Senate
31 October 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session



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

page 2179

PETITIONS

Family Law Bill: Divorce

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-I present the following petition from 70 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

The there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement at a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

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

1 ) That we have examined the Family Law Bill and substantially support the provisions therein

That the Family Law Bill takes into account the changing roles of women in modern society

That the amendment to the bill recommended by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee will ensure that the rights of women who play the traditional role in society will be protected, as will the interests of the children

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Family Law Bill be debated and passed as soon as possible.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill: Divorce

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition from 30 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As the petition is in identical terms to one which has already been read to the Senate, I do not ask that it be read.

Family Law Bill: Divorce

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 18 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage bc the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill: Divorce

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present 2 petitions, identical in wording and from 29 and 40 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1 974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received.

Family Law Bill: Divorce

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

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

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

We support the introduction of Family Courts and the single non-fault ground for divorce based on 12 months separation.

We also support the change in maintenance provisions to end the subsidy for life system and to base maintenance on the real needs of all parties involved. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not delay the Family Law Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 35 citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

We deplore the tactics of the opponents of the Family Law Bill in seeking further delays for its implementation. The Community has had more than adequate opportunity to examine its contents and implications.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should not delay the Family Law Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 23 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 future marriages. 1

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 six 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 and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator CARRICK:

– I present the following petition from 55 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 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 six months and that all sections of the community be consulted on marriage, the family and the long term effects of such a Bill upon pur Australian society.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Law Bill

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 32 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 Sill 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 six 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.

Taxation: Education Expenses

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

That the reduction of the allowable deduction of education expenses under section 82 J of The Income Tax Assessment Act from $400 to $ 1 50 is $50 below the 1 956-57 figure.

That this reduction will impose hardships on many parents who have children attending school, whether non government or government; and particularly on parents with more than one child at school.

That this reduction will further restrict the freedom available to parents to make a choice of school for their children.

That some parents who have chosen to send their children to a non-government school will have to withdraw their children and send them to government schools already over crowded and understaffed.

That the parents to benefit most relatively from educational income tax deductions, in the past and even more in the future, are the parents of children in government schools and this a divisive effect in the Australian community.

That parents should be encouraged by the Australian government to exercise freedom of choice of the type of school they wish for their children. The proposed reduction means an additional financial penalty is imposed on parents who try to exercise this choice and discourages them from making an important financial contribution to Australian education over and above what they contribute through taxation.

That an alternative system, a tax rebate system, could be adopted as being more equitable for all parents with children at school.

To compensate for the losses that will follow from the proposed reduction and to help meet escalating educational costs faced by all families your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to restore educational benefits to parents, at least at the 1973-1974 level either by increasing taxation deductions or through taxation rebates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Commonwealth Hostels

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I present the following petition from 38 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That the recent increases in tariffs at Commonwealth Hostels in the Australian Capital Territory are causing hardship amongst the lower paid junior ranks of the Public Service whose only choice of accommodation in Canberra are these hostels.

That since these increases there has been a dramatic reduction in the quality and quantity of both food and services in the hostels.

That any further increases in tariff coupled with the general shortage of single person accommodation in the A.C.T. are unjustified and will cause people employed in the Public Service in Canberra to resign and leave Canberra to seek better conditions elsewhere.

Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that the Government will hasten to amend such laws as would compel Commonwealth Hostels to come within the jurisdiction of the A.C.T. Prices Controller to prohibit unjustified rises in tariff.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Law Bill

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 4 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Citizens of the Commonwealth, by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the existing matrimonial laws in Australia are archaic, unrealistic, and cruel and so completely at variance with modern thought as to require their immediate repeal.

That there is such urgent need for reform that there must be no delay in presenting the Family Law Bill 1974 to Parliament for debate.

That the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage be the sole ground for divorce with proof of this determined by a maximum of twelve months separation.

