directed to that end. Whatever steps have to be taken to cope with the problems of the inflation that is hitting us, the same as it is hitting people elsewhere, will be undertaken by the Government.
There is no doubt about the Government’s intentions and desire to cope with inflation. Honourable senators opposite expect some magic kind of formula to be advanced to overcome a problem which is unable to be dealt with by the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, other developed countries, or the developing countries. It is quite absurd to start to talk as if in some way it is the fault of the Ministers of the Australian Government that they have not automatically solved this problem which has proved insoluble elsewhere.
page 1839
– I proposed earlier when answering a question by Senator Bonner on the very important subject of academic salaries to add later, if I could, to the information I then gave. Further information supplied by the Department of the Special Minister of State has been sent in to me. It states that yesterday, 2 1 October, Mr Justice Campbell wrote to the Prime Minister advising him that he has decided to make an early review of academic salaries under the Act with a view to giving an early interim determination and report. Mr Justice Campbell expects to complete the review before the end of this year.
page 1839
– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What is the current approved establishment of the Minister’s Department? What is the current actual establishment? If there is a variation, as I understand there is, what are the reasons for that variation?
– I do not know the figures, but there is a variation between approved and actual establishments. I suggest that the honourable senator could ask his question at the Estimates Committee hearing this afternoon. The variation has arisen because of a failure to attract applicants for particular positions and the formal requirements of the Public Service Board in filling positions. New positions have been created and appointments have been made but it is necessary to wait until appeals have been heard. It is not an easy matter. This afternoon officers of my Department and I will give the honourable senator all the details.
page 1839
– 1 direct my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise and Attorney-General. Yesterday in the Wollongong courts a man was convicted of having a significant amount of heroin in his possession. In that State court he received a penalty of 2 years imprisonment with possible parole after 12 months. To me that is almost an unbelievable minimum sentence for such a wicked, shameful offence. I use those words deliberately in relation to heroin. I know that the Minister has spoken on this subject before. Is any attempt being made to establish uniformity with the States in relation to penalties for drug peddling? There is no redemption from heroin addiction, lt is a frightening thing if the sentence awarded at Wollongong is to be the order of punishment for heroin trafficking.
-I think the honourable senator knows my views on the matter of heroin and other drugs which are destructive to humans. The courts ultimately have to administer the laws against drug trafficking and sentences vary in individual cases. I indicated to the Senate previously that in respect of heroin trafficking I had taken the course of sending counsel to inform the courts by appropriate evidence of the prevalence of the offence and to adduce evidence from experts such as pharmacologists on the characteristics and deleterious effects of the drugs. I think it has been useful and I intend to continue the practice. These cases are far more important than many other cases which come before the courts.
I cannot express any view on the particular case referred to by the honourable senator, but as to uniformity of penalties he will be aware that apart from the Single Convention on Narcotics which is implemented in our Narcotic Drugs Act there is also the Psychotropic Convention which was arrived at in Vienna a year or two ago. I have had extensive work done on legislation which would bring that convention into operation in the drugs of dependence field and also to widen the scope of the Narcotic Drugs Act. This may be one way of bringing about uniformity. I certainly would not like to see the serious cases of hard drugs being dealt with in any light manner. I do not think anyone would. I will do what I can.
page 1840
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the Opposition ‘s request that he and the Prime Minister define what may be regarded as excessive wage demands, does he regard the 28 per cent across the board salary and allowances increases retrospective to 1 July for State parliamentarians that was recently accepted and advocated by the Honourable Johannes Petersen, Premier of Queensland, as excessive?
-I do not know how the Prime Minister would regard it. I do not know that I should elaborate on the matter. Senator Milliner has implied something in his question but I do not think that it is proper for me to make a comment on a matter which is within the realm of the Queensland Parliament. There is a Bill of that Parliament dealing with the salaries of its members. The matter has been widely canvassed and criticised in newspapers. I think I should leave it at that.
page 1840
– Order! I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of a former distinguished senator, Hartley Cant. I am sure all honourable senators are pleased to see him visit the Senate.
page 1840
Senator MURPHY (New South WalesAttorneyGeneral) and Minister for Customs and Excise)- Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Commonwealth Police Act, 1957-1966 I present for the information of honourable senators the annual report of the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 1840
– Pursuant to section 23 of the Legal Aid Ordinance 1972 of the Australian Capital Territory I present for the information of honourable senators the report of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Committee for the period 1 March 1972 to 30 June 1972.
page 1840
– Pursuant to section 24 of the Metric Conversion Act 1970 I present for the information of honourable senators the fourth report of the Metric Conversion Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 1840
Report on Items
– I present for the information of honourable senators the report on footwear, dated 10 October 1974, of the Temporary Assistance Authority in accordance with section 30 (2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, and the report of the Tariff Board on Photographic and Cinematographic Apparatus, etc., dated 4 May 1972.
page 1840
– Pursuant to section 34 of the Services Trust Fund Act, 1 947- 1 950 1 present for the information of honourable senators the annual report by the Trustees of the Services Canteens Trust Fund for the year 1973.
page 1840
Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the Defence Report 1974.
page 1841
– For the information of honourable senators I present the second annual report of the Department of Urban and Regional Development for the year ended 30 June 1974.
page 1841
Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:
That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the provision by Australia of aid for developing countries.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing orders suspended.
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to establish the Australian Development Assistance Agency to administer the provision by Australia of aid for developing countries and to advise the Minister on matters relating to aid. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will be responsible for the Agency. Honourable senators will recall that this Bill was passed by the House of Representatives in the second session of the last Parliament. It is gratifying to note that the Bill received support on both sides of the House, and indeed more generally in the community. It was introduced and read for the first time in the Senate on 10 April 1974. There are no changes in the Bill now being reintroduced in this Parliament. The reasons for the Government’s decision to unify the administration of Australian aid within a separate statutory corporation were outlined fully by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) when he gave his second reading speech on this Bill in the House on 12 March 1974. This is recorded in Hansard of that date and there is no need for me to go over the same ground in quite the same detail on this occasion. I propose, however, to cover the main points and make one or two additional observations.
Over the years there has been a great increase in the volume and complexity of Australia’s development assistance. The Government has decided that it is necessary to consolidate the organisational arrangements which have developed in a largely ad hoc fashion over a quarter of a century since Australia’s first involvement in aid as a founder of the Colombo Plan. The solution which was appropriate in 1953-54, to distribute between various departments with related interests the administration of a program of less than $20m in aid, is clearly inappropriate to the complex program of 1974-75 which totals $341m. The government decided that improvements must be effected in almost all aspects of our aid endeavours- in the machinery for formulating policy, in ensuring greater attention to the welfare and distributive effects of our aid, in evaluating the effectiveness of our various programs, in bringing greater expertise into our staffing arrangements and in more directly associating the community with the Government’s aid efforts.
Because of the inadequacy of past arrangements, also recognised by the Joint Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee’s 1972 inquiry into Australia’s foreign aid, the Prime Minister, in March last year, commissioned a task force ‘to examine all the options for a unified aid administration to administer all aid including multilateral aid, all bilateral aid and aid to an independent Papua New Guinea’. This task force considered a number of possible structures for aid administration. In the Government’s view, the form which will best meet Australia’s needs is a statutory corporation, under a Director-General responsible to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Bill now before the Senate is designed to implement these decisions.
Honourable senators will be aware that as an interim measure, pending legislation, and in order to provide continuity in our aid arrangements, an office of the Australian Development Assistance Agency was set up on 1 December last within the Department of Foreign Affairs to bring together existing aid functions previously carried out by a number of departments. The Agency has since been functioning in that form. Mr L. W. Johnson, former Administrator and High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea, was appointed on 8th April this year as its DirectorGeneral. Parts I and II of the Bill provide for the establishment of the Agency and set out its functions which are to administer Australia’s aid to developing countries and to advise the Minister on these matters. Part III of the Bill provides for the appointment by the Governor-General of a Director-General of the Agency, for a term not exceeding 5 years.
Part IV of the Bill covers the establishment of a Development Assistance Advisory Board, to advise the Minister and the Agency in respect of matters relating to aid to developing countries. The Board will normally include members of the public, the trade unions, the business community and voluntary organisations, in addition to public servants. An interim committee of the Board has been established under the chairmanship of Sir John Crawford and has already done valuable work in clarifying the approach which should be adopted on the complex issues of aid. Part V of the Bill covers staff matters and provides that the permanent staff of the agency shall be public servants. Part VI of the Bill provides for moneys appropriated for aid projects to be paid to a development assistance fund which will be non-lapsing. This will avoid the difficulties which have been encountered in meeting aid commitments and will ensure continuity of aid activities. Part VII of the Bill provides, inter alia, for the Agency to submit an annual report to the Minister for presentation to Parliament and to furnish financial statements to the AuditorGeneral.
In deciding that the Agency should be responsible to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Government has recognised the close connection between aid and foreign policy. Development assistance lies within the framework of Australia’s foreign relations and our aid objectives must be consonant with our national policy objectives in our relations with other countries. I attach great importance, therefore, to the establishment and maintenance of a close and effective working relationship between the Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Practical liaison arrangements have already been established between the Agency and the Department to ensure consultation on a day to day basis. Submissions to the Minister on policy and other matters of substance will indicate that such consultation has taken place.
Similarly, aid Agency personnel serving overseas, who will be under the direction of the head of the Australian mission, will have the normal responsibility to keep heads of missions informed of their activities and to consult appropriate mission staff on matters which have foreign policy implications. Heads of mission, or their designates, will be given an opportunity to comment on proposals for new forms of aid or significant modifications to existing aid activities. In addition, the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Mr Renouf, is at present a member of the interim committee of the Development Assistance Advisory Board and will be a member of the Board to be established under this legislation. The Department of Foreign Affairs will also be represented on the interdepartmental committee on external aid, which will ensure the co-ordination of aid policy matters with other areas of Government policy, including our foreign relations.
An important consideration which has influenced the form of this Bill has been the Government’s recognition of the growing awareness in our community of Australia’s place in the world and in particular its role in our region. Australians appreciate that we are among the more fortunate nations of the world and that this fact has important implications for our attitudes towards assisting developing countries. The Government, in setting up the Development Assistance Advisory Board and by its assistance to non government agencies, has indicated that it welcomes community participation in Australia’s aid efforts. Many Australians understand that changes have taken place in the philosophy underlying international aid and they are conscious that Australia must adapt its aid policies to the needs of the future. The Government looks to the new agency to devise aid initiatives which will help to raise the living standards of the majority in developing countries, to ameliorate population pressures, to create wider employment opportunities and to strengthen the rural sector. These are aspects of development which have sometimes been overlooked, but which are now being recognised as key areas in the effort to assist developing countries. To ensure that Australian aid takes these directions there will be a comprehensive review of existing programming and a greater emphasis in future on critical analysis and evaluation.
The Government expects that the Agency established by this Bill will further the new directions in our aid policies, ensure greater benefits to those who receive our aid and devise effective programs which will gain the support and sympathetic involvement of the Australian community. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.
page 1842
– I move:
Estimates Committee D will meet in the Senate chamber, and Committee G in Senate Committee Room number 3. Honourable senators will note that because of the illness of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the proposed meeting of Estimates Committee B has been cancelled today and will be re-scheduled for a date to be determined.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1843
Bill received from the House of Representatives and (on motion by Senator Poyser) read a first time.
page 1843
Assent to the following Bills reported:
Remuneration Tribunals Bill 1974.
Australian Shipping Commission Bill 1 974.
Commonwealth Banks Bill 1974.
Australian Tourist Commission Bill 1974.
States Grants Bill 1974.
Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway Bill 1974.
Tarcoola to Alice Springs Railway Bill 1974.
page 1843
– I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Australian Country Party nominating members to the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System. The Prime Minister has nominated Mr Berinson, Dr Jenkins, Mr Scholes and Mr Young; the Leader of the Opposition has nominated MrFairbairn and Dr Forbes; and the Leader of the Australian Country Party has nominated Mr I. L. Robinson.
page 1843
Debate resumed from 15 October on motion by Senator Murphy:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
– The Senate is debating a Bill which seeks to amend the Book Bounty Act to implement a recommendation contained in the Tariff Board Report of 21 September 1973. The report recommends that the bounty be increased from 25 per cent, which was an interim measure of assistance pending the Board’s report, to331/3 per cent. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill. When the bounty was introduced by the Liberal-Country Party Government the book printing industry in Australia was in a pretty sorry state. There was little doubt that Australian authors would have been forced to engage overseas printers if the
Government had not come to the aid of the industry. I draw the attention of the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) to a couple of points. Concern has been expressed in some quarters about the character of some books which attract the bounty.
When this Book Bounty Bill was debated in another place the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Adermann) raised this point. At this time I am not pursuing this concern further but I point out to the Minister that the Government paid out almost $3m in 1972-73 in the form of book bounties. Yet a record of the book titles is not required to be kept. I believe that this ought to be done. I am fully aware that there are difficulties in determining that one book should attract a bounty and another book should not but I believe that any government which grants a book bounty and then does not require to be told the titles lays itself open to charge of slipshod administration. I shall not pursue that argument further. Perhaps the Minister will give the reasons for this. Otherwise I suggest that we put the motion that the Bill be read a second time.
-Senator DrakeBrockman raises the question whether titles ought to be given. Sometimes this is asked for. On several occasions suggestions have been made in this chamber by an honourable senator opposite- not of the honourable senator’s Party but of the Liberal Party- for amendments to the Bill. All of those amendments were designed to put a condition on the bounty. Clearly, what has emerged in the argument is the suggestion that some form of discrimination should be exercised so that books, which that honourable senator thought were not in good taste or which in some way offended his sense of decency, ought not to receive the bounty. If we were to embark upon that course it would be one of the most dangerous courses which could be undertaken by a government. It is well-known that if one engages in that kind of censorship, very soon there can be political censorship. Nothing could be worse than a system where a government heavily subsidises the printing of material- books or, one day, it could be newspapers- and then makes that subsidy conditional upon some kind of conformity to the approval of the Government.