That dissolution of marriage must come out of the legal system with people resolving their family matters between themselves according to guidelines and with assistance of a mediator. Family Courts only to be used for enforcement as a last resort.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2182

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2182

QUESTION

TAX REBATE ON HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it a fact that the Treasurer of the Commonwealth and the Department of the Treasury regard weekly tax rebates for interest payments on mortgages as too complicated to be easily workable? Is it also a fact, as rumoured, that the Australian Labor Party Caucus thinks otherwise? What is the source of the superior knowledge which entitled the members of Caucus to know better than Treasury the feasibility of a complex tax deduction program?

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

– This question obviously involves policy. It deals with the financial policies of the Government about which the Parliament will be informed in due course. The honourable senator is really asking about the superior knowledge of Caucus. Of course Caucusthat is, all the members of the Parliamentary Labor Party, both senators and memberswould be expected to have an enormous collective capacity to decide questions when it is able to receive the wise advice, not only of the Prime Minister but also of the Treasurer. Honourable senators will recall that not so long ago I said that we have the wisest and most prudent Treasurer that this Commonwealth has had for the last 23 years.

page 2182

QUESTION

TIMOR

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Have any developments occurred since his earlier talks with the representative of the Portuguese Government which would divert Australia from its traditional attitude of supporting self-determination as personified in the minds of the Timorese people?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The very short answer is no. I think I remember answering a question something along these lines previously in the House. While I was in New York I had 2 very long talks with the man who was then the Greek Foreign Minister. I had these talks both early in the piece and later after he had had a chance to talk to Dr Kissinger. I am sorry, the honourable senator mentioned -

Senator Mulvihill:

– Timor, not Cyprus.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I talked to Dr Soares in New York and later with Dr Santos here. I also spoke with Mr Adam Malik who of course is interested in this matter. There is nothing in the attitude of any of those people which is alarming at all. In fact, their attitude pleases us completely. The situation is that for 400 years the Portuguese have been the colonial power in Timor. Of course, Timor is still the prime responsibility of the Portuguese because they are there. Obviously 3 things could happen. Firstly, because of the halving of the island with Indonesia, Timor could seek to be incorporated into Indonesia. Secondly, it could go for independence. Thirdly, it could very well continue on with the Portuguese. What is certain is that whatever it does, changes will occur. If it stays with the Portuguese the changes will be for the better because of the general Portuguese situation. The Portuguese have had a look at their colonial powers and this thing has come to a head. I do not think there is any other way to handle the situation than to adhere quite tightly to what the United Nations has said over all these years. We have been saying as a government since we have been in power that we believe in the self-determination of people. We believe that they should make that decision and that it should be closely aligned with the several decisions made by the United Nations over the years.

page 2182

QUESTION

AIR FORCE TRAINING AIRCRAFT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Can the

Minister representing the Minister for Defence say what stage the replacement program for the Winjeel, the present Royal Australian Air Force basic training aircraft, has reached? Is the Minister able to say whether the total requirement is still 37 aircraft? Has there been any change in the total estimated project cost? When is delivery of the first aircraft expected?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Honourable senators will recall, of course, that the CT4 aircraft was developed from the Victa aircraft which was formerly manufactured in Australia. Our Government continued the discussions which the former Government had started in relation to the CT4 aircraft and agreed to purchase 37 of them. It was agreed that some of the components would be manufactured in Australia under arrangements of participation. The original project cost, which I do not think has been exceeded, was more than $3m. It is expected that the first of the 37 aircraft will arrive in January 1975 and that the remainder will be received progressivley The proposition at one stage was developed between the 2 countries that the delivery of the last 12 aircraft might be deferred. I understand that that proposition has now been rejected. I will endeavour to find out whether there is any other information I can give the honourable senator in relation to the matter.