Once we introduce that kind of subsidy the industry, whatever it is, rearranges its economy and that subsidy is necessary for its survival. If survival depends upon government approval of what is produced in the area of information and communication, this would be the most dangerous form of censorship that we could possibly have by which a government would be able to say: ‘You produce what you like, but you do not get our subsidy unless we approve the content’. I do not think the Senate ought to warrant the slightest movement in that direction whatever the purpose, even if we thought that the suggestions of the honourable senator, whom I indicated previously, had some merit in the exercise. I do not agree that there is any merit in it at all. The dangers of such a policy are so great. I can imagine hardly any step which could be more dangerous in a democracy than the subsidising of printing or publication of material on a condition that it had the approval of the Government as to its contents. That is the reason we reject the suggestion.
I hope that the Senate will understand and accept this fact and insist that in no way whatevereven in respect of material of which it disapproves- shall this principle be brought in. I was one who suggested that there be such a bounty, but I would prefer to see the whole of the book bounty go and no subsidy whatever in this field rather than the introduction of any such principle.
I think that the principle of a government subsidy for the production of material is very dangerous because of the possibilities of it being converted in the way that I have suggested. We ought to be finding some other way which does not depend upon any form of subsidy for published material.
There is a matter in the Bill which has been considered since it was brought into the Senate. The matter has been looked at by the Minister for Manufacturing Industry (Mr Enderby), and I think it might be convenient if the Committee stage were stood over.
– In relation to what?
– In relation to the application of the bounty. The Minister for Manufacturing Industry wants a day or two to consider this matter. I would suggest that the Bill be read a second time and the Committee stage be adjourned.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
Ordered that the Committee stage be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
page 1844
– As a result of discussions that took place this morning between myself, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Withers, and the Leader of the Australian Country Party, Senator Drake-Brockman, we had assumed that the debate on the Book Bounty Bill 1974 would take up the rest of the morning. I am given to understand by the Opposition that it is not ready to proceed with the Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Bill 1974, the Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisation) Bill 1974 and other matters. It had been arranged that we would take the Australian Film Commission Bill 1974, the Arbitration (Foreign Awards and Agreements) Bill 1974 and the Conciliation and Arbitration (Organisation) Bill 1974 tomorrow. Because the Committee stage of the Book Bounty Bill 1974 has been deferred, I would suggest that the sitting of the Senate be suspended until approximately 10.15 p.m. this evening.
page 1844
– Order! The sitting of the Senate is suspended until approximately 10.15 p.m. to enable Estimates Committees D and G to meet. The Committees will meet at 2.15 p.m. Committee D will meet in the Senate chamber and Committee G in Senate Committee Room No. 3. The bells will be rung for 5 minutes prior to the meeting of Estimates committees.
Sitting suspended from 12.34 to 10.15 p.m.
page 1844
Prison System in Queensland-Australian Government Economic Policy: Primary Industry- Death of Former Senator John Harris.
Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I want to make further reference to a subject I raised in his chamber approximately a week ago and to give a little more information which I think is highly necessary. When I made a previous submission to the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) seeking additional Australian Government funds for the upgrading of the prison system in Queensland and seeking assistance for a royal commission he assured me in a letter that he was investigating this matter. I thank the Attorney-General.
Most honourable senators would recall that as a result of my accusations on that occasion I was subjected to a rather unfair attack, in particular by Mr Herbert, the Queensland Minister in charge of prisons. I want to quote briefly from two or three transcripts of interviews of the Minister by various sections of the media on both radio and television. In one interview on 16 October the interviewer asked him in relation to the case I mentioned last week whether he was aware that an inmate had been found dead in the gaol. The Minister replied:
Well, it happens fairly regularly that we do find prisoners dead in the gaol.
The questioner then asked him whether that particular case concerned him and he said: ‘No. ‘ He was further asked:
Well, this isn’t the only report that Senator Keeffe has got. I wonder if I can get you another letter which he says he has got, and it says, ‘A fellow inmate attempted to hang himself with some sheets in his cell. The warders found him and cut him down while he was still alive. I watched him die in the cell near me.’
Incidentally, that section of the letter was made available to that part of the media. The interviewer asked him:
How do you feel about that sort of accusation?
The Minister said:
Well, that one is one we were expecting actually and we happen to know the source because he told us before he was going what he was going to do, and that ‘s not true.
The interviewer said:
But you know that report. Is it true that an inmate was found still alive after he attempted to hang himself?
The Minister replied:
No. According to the report he hung himself and hewhen he- when the- officers there, the prison officers, used the usual type of resuscitation they use on hangings, and they were ineffective and the Government Medical Officer pronounced that life was extinct.
So then the interviewer asked:
So in those 2 cases you see absolutely nothing sinister at all?
Then the Minister said:
You don’t take the word of a prisoner over the word of a magistrate, and that’s what it boils down to.
That last sentence stands alone as an indictment of the system.
I want to quote briefly from a radio broadcast which was also made by the Minister. Prior to the interview with the Minister an Aboriginal was interviewed on the same radio station. The interviewer asked him how long he had been in Stuart gaol. The Aboriginal replied:
About 3 months to3½ months.
He was asked:
And how were you treated during those 3 months there?
He replied:
Like an animal. When I first went into the gaol for assault, I assaulted a policeman in Townsville- that’s when I first went in there. As soon as I walked in- they bashed me as soon as I walked in there. They said: ‘Oh, you are a bit of a fighter. We’ll straighten you black bastards out’. When I went in there they bashed me up and they had 2 more come in behind me drunk, and they complained that they were crook, that they were sick. They got a bashing too, beside me.
The interviewer said:
You are saying that you got bashed when you complained of being ill?
He said:
Yes. By the prison warder as soon as I walked in the gaol. Then I complained again the next day and I got locked up in the cages for it. There were 1 4 of us in there, we ‘re all black.
A number of other references are relevant but I will not quote them in great detail here tonight. If the Minister or anyone else wants to look at this transcript he is welcome to it. The interviewer then said:
Well, Senator Keeffe has alleged that one prisoner who attempted suicide was just left and allowed to die. Does this surprise you?
The Aboriginal replied:
Oh, no, I’d expect that. Yes I would, especially up there. There’s one died when I was there- in the yard, just fell over, and they didn ‘t give a -
It is a five-letter word-
About him, just lay there all day.
The interviewer said:
He wasn ‘t given any medical treatment?
The Aboriginal replied:
No. He just lay down and died. And they left him all day in the sun. Didn’t even move him. After he’d died he was still laying there. It was 3 or 4 hours- just after dinner it was. All day, all day long they left him laying in the sun.
The interviewer asked:
Was he a black prisoner?
The Aboriginal replied:
He was a black, an islander.
Later the Minister was interviewed by the same interviewer, who said:
Well, I’ve just been speaking to an ex-inmate of the prison at Stuart Creek who backs up what Senator Keeffe has been saying.
The Minister replied:
That wouldn’t surprise me at all. I suspect that ex-inmates have provided him with the information that he’s working on- that’s the circle I’d expect him to move in. But I’m prepared to accept the word of the officers within the service first.
I do not mind the slur from the Minister because I find that in many instances the ex-prisoners are more truthful than some of the people with whom the Minister knocks around.
A few days ago Mr Brian Davis, an Opposition member of the Queensland Parliament, asked how many deaths had occurred in Queensland prisons between 1970 and 1974 inclusive. He also asked what were the reasons for each death and in which prisons particular prisoners had died. He received the information that there had been 13 deaths over that period. The list of reasons ranged from coronary occlusion down to asthma. I was mystified to find also that one of the other causes of death listed by the responsible Minister was hangings. Obviously things are so bad in Queensland gaols that death from strangulation by hanging is classified as a disease. I have here another document- and all these things will be made available to a royal commission or to some other suitable type of inquiry at which the rights of the prisoners are protected. It is useless for Mr Herbert to say: Give me the letters. I want them in my hand. I want to see what I can do about individual cases.’ I know what will happen about those people. They will receive longer sentences for passing out information about the way they are being treated.
A man who had served 3 months in Stuart Creek on a charge of possession of cannabis said that when serving he heard of several wrong treatments by officers, especially male rapings and that several were locked up for no apparent reason. He asked that his letter be added to a petition for better gaol conditions and he said: ‘I stand ready to bear witness. ‘ The shadow Minister for Justice in the Queensland Parliament posed questions to the Minister after my statement here last week. I have here a condensation of the replies that he received. In particular he asked about the death of a prisoner at the Etna Creek gaol which is near Rockhampton. It was put down to paraquat poisoning. Two Etna Creek prisoners were involved. The death was allegedly as a result of mixing vanilla essence and methylated spirits in a gramoxone weedicide container. The Minister answered that the alleged paraquat poisoning was under police investigation and that the inquest had not been completed. That is a long time ago. According to the Minister, it is common practice for prisoners to manufacture illicit alcoholic beverages.
In reply to a query about a certain prisoner named Lionel Hill who had died from paraquat poisoning the Minister replied that he had no knowledge that the deceased had died from that cause. I think that the matter is so grievoulsy wrong that the body should be exhumed to make sure that the statement made at the time that he had died from something else was in fact true. The evidence indicates that it may not even have been true. We are getting considerable support from many people. I received a telegram from the Prisoners Action Group which states:
Prisoners Action Group and New South Wales Penal Reform Council supports your call for royal commission and federal funds.
The telegram goes on to state that the New South Wales system is also bad. I shall have further discussions with these groups.
I wish to make a number of other brief points which I feel are important. I emphasise that at no time did I accuse warders individually of doing any of the bashings around the place. What I complained about originally was the system. A system like this which is propped up at the top needs reforming right from the top down. Under these circumstances if a warder becomes sadistic, obviously he is merely a victim of the system. But let me cite a couple of other instances which happened within the last 2 years to 2% years. I believe that anything which occurred back to 5 years ought to be investigated by an independent inquiry. This is an accusation that approximately 2 years ago a naked Aboriginal girl was bashed by a male warder at Boggo Road Goal and left without medical attention for 4 days. There is a lot more information on that incident which I shall give at the appropriate time. In the second incident an island lady- I am not sure of the spelling of this name because I have had difficulty getting access to accurate prison records, but it appears to be a Mrs Palaskas- was dragged up the ramp at the gaol by her hair. She was not well. Allegedly, she died on the way to the hospital. In fact, I am told that she was dead before she was placed in the ambulance, but the whole case was hushed up. It is just not damned good enough.
There are accusations too that a number of female prisoners in this gaol have been bashed by male warders. Why should this happen? One of the reasons is that female warders will not stay in the place. At the moment there is only a handful in that gaol with 5 years service or more. Apart from these instances, I have at least one more of an unfortunate happening at Stuart Gaol in the last few weeks. I understand that this matter may be rectified, again because of the fear which follows the exposition of some of the things which are happening. It has been indicated to me that at least 20 ex-warders are prepared to make statements and to provide documents. But to get them before a royal commission it may be necessary to subpoena some of them because north of the border there are grave difficulties if somebody who is a government employee dares to give evidence. They may not keep their jobs. But all of these people are prepared to appear if a royal commission can subpoena them to give evidence. I take this as being truthful evidence because these people have proposed to me that in the near future I shall receive lengthy documentation on the case. So it may be necessary that I come back here in a week or so to give honourable senators the third chapter of this sorry story pertaining to the conditions of prisoners in Queensland.
I respectfully ask the Attorney-General to have a continuing look at my request and at the accusations which I have made. I stand by them. I repeat to the Queensland Minister that as far as I am concerned the evidence is available. When he sets up an independent inquiry where the rights of all people are protected he can then have all the information he wants. He will be snowed under by people coming from the community who want to tell him what is happening in Queensland gaols in this primitive system which might have been a happy state of affairs ISO years ago but which ought to be abolished and replaced with something better in 1 974.
-On Saturday last there was a gathering of rural people in the town of Beaufort in Victoria. They came at great inconvenience to themselves. Indeed they invited members of Parliament at a most inconvenient time. It was a Saturday afternoon when local shows in other areas were running. I do not doubt that it was a very inconvenient time for Ministers of this Government who were invited to attend. However, the rally was particularly significant.
I thought that the number there was about 1,800 people but Press reports took it to as many as 3,000. The invitations were issued generally to members of Parliament.
– That is not true. Whom did they invite?
-Senator Poyser and some of his colleagues on the Government side have asked who was invited. Because this group had organised the rally at a most inconvenient time for members of Parliament I made an apology for those members on the Government side who did not turn up. Undoubtedly, any respectable member of Parliament in Victoria was invited.
- Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Webster said that they invited any respectable member of Parliament. I assume that I am not respectable because I was not invited. Senator Brown was not invited. Senator Primmer was not invited. Senator Melzer was not invited. The honourable senator is lying to the Senate.
– Order!
– He is lying to the Senate. I am laying it right on the line to him because he is a cad.
– Order, Senator Poyser. Senator Webster, you implied that some honourable senators who were not respectable were not invited. I hope that you will make the necessary explanation otherwise you will have to withdraw that implication.
-Mr President, when I started to speak vocal members on the Government side acted like a lot of clowns, if I may say so, and attempted to make it impossible for me to be heard.
– Order! Senator Webster, if you continue this type of debate I will sit you down.
– I am surprised, Mr President. When I stood to speak there was so much noise that you had to call honourable senators on the Government side to order. I said that I understood that this committee had invited all honourable members of Parliament.
– The honourable senator did not say that at all.
-Well, honourable and respectable. If I can proceed, as I wish to do, may I say on a quiet note that Saturday afternoon was an inconvenient time to call members of Parliament to attend. But at this committee meeting it was stated that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) had been invited. I make it known that no member or supporter of the Government was present. Apparently the Minister did not see fit to provide anybody to be his delegate at this particularly important meeting.
- Mr President, I again rise on a point of order. The implications made by Senator Webster earlier have not been explained by him. He implied that any person who was not invited was dishonourable. He made that statement. If he reads tomorrow in Hansard what he said he will realise this. He is now making an attack on the Minister for Agriculture because the Minister was unable to be there. But the truth is that this gathering was arranged by a certain gentleman named Russell who was the President of the Liberal Party in Victoria for many years. It was a rort; a complete rort.
– Order! Senator Poyser, if you wish to debate this matter you are entitled to do so but you are speaking to a point of order at the moment.
– Surely. I shall do so.
– I disregard the point of order and call Senator Poyser.
– No, Senator Webster is still on his feet.
– Does the Minister wish to reply?
- Mr President, I was on my feet and I was interrupted by Senator Poyser.
– I call Senator Webster.