page 2183

QUESTION

FACILITIES FOR SENATORS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate noted that, in spite of some tedious adjournment debates in the Senate, our evenings have been considerably brightened by our senators of the fairer sex coming into the Senate in the evenings refurbished and elegantly attired? Is the Minister aware that there are no showers, bathrooms or dressing rooms provided for these senators as there are for other members of the Senate? Is this not another form of discrimination which has been carried on for far too long? In the circumstances will the Government give immediate consideration to providing suitable facilities for the senators and so encourage their innovative endeavours?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Yes, I have noted with pleasure how the women senators are coming into the chamber of an evening. I think everyone has enjoyed that. The honourable senator referred to the discrimination which is practised against the women senators. I am not aware of whether any special facilities are provided for the female senators. I do know that the toilets around the place are simply labelled ‘senators’. They contain, in some cases, showers. I do not think there is any prohibition against any senators using the facilities which are provided. But it is a matter for their own judgment. If the female senators wish separate facilities to be provided, no doubt they will make application to the President. I regret that I have not had occasion to focus on these problems. I do not think that any honourable senator would want to practice any form of discrimination against senators of the other sex. May I say that the trend which Senator Gietzelt has noticed ought to be encouraged.

page 2183

QUESTION

AMBASSADOR TO WASHINGTON

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact that the present Treasurer, Mr Crean, is being posted to Washington as Australian Ambassador? If this is so, can the Treasurer be taken as the first of many who may be axed to make excuses for the Government’s mistakes?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question is no.

page 2183

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION MAGAZINE

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for the Media seen a report that the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Literature Board of the Australian Council for the Arts are negotiating an arrangement about publishing a highclass literary magazine similar to the British Broadcasting Corporation’s ‘Listener’? Is this report correct? If so, how far have the negotiations proceeded? Can the Minister say what the likelihood is of such a worthwhile magazine being published in Australia?

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

-Some time ago my parliamentary colleagues, the honourable member for Denison, Mr Coates, and the honourable member for Macarthur, Mr Kerin, approached me on this subject suggesting that it would be to the literary advantage of Australians if a magazine were produced in Australia somewhat akin to the BBC’s ‘Listener’ and also akin to the publication put out by the New Zealand Broadcasting Commission. I raised this matter with the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Professor Downing, and the General Manager, Mr Duckmanton. As a result, after discussing it with the members of the Commission, they have had negotiations with the Australian Council for the Arts. I understand that the 2 organisations between them have now arranged for a feasibility study to be conducted by a well-known journalist in Australia, Mr Donald Home, as to the economic viability of such a proposition. I understand that they are expecting a report on the subject from Mr Home in the near future. I am hoping personally that the feasibility study will assert that such a publication is economically viable because I believe it certainly is something that is really warranted in Australia. Time after time I, as Minister for the Media, have received requests from a large number of people and from diverse sections of the Australian people to be provided with scripts of broadcasts or television interviews that have taken place, particularly in ABC programs. I would have thought that such a publication would contribute greatly to the uplifting of electronic media standards and the broadening of knowledge for all Australians.

page 2183

QUESTION

OVERSEAS CREDIT

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate whether it is a fact that the Government is seeking to negotiate an overseas revolving credit of $ 1,000m, similar to that negotiated recently by New Zealand. If this is the case, can he tell the

Senate who are the lenders and what is the interest rate?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-No, I cannot. I will have to refer the question to the Treasurer.

page 2184

QUESTION

CARE OF GRANDCHILDREN

Senator MELZER:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security. I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are, all over the country, grandparents battling to bring up grandchildren left in their care and that very often the only income is the age pension. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether such people are entitled to draw child endowment in respect of the children in their care? Are they eligible for any other assistance? Would any such payment or assistance endanger their pension rights?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Grandparents who are taking care of children are entitled to receive child endowment under the same terms and conditions as are the parents of children. In addition to receiving child endowment, they are entitled to some other benefits as well. They can receive an additional pension of $5 a week, which is about to be increased to $5.50 a week, for each child. For means test purposes a deduction of up to $6 a week is available for each child within their care. In the case of children who are double orphans- that is, children who have lost both of their parents- there is a double orphan’s pension of $ 10 a week which is shortly to be increased to $11 a week. Under the legislation which was dealt with by the Senate on Tuesday of this week, a handicapped child’s allowance of $10 a week is to be paid in respect of eligible children for whom child endowment is received. The receipt of child endowment or any other form of benefit of this nature does not in any way preclude the payment of any social service pensions which the grandparents would be otherwise receiving.