– Thank you, Mr President. I make the point that this rally of farmers was particularly important because it pointed up the disadvantages with which the rural industries are burdened at present. I thought that it would be of interest for the Senate to understand some of the problems that are inherent in primary production at this moment. For instance, it was suggested at the meeting, on good authority, that in 1974-75 the trade deficit of Australia may be $ 1,000m. I make the point because traditionally the primary industries of this country provide a large segment of the export income. In 1971-72 primary production accounted for 48.9 per cent of total exports, but in 1972-73 it was 52.8 per cent. It is estimated that in 1974-75 the figure will be approximately 5 1.2 per cent.
I do not attribute to the present Government by any means all the problems that are besetting primary industry. Indeed, low export prices are one of the most inhibiting factors in relation to two of the main exports, meat and wool. It is suggested that during the 2 years that the present Government has been in office the returns to producers of cow beef have dropped 47.7 per cent, of ox beef 39 per cent and of wethers 23 per cent. The figure for wool has dropped approximately 19.4 per cent and for ewes approximately 14.1 percent.
Mr President, the importance of this particular sector of the industry suggests to us that it should receive from this Government better attention than it has received during the past 2 years. Indeed 7.38 per cent of the work force provides, or are expected to provide, over 5 1 per cent of the total exports of this country. One can go through a whole series of factors which are inhibiting the primary producer and with which, I imagine, even those senators in the Government who represent rural areas must be concerned. These factors include the imposition of higher interest rates. One may recall that this Government increased to the rural producer the cost of borrowing money. Primary producers were encouraged to borrow because of a 2 per cent disparity between normal interest rates and those charges to primary producers. That rate lifted. Compare a rate of 7.5 per cent, which was available 2 years ago, with the average figure now of probably 12& per cent or 13 per cent for primary industry. I feel that fact requires the attention of the Government. I think that it would be of great assistance in encouraging a return to stability in primary industry.
Primary industry has been disadvantaged because of increased costs of transport in rural areas. The assistance that was given to people who lived away from the seaboard, by way of a subsidy in petrol and fuel costs, has been eliminated because -
– The removal of the petrol subsidy would not have affected one farmer who was at Beaufort on Saturday.
-The honourable senators knew the meeting was on. I take it that he was occupied and could not attend. Apparently the Minister did not see fit to attend the meeting. That is the respect that the Minister showed for that sector of industry. People from over 200 miles away from Beaufort attended that meeting. Their costs of travel- indeed, the costs of running various motors on their farms- have increased due to the withdrawal of the fuel subsidy.
I wish to refer to a number of other matters. The tax deductibility concessions to primary producers for the provision of watering facilities on properties, for the provision of storage for fodder and for the provision of internal fencing on farms have been withdrawn by this Government. Previously these concessions were an encouragement. One could go through a great series of burdens that have been placed on rural industries. I have mentioned previously in this place that the Government, having assured the people when it was elected in 1972 that it would not increase taxation, eventually imposed a 10 per cent increase in company taxation on proprietary limited companies. This impost has been a burden to many producers in rural areas. I have mentioned previously in this place the retention allowance for smaller proprietary limited companies, a structure of legal ownership which has developed in this country over many years. A private company which is now being taxed at 47.5 per cent of its gross earnings finds that it is forced, unlike its partner, the public company which is also taxed at 47.5 per cent, to disgorge at least 50 per cent of its income after taxation. This factor is inhibiting those who wish to build up their own farms or industries in primary production. It is a most important factor for primary production, which I believe should be encouraged in this country.
A particular measure which has been introduced in the present Budget is the 10 per cent surtax on unearned income. We know that apparently a decision has been made by the Labor Party that the $25m tax that was to be extracted from those individuals in the community who earned less than $100 a week has now been eliminated and will apply only to those who have an unearned income above that figure. That will be a hard burden. We have not seen the Government legislation nor do we know how it will apply with regard to primary producers. But it is interesting to sum up the Government’s words on what may be unearned income. I believe that it can apply to a variety of areas of primary industry.
The latest measure, which surely those on the Government side must debate very closely, is the new capital gains tax. Mr President, the capital gains tax, if it is introduced in the way in which this Government has suggested that it will be introduced, will have the eventual effect of being the greatest death tax that this country has ever known. Not only will it apply to probably everybody in the community who has attempted to have some savings for himself, but also to primary industry, to which my remarks are particularly related. Those who are involved in farms and who have assets from which they derive their income will be very hard hit by this tax. When this death tax and capital gains tax are taken into account, it is possible that a farmer who has a substantial borrowing on his property could lose the whole of that property because of the net value of the property as at 18 September, when the measure was introduced, and the probable escalation which will occur in the valuation of that property due to inflation. On that point I plead with the Minister and with other members of the Government to consider the proposal and see what effect it is likely to have on primary producers on small holdings in Australia.
The most important matter on which I would plead with the Government relates to the proposed cessation of the superphosphate bounty. As I understand Labor Party policy, it spells out support for a bounty on the use of superphosphate. I do not know whether I am correct in that understanding, but I do know from a reading of the policy speech that the Labor Party supports the use of superphosphate in order to encourage primary production, to ensure that produce from the primary industries is marketed to the Australian consumer as cheaply as possible and that exports of primary products are encouraged. In various areas of primary production the use of superphosphate over the years has enabled the Australian farmer to develop to the stage where probably he can be acknowledged as probably the most efficient farmer in the world.
– Ha, ha.
– I hear a laugh from an honourable senator, but that is the type of thing we get from a man who is not even proud of his country and the producers of this country. It is regrettable that he should take that attitude. I am proud to know that in Australia there are primary producers and other workers who are able to produce more in an hour than would be produced in nearly any other country. Ours is a great nation and we are able to export primary products. Half our export income is earned from primary industries. But one of the most important factors in encouraging our primary producers to increase their volume of production has been the use of superphosphate. One would have imagined that when the Government decided to phase out the bounty on superphosphate it would have taken into account its own statement that it would not discourage the use of materials of that kind in primary industry. I recall listening to one member of the Australian Labor Party expounding to farmers the great importance of the superphosphate bounty. Although this was some years ago one would have been left with the impression that the use of superphosphate would be encouraged by the Labor Party.
As was stated to the meeting of primary producers on Saturday, there have been substantial increases in costs in the 2 years that Labor has been in office. For instance, in that period their input costs for vehicles have increased by approximately 31.8 per cent and the cost of labour on their farms has increased by 92.6 per cent. Shearing costs for wool producers have increased by 98.9 per cent in that short time. I plead with the Government to look at these costs. Before deciding to do away with the superphosphate bounty altogether it should acknowledge that primary industry needs assistance and should look for ways of providing that assistance. I am confident from the views that I have heard expressed along the corridors in this building that there is movement within the Labor Party to ensure that the superphosphate bounty is not phased out. Although the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) has not commented on this we have heard remarks from Dr J. F. Cairns who said that the Government’s decision on the superphosphate bounty was a bad mistake. Perhaps those words indicate that there is some tension and dissension within the Labor Party on this issue. It would be wonderful if we could hear from the Minister for Agriculture a statement like the one from Dr Cairns. I really feel that the Minister believes that the bounty should be continued.