page 2184

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Agriculture refers to the serious situation in the beef industry and the Minister’s own statement on an Australian Broadcasting Commission program early this morning. Did the Minister indicate in that statement that the matter of carry-on finance was being considered by the Government? Can he give the Senate any further information on when such a step might be implemented?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not aware of the precise broadcast to which Senator Davidson is referring. I make quite a lot of these tapes and I am afraid I am not quite sure which one this is. I have asked my Department, in conjunction with Treasury, to formulate proposals which may be necessary to assist the beef industry in the immediate months ahead. I am specifically seeking alternative methods which could be used to relieve the position of those producers who are entirely dependent on beef production, especially in the northern part of Australia where they have a sole dependence on beef production and have been hit heavily by the decline in the export market to the United States of America. I hope to have whatever proposals the departments have been able to draw up before me before the end of the year so that in the event of assistance being required for those producers we will be able to implement the necessary plans.

page 2184

QUESTION

WINE FRAUDS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Customs and Excise. It concerns the rather sad dereliction of the age old adage ‘in vino Veritas’. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to Press reports of wine frauds revealed in France and Italy with alleged recourse to the making of wine from dregs of pressed grapes and cane or beet sugar? As the Australian grape growing and wine making industries are suffering from heavy importation of brandy, some of which is allegedly of similarly suspect origin, and in view of the desirably stringent regulation and certification requirements applying to the genuine Australian product, will the Minister ensure that all imported brandy conforms completely with our set standards?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am aware of the matters to which the honourable senator refers. Over several years there has been a number of such instances occurring overseas. I think there was a rather scandalous situation in Italy some years ago and we are all aware of what is alleged to have happened in France. I shall see what can be done to resolve this problem in the direction that the honourable senator suggests. I think it is proper to do so, not merely for the protection of the wine and brandy industries of Australia, important though they are, but also for the protection of the Australian consumer. I will certainly see to it that everything that ought to be done is done to ensure that the Australian consumer is not deceived by any action of those sending goods into Australia or those from whom the goods are derived.

page 2185

QUESTION

NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SCHEME

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. When an unemployed person is accepted as eligible for retraining under the National Employment and Training Scheme, known as NEAT, does his or her name continue to be included in the Government’s unemployment statistics or is it then removed?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As I understand the position, once a person takes part in the scheme he is not classed as unemployed. Consequently, his name would be removed from the statistics which are prepared by the Department.

page 2185

QUESTION

TREATY OF NARA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did the Prime Minister describe the Nippon Australia Relations Agreement, known as the treaty of NARA, as his greatest achievement? Is the treaty to be signed during the visit of the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Tanaka? If not, what are the reasons for the delay? If the treaty is not to be signed will the Prime Minister now make a more modest assessment of his achievement?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– In answer to the first question, I do not know whether the Prime Minister said that or not. The treaty of NARA will not be signed during Prime Minister Tanaka ‘s visit. There has been a long process of to-ing and fro-ing on it. Japan put up a draft treaty and we put up another and so on. I was asked a few weeks ago whether we should speed up the preparation of the treaty and have it signed during his visit. I said no. This is a very technical matter. It is the first time it has been done. This is a new type of treaty. As I understand it, Japan has never entered into this type of treaty with anybody else. My attitude is that it is better to have a good treaty than a fast one. It would be nice to sign it when Prime Minister Tanaka is here but does that really matter when it is a treaty that is going to last for as far ahead as we can see? So it will not be signed during the time that he is here. I have seen a draft and have been in fairly close contact with my officers who are working on it. As the doctors say, it is coming along as well as can be expected under all the circumstances.

page 2185

QUESTION

PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS

Senator MARTIN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture and I refer to statements made by him and by the Minister for Minerals and Energy the day before yesterday on the development of the phosphate deposits in

Queensland. I would like to ask the Minister: Has a cost-benefit analysis been made of the development of the deposits at Lady Jane, Lady Annie and Duchess? Does this cost-benefit analysis include the cost of transportation? Will the cost-benefit analysis be made available? Can he tell us whether he has an estimate for the price of phosphate from these sources so that some comparison can be made with the potential price of phosphate on overseas markets next year? Will there actually be a price benefit for the Australian farmer or is it just a case of the price of overseas phosphate having increased to the point where it has now become economic to develop the deposits we have known about in Queensland for some time? On the subject of the cost of transport, I notice -

The PRESIDENT:

– Please ask your question.