The cost increases which I mentioned a while ago are not due entirely to a reduction in the bounty on superphosphate but have been due mainly to costs which it would have been beyond the capacity of the Government to foresee. Because of the increased cost of rock phosphate and other materials, by the 15th of this month the price of superphosphate had increased by 116.4 per cent since Labor took office. Because of that alone I would plead with the Minister to review the decision to phase out the superphosphate bounty. Sufficient evidence is available to show that many people throughout the world are deficient in nutrition and some people are starving. One would have thought that in a situation of that kind a Labor Government would be concerned to say that here was an opportunity to help by encouraging the simple farmer to produce more.
– What do you mean by ‘the simple farmer’?
– I am a farmer and I am a simple person. I would say that the farming community must be encouraged to use whatever device will enable it to increase production for the benefit of mankind. In order to give some indication of the way costs have increased I mention that in 1972 the price of superphosphate ex works in Victoria was $14.90 a ton. By 1973 it had reached $ 1 5.55 a ton and in 1 974 it is $34.05 a ton. It is proposed now to withdraw the subsidy which is approximately $1 1.81 a ton. The effect of this will be to increase the cost of superphosphate ex works in Victoria to $45.46 a ton. A farming proposition with which I am associated finds that the cost of putting superphosphate on the ground within 40 miles of Melbourne will be more than $56 a ton.
– That is what is hurting you; it will cost you a few more dollars. You are not worrying about others.
– One would think that somebody would leap to his feet in an attempt to protect me from the attack of a Minister who would suggest that this is what prompts me to make these remarks. I am sure that all honourable senators heard the Minister. The remark was unworthy of him. Perhaps I should spend another half hour on this subject, during which I could refer to Hansard and quote his remarks that the truth will come out. We know how much Unilever and the margarine industry poured into the Labor Party’s coffers. But honourable senators opposite do not want to hear about that. We know what makes the Government tick at present.
– Order! I remind Senator Webster that he is being quite provocative and is attracting the fire of senators on my right. I ask him to moderate his remarks in presenting his case to the Senate.
– I was being moderate until the Minister butted in with his inane comment. I can only say that I hope that the Minister is taking this matter straight to his heart. I believe that he would wish to see agriculture encouraged in this great country. In many areas encouragement is needed. One can only predict that if the superphosphate bounty is eliminated, little superphosphate will be used in the coming year.
Honourable senators may recall that in the early part of this year the Opposition moved that before the bounty was eliminated it should be mandatory that the matter be referred to the Industries Assistance Commission. The Minister indicated prior to the May election that there would be an opportunity to debate this matter. I suggest that we should have that opportunity. I suggest also that if there is no possibility of a discussion in the Senate of this important matter the Government should give consideration to revising its policy and not do as is rumoured- remove the present subsidy and substitute a subsidy of $8 a ton. I suggest that the superphosphate bounty needs to be doubled in the coming year to enable us to cope with the problem of increasing production. The Government must do all of those important things which I have stressed to assist us in our export production, to assist in lowering the cost of production for the simple people of Australia who are the consumers, and to do what Labor promised prior to becoming the Governmentthat it would not-abolish the superphosphate bounty.
– I was invited into this debate by Senator Webster. It is not within my province to dispute the Standing Orders. I cannot call Senator Webster a liar because that is against the Standing Orders. I cannot say- senator Murphy- Mr President, I raise a point of order. I regret interrupting my colleague, but I suggest that we do not want to have disorder in the Senate. You, Mr President, asked Senator Webster not to be provocative and, to be fair to all of us, it is not right for Senator Poyser to say that he cannot call somebody something because of the Standing Orders. I would ask my colleague not to persist in that.
-I accept the rebuke of my leader. I regret that he has rebuked me in this chamber because he did not rise to protect any honourable senator on this side of the chamber when Senator Webster was so provocative in relation to this matter. The simple facts are that Senator Webster said that every Labor senator from Victoria rejected the opportunity to go to a function to which none of them was invited.
– That is not correct.
-It is correct. I have checked with every one of my colleagues, and not one of them was invited to the function. I challenge Senator Webster to prove otherwise. I have checked conclusively. I was not invited. Senator Melzer, were you invited?
– No.
- Senator Primmer, were you invited?
– No.
- Senator Brown, were you invited?
– No.
– Not one government senator from Victoria was invited to that function. I regret to say that Senator Webster rose to his feet and challenged these people for not being in attendance at a function that an old hack from the Liberal Party- a fellow by the name of Russell- ran in Beaufort.
– A very good president, too.
– He was. That is right, a has-been. He ran this function on political grounds. He invited only the people he wanted there. He did not dare to invite one Labor senator to attend the meeting. From my point of view, Senator Webster told untruths in relation to this matter in this chamber tonight. I regret that my leader had to rebuke me. I accept the rebuke.
– I appealed to you.
-You rebuked me. Do not talk nonsense, Lionel, in relation to this matter.
– Order! Senator Poyser will address the Chair.
-I regret that Senator Webster said what he did because I had the evidence before me. As far as I am concerned, Senator Webster has to have more facts before he comes into this chamber again and makes the accusation that he made tonight.
– Very briefly, I believe that some comment should be passed on some of the issues that Senator Webster has raised. Firstly, he referred to the very substantial decline in meat prices. This is certainly true; this has happened. I hope that the across the board fall in meat prices has been an educational lesson to the Australian Country Party and its allies because I distinctly recall the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) and the majority of his vocal colleagues insisting only 12 months ago that the level of export prices did not determine the level of domestic prices. I hope that the Country Party will accept what has been to some producers a very serious downturn in prices as educational experience and learn from it the simple fact that if meat is being exported, the price right across the board in the meat market, or at least for livestock, is set by export prices, as of course it must be in any competitive market.
Secondly, I am astounded that Senator Webster, a senator from Victoria, should be claiming in this Senate that the removal of the petroleum freight subsidy in August this year has been a serious blow to the farmers of Victoria, because in August the Treasury produced an official document which named 52 major centres in Victoria. In only five of those centres was the price of petrol affected by the removal of the subsidy. So far as I can recall, the maximum level of subsidy was 2.2c per gallon, and in three of the five centres that were affected by the removal of the subsidy the consequent increase in the price of petrol was 0.6c a gallon, or less.
– I did not understand him to be limiting his remarks to Victoria, but perhaps he was.
– His remarks were presented within the context of a Victorian farmers meeting as if this was an important issue in Victoria. That is an extreme example, that is true, but the matter was of somewhat more importance in the other States. Overwhelmingly throughout the agricultural areas of Australia the removal of the petroleum freight subsidy in August this year was a matter of negligible consequence. The position in Queensland is a little different, and I might take this opportunity of pointing out that if the Queensland Premier is so concerned about the effects of the removal of the petroleum subsidy in the outback areas of Queensland, I understand that he has completely within his field of legal jurisdiction an optional method under which he could compel the fuel companies to sell petrol out of bowsers at a uniform price throughout Queensland. Of course, under such a scheme city and coastal consumers would have to subsidise petrol freight rates to outback areas. I do not expect that the Queensland Premier will act upon such a proposal because to restrict the subsidy to those people who buy petrol from bowsers would, in fact, restrict the benefits flowing to the private motorists, and I suspect that the Queensland Premier is far more interested in the effect that the removal of the subsidy had on some very profitable inland mining companies.
The final point is very important because the issue has been raised that superphosphate should be subsidised, and within the context of the argument for such a subsidy it has been suggested that we have a moral obligation to produce food for the world, and so on. The subsidy on superphosphate can be considered on 2 distinctly different grounds. The first is on economic grounds. If farmers make rational economic decisions they will achieve any given level of production at the lowest true or social cost if all production inputs are costed at true market prices. That is a simple economic axiom. If, however, the Country Party believes that farmers do not make rational economic decisions and that therefore a superphosphate bounty is justified, I believe that the Country Party should say that farmers do not make rational economic decisions. Even if they do not, of course, the argument is still unproven because it needs to be demonstrated not only that some farmers may use less than the optimum quantity of superphosphate, but also that the consequent net gains from an increase in the consumption of superphosphate induced by a subsidy would more than offset the losses which accrue through the over-usage and technically inefficient usage of superphosphate.
– H?”e you ever seen rural poverty?
- Senator Baume has mentioned rural poverty. I understand that there is a great deal of rural poverty in the State of Queensland, and that in that State the consumption of superphosphate is by far the lowest of any State in Australia. Consumption of superphosphate on an average per farm basis in Western Australia where incidentally the average net farm incomes are consistently higher than any other States, is by far the highest of any State. So it seems to me that the suggestion of Senator Baume- no doubt a well-intended suggestionof subsidising superphosphate as an effective way of treating the income problems of low income farmers cannot be squared off with the facts of the case which are, of course, that either on a State basis or on an individual basis people who use little or no superphosphate have low incomes. There is not necessarily a correlation between the usage of phosphate and the level of income. If Senator Baume is interested in farmers’ incomes and suggests that there is a social justification for assistance it seems to me rather obvious that such assistance should be directed towards sustaining income levels rather than towards subsidising any particular input or output.
The point I really wanted to make is that there has again been raised the argument which has a strong but very superficial appeal, namely that we ought to subsidise superphosphate in order to feed more effectively the world’s hungry. It is raised by people who applied very restrictive quotas on the production of wheat in Australia only 5 years ago and maintained quite restrictive quotas for the following 3 seasons. There were hungry people in the world at that time too, yet we under a Liberal-Country Party Federal Government and under Liberal-Country Party governments in four of the 6 States imposed restrictions on wheat production- for what reason? lt was to maintain the price.
If we are really interested in maximising food production in Australia there are ways of doing so other than by subsidising superphosphate. Wool, for example, competes with food crops for land and other resources. If our paramount national objective was simply to increase food production it would be desirable to apply a disincentive to wool production. I do not know whether the Opposition Parties are suggesting that but if they are suggesting that the maximisation of food production should be a paramount national objective, I would suggest in turn that they give serious consideration to disincentives to wool production.
– Nonsense.
– It is not nonsense, Senator Martin. Wool production competes for land and other resources with food crops. The higher the price of wool the less likely the land is to be used for food crops and vice versa. This applies also to beef production. Surely the members of the Opposition are not so naive that they believe the people in the world who are suffering from malnutrition or from absolute starvation are going to have the purchasing power necessary to secure a luxury commodity like beef. Moreover, if we are really interested in feeding the hungry world why do we devote a considerable amount of resources to attempts to persuade the overfed at home and abroad to endanger their health by gluttony- by eating more than is good for them?
Looking at this question on a world perspective, Australia produces somewhat less than 2 per cent of the world ‘s food production. If it were doubled- which is probably technically feasible within a decade if it was given very high national priority- it would feed the world’s population increase for about one year. That is putting it in something like a world perspective. It still disregards the enormous problems of transport and distribution in the areas of the world where the world ‘s hungry actually are. If we can look at this rationally and not as an attempt to justify handouts from society to particular privileged groups but as an attempt to feed the world’s hungry, it quickly becomes fairly obvious that the only means which is likely to be effective is to stimulate food production in those areas of the world where agriculture technology is backward and where the hungry people actually are. Of course, that will also fail unless it is complemented with an effective program of birth control.
Restricting the discussion to the question of superphosphate, high quality phosphate deposits are also a very limited world resource. The marginal gain from the application of an extra tonne of superphosphate to food crops in India, for example, is immeasurably greater than the marginal gain from the application of a tonne of superphosphate in Australia. That disregards the fact that much of the superphosphate used in Australia is not used to produce food crops at all. If we are interested in maximising world food production in the areas where it would be most effective, namely, the areas of the world where the hungry are, instead of encouraging the wasteful use of superphosphate- I know from my own personal experience as a farmer that it has been used wastefully -
– That figures.
– It has been used in ways that are technically inefficient. Senator Baume wants to investigate that statement. I will tell him what I am talking about. I am talking about the practice that is quite widespread in Western Australia of pre-spreading superphosphate on land which is about to be sown with cereal crops. It is about half as effective as drilling the superphosphate in with the seed. I believe that Senator Baume was suggesting that I as a farmer had been in the habit of using superphosphate in technically inefficient ways. Let me set his mind at rest. I was never associated personally with that practice.
If we are interested in maximising world food production we will act far more effectively by giving the Indians a tonne of superphosphate than by giving them a tonne of grain. Giving them a tonne of superphosphate would allow them to produce something like 12 tonnes to 20 tonnes of grain in India. It is much easier to transport a tonne of superphosphate than subsequently to transport the 20 tonnes or grain which could be produced with it. I appeal to members of the Opposition who are genuinely concerned about this problem to drop all the cant and humbug about maximising food production to feed the hungry people of the world when their argument is used only as an excuse to justify the privileged position of privileged groups within Australia. If they are really serious I appeal to them to give the subject consideration in somewhat more depth and to seek a more rational solution to the problem than many of them appear to have been pursuing in the past.
- Senator Walsh cast a reflection upon farmers in Queensland when he suggested that poverty stricken farmers in this country are Queensland farmers. As has been mentioned by a Government senator, a great number of Queensland farmers are employed in growing sugar cane. I say without fear of contradiction that the sugar cane farmers of Queensland are engaged in possibly the most efficient sugar industry in the world.
– They do not use superphosphate.
– I am speaking of the reflection cast by Senator Walsh in referring to poverty stricken farmers in Queensland. It is very nice to have a crack at Queensland but I want to defend Queensland’s farmers. Over a period of years they have developed the most efficient sugar industry in the world. Many people from sugar industries in other countries visit Queensland to find out just what is being achieved by the sugar industry there.
– It is good only because it was set up by Labor governments.
– It was set up by Forgan Smith.
– Forgan Smith did not set up the sugar industry. Forgan Smith was a Premier of Queensland.
– He is the man who consolidated the industry.
– He is not the man who consolidated the sugar industry. The sugar industry has been going for many years. Over a period of years the accumulation of knowledge, science and inventions has played a very great part in developing a very efficient industry. The result is that farmers, through scientific investigation, research, experimental stations and the finding of new types of cane, have produced an industry which gives a very great tonnage per acre. But, importantly, it is growing a type of cane which gives an excellent yield of sugar per ton of cane. As a result, some of its extraction methods are of world importance because of their great efficiency. It is efficiency not only in the field but also in milling that has made the Queensland sugar industry the most efficient in the world. The extraction of sugar per ton of cane and the crop grown per acre have produced an industry of which we as Australians should be very proud.