Senator MARTIN:

– They are all relevant to the same point, Mr President. Is it a fact that the Queensland Government has yet to finish the construction of some 70 kilometres of rail to transport this phosphate and that in the meantime it will be transported by road? In that case, does the Government have any intention of making improvements to the Flinders Highway to make it an all-weather road, passable for most of the year, which it is not at present?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Firstly, the development of the deposits is the responsibility of a private company, not the Federal Government or the State Government. Broken Hill South Ltd, the company concerned, has of course made its own assessment as to the economics of quarrying or mining those deposits. I understand that initially it was not considered by the company to be economic to mine them, in view of the low phosphate content in the ore, in relation to world prices for phosphate rock which have obtained in recent years. Undoubtedly the very rapid escalation of the price of phosphate rock on the world market has now made a difference to the return factor which Broken Hill South Ltd can expect from its investment. I have no doubt that the company has made a very detailed cost analysis of the development of those deposits and the eventual manufacture of fertiliser.

As to the matter of the rail link to the coast, I am not sure what the position is. Even if the Queensland Government has not completed it I assume that Broken Hill South Ltd, in negotiation with the Queensland Government and possibly with our own Federal Government, is constructing that rail link. Until such time as it is ready, presumably road transport will be necessary. I cannot give any answer on that. If my colleague the Federal Minister for Transport, Mr Jones, can provide some further information, I will obtain it for the honourable senator.

page 2186

QUESTION

BEEF INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. In view of statements being made by the Leader of the Australian Country Party, Mr Anthony, that the beef industry is in need of $200m carry-on finance, can the Minister say whether those statements are borne out in representations made to him by spokesmen for the beef industry?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I think I indicated last week that I had received only one request for finance for the beef industry up till now and that this was from the National Cattlemen’s Association. No further representations have been brought to my attention. I do not doubt that individual beef producers are feeling the pinch now because of the reduced prices, but at this stage the only application for assistance, to my knowledge, has come from the National Cattlemen’s Association.

page 2186

QUESTION

PRICE OF CRUDE OIL

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It refers to the application which Ampol Exploration Ltd has made to the Prices Justification Tribunal for an increase in the price of its crude oil from Barrow Island. I refer also to the comments on that application which were made yesterday by the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I ask: Is it not a fact that Ampol Exploration Ltd is completely within its rights in making an application to the Prices Justification Tribunal, which was set up by this Government? Is it the intention of the Government and, in particular, of the Minister for Minerals and Energy to browbeat Ampol Exploration Ltd in the manner in which the Minister did yesterday, apparently in order to prevent the company going on with its application and exercising its legal rights?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-As to the first part of the honourable senator’s question, there is no doubt that it is the right of Ampol Exploration Ltd to make an application to the Prices Justification Tribunal. I suppose some might take the view that there ought not to be criticism of anyone who exercises his legal rights. But I seem to recall that whenever a trade union makes an application to a court for an increase in wages all sorts of attacks are made in the Parliament and outside about unions going crazy. We are told that the unions should not do it and are asked what the Government is going to do to stop the unions and so forth. Never do I find members of the Opposition calling for any moderation or restraint by those in private enterprise as employers or profit makers. They are never asked to restrain themselves from making what might be legitimate claims in the interests of the community at large.