– Do you not give any credit to the soil in the Burdekin Valley? - Senator WOOD- It is not just the Burdekin Valley that does all this. The conditions about which I speak prevail right over the State of Queensland. For the benefit of the honourable senator, my own district of Mackay is the largest sugar producing area in Australia. There is no argument about that. All parts of the State have played a very important part in developing this efficient industry. I defend the industry. When an honourable senator from another State casts aspersions on farmers in Queensland, people who are probably more in the grips of poverty than any other farmers in Australia, I just want to throw it back in his teeth and say that Queensland sugar farmers have produced the most efficient industry of its kind in the world. In addition, through their inventiveness on their farms they have developed sugar cane cutting machines in which factories have taken an interest. The industry has developed over the years from the days of hand cutting to the present time when practically all the cane is cut by machinery. Improvements have been made with more inventions.
Furthermore, the industry has brought about a greater degree of efficiency in the handling of its sugar. It has progressed from bagged sugar to bulk sugar. What would have taken 3 weeks to load into a ship at one time now takes one day. So the industry from the commencement of the production of crops has become, through experimental stations and developments in planting, growing, cutting and milling, an industry of which not only Queenslanders but Australians should be proud because within the State of
Queensland we have developed the finest and most efficient sugar industry in the world.
Senator WALSH (Western Australia)-Mr President, I seek leave to make an explanation.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– In reply to Senator Wood, let me say that I believe what I said concerning farmers in Queensland. I believe that I said 2 things: Firstly, that there was a great number of low income farmers in Queensland and, secondly, that average net farm income in Queensland is lower than it is in Western Australia. I know the latter to be true. I believe the former to be true. I am open to correction on that. If the former is not true and there is not a number of low income farmers in Queensland, I do not know what they have been complaining about. Secondly, Senator Wood has inferred that I regard poverty as being some sort of moral offence. I want to make this perfectly clear: I regard poverty as being an economic and social disability, not as being a moral offence.
Senator WOOD (Queensland)-Mr President, I wish to make a personal explanation.
– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?
– Yes. I did not say anything about poverty in the way that Senator Walsh just said.
– You did.
-I did not imply that at all.
– I do not propose to enter into the agricultural debate but I listened with care to what was said by our colleague from Western Australia, Senator Walsh. I think honourable senators who were here several years ago may recall a debate which occurred on the population explosion. They may recall especially the reference to the great food authority, Borgstram who had written a text on the hungry world and a number of other important texts. I think the remarks of Senator Walsh were reminiscent of some of the statements which were made by that great authority who, incidentally, devoted some chapters in his works to the position of Australia as a food producing unit. He observed that there was very little that could be done by Australia to contribute to the problems which were facing the world.
Turning to the other matter raised by Senator Keeffe, it is clear that the prison systems of Australia are extremely primitive. Some improvements have been made during recent years but there is no doubt that taken by and large these are a blot on our society. The troubles which we are getting in the system and which are manifesting themselves in some of the States, I believe, will be repeated until the system is dealt with. In the United States there are riots in the prisons. There is clearly a strong movement developing which is based on the genuine injustices which arise out of the operation of our present system- out of the parole system and the probation system. There are very great questions which face our society. Inevitably in this situation we will find instances of individual injustice and brutality born of the system.
I do not know what can be done about the individual instances referred to by Senator Keeffe. I imagine that most of these would be concerned with prisoners who are imprisoned under State laws rather than Federal laws. As honourable senators will be aware, apart from the Northern Territory the Commonwealth has to use the State prisons for detaining all its offenders. It does so pursuant to the Constitution and some legislation. It means that this Parliament has an interest in the operation of the State prisons because our own prisoners must be kept there. I think the question is much deeper than suggested by Senator Keeffe. Certainly every endeavour ought to be made to avoid and to remedy the individual injustices which occur.
I am certain that what needs to be done is to reform the whole system. Endeavours have been made with some success in other countries. I think that we with our resources- not only of material but also of talent- ought to be able to give the world a lead in this respect instead of being, as we are, lagging very much behind in this important part of our social fabric. I will certainly give the matter some attention. I will discuss it with those in the Australian Institute of Criminology and with others who might be able to set us on the path of reform of the whole prison system.
– Order! It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 5 October this year, of ex-senator John Harris who was elected to the Senate for Western Australia in 1946. John Harris enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force on 24 January 1916. He served with the 3rd Tunnelling Company as a sergeant. He embarked for overseas in June 1916 and was wounded in action. He was discharged from the military forces in December 1919. He was a fellow member with me on the Select Committee on National Service in the Defence Force from 1950 to 1951 and was a member of the Australian delegation to the 47th Conference of the Inter-parliamentary Conference in 1958 and a member of the Inter-parliamentary Council in 1958 and 1959.
John Harris retired on 30 June 1959 and will be remembered as a gallant person with a gentle nature who was always full of the milk of human kindness. He could never bring himself to say an unkind word about any person and all those who knew him will remember him this way. On behalf of honourable senators I extend to his relatives our sincere sympathy. We wish to place on record our appreciation of the loyal and devoted service rendered to the Senate by John Harris.
– I was one of the Liberal senators- possibly the only Liberal senator present tonight- who was here when Senator Harris was in this chamber. I think it is right that I should say something on behalf of Liberal senators. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by you, Mr President. Senator Harris was a very dignified person in this chamber. He was not the hurly burly type of senator but always carried himself with a sense of dignity and fairness in debates. I think it can be truly said that he was not only gentlemanly but also of a gentle character.
He was a man who was interested in the aesthetic things of life which showed he had a deeper insight than what would have been the case if the had taken an interest only in superficial things that some people might enjoy more. I know that he loved nature and he had depth although he had a quiet personality. He was a senator who carried out his duties with dignity and when he retired from this chamber he left it with a very good reputation amongst his fellow senators. I therefore join with you Mr President, on behalf of the Liberal members of this Senate in expressing very sincere condolences to the family of ex-Senator Harris.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11.28 p.m.
page 1856
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The honourable senator will recall that the Health Insurance Levy Assessment Bill recently rejected in this House, sought to provide certain categories of Repatriation beneficiaries with partial or total relief from payment of the levy.
Redcliffs Project: Environmental Consequences Senator Wheeldon-On 30 July 1974, Senator Jessop asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, the following question without notice:
Will the Federal Government seek the co-operation of the South Australian Government to comply with the request of the Conservation Council of South Australia that a 3 month public review period be Redcliffs to consider an environmental impact study associated with the Redcliffs Project?
The Minister for the Environment and Conservation has now furnished me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I have just completed discussions with the Minister in South Australia responsible for this matter, Mr Broomhill, M.P., during which it was agreed that there should be a public hearing. The report on the environmental consequences of the proposal, prepared by the Consortium which would undertake the project, has been made available to the South Australian Government and this Government. This report will form the basis of the public hearing, which commenced on Tuesday IS October 1974 and is expected to last for a couple of weeks. The report of the Hearing Commissioners will be available in time for its implications to be considered by the South Australian Government before it presents the relevant bill to the South Australian Parliament.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741022_senate_29_s61/>.