I suggest with respect that the honourable senator should look at himself and at what his Party is doing. What does the Opposition mean when it calls for restraint? Honourable senators opposite came in here after an arbitration was made, according to law, by Mr Justice Campbell about statutory offices and they disallowed that arbitration. But when it is the case of large companies which are well able to look after themselves, some criticism is expressed of a MinisterI have not read all his words- who obviously is saying that restraint is not a one-way process and that if there is to be restraint, let it be restraint from those who are seeking increases which will inevitably add to inflation.

page 2186

QUESTION

PRICE OF CRUDE OIL

Senator DURACK:

-Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether it was the intention of the Government to continue to browbeat Ampol Exploration Ltd into withdrawing its application. Do I take it from the Minister’s answer that this is so?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– One could not take that at all when one realises that the statements to which the honourable senator is referring are the statements of Mr Connor, one of the gentlest persons in the Ministry. No one would accuse him of endeavouring to browbeat anyone.

page 2186

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE: REDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

-My question which is directed to the Postmaster-General results from statements made by Mr Phillip Lynch, the Opposition spokesman on Treasury matters, on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Monday Conference’ last Monday. Mr Lynch said that Government expenditure should be cut by 8 per cent. I ask the Minister: What effects would such a reduction have on the Australian Post Office in regard to employment, capital works and the provision of services to the public?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– It has already been pointed out that the Opposition often argues that we should spend more and cut back. I have seen the report of the statement which Mr Lynch made the other night suggesting that there should be a general Government cutback of 8 per cent. Of course already other Ministers have pointed out what might happen in relation to social services and defence, for example. As for the Post Office, I think that such a cutback would mean not only a reduction of about $30m in capital works expenditure but also obviously the sacking of hundreds of workers from the Australian Post Office. Perhaps, more seriously, a cutback would affect the employment of many people in industries such as the electronics and telecommunication industries which supply requirements to the Post Office. Perhaps even more seriously- this is the thing with which we are trying to contend in the Post Office in having to raise tariffs- it would increase the delays in telephone connections in every area, including that of the honourable senator and of honourable senators from Queensland. We are having enough trouble now trying to meet such programs. It is ridiculous, if we look at the general economic situation, to make such a suggestion because it would simply mean that no government could carry out its programs or meet its promises on social services.

page 2187

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister’s pending visit to the United States and other countries to persuade overseas enterprises to invest in Australia. As this seems to be an incredible reversal of Government policy in respect of overseas investment in this country, can the Minister give details of the type of investment that the Government has in mind and the amount of capital that the Deputy Prime Minister hopes to attract from foreign investors?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Dr Cairns is not going overseas for the purpose stated by the honourable senator whose information is based on newspaper reports. Dr Cairns is going to a meeting in the Caribbean-Central America area, and his trip is quite divorced from any of the matters referred to in the honourable senator’s question. I understand that on his way back to Australia he will be visiting New York and Washington. I do not know what discussions he will be having there, but if he cares to convey to me the information that the honourable senator seeks I will provide the honourable senator with it.

page 2187

QUESTION

KHMER GOVERNMENTS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen Press reports that the credentials of the Phnom Penh Government as the

Government of Cambodia to the United Nations will be challenged by the supporters of the Sihanouk-led regime in exile? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether this is so? Will he inform us also what Australia’s position will be when this question is put to the General Assembly?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The Khmer or Cambodian position at the United Nations is that there is a resolution from last year which, as Senator Grimes says, seeks to seat the Grunk Government in place of the Lon Nol Government. That was deferred last year. This year a resolution is to be put which calls on the Secretary-General to use his good offices to try to bring about talks between the 2 parties. So the situation is that there will be 2 resolutions before the General Assembly. A further resolution gives precedence to that second resolution which calls Kurt Waldeim into the play. Australia will support the resolution to call in the SecretaryGeneral. We will also support the resolution to give the matter precedence. In addition we will co-sponsor the resolution proposing United Nations involvement. Then the matter will rest on whether that resolution is carried or the United Nations goes back to the position last year and we vote on the question of who shall be seated. We have taken the attitude that because we recognise the Lon Nol Government- the Government with which we have our credentials at the moment- we will support that Government. So there is a series of situations. We will support not only the move to try to bring the United Nations more fully into the matter but we will also seek to give it priority. If it does come to a vote we will support the resolution that the Lon Nol Government be seated at the United Nations.

page 2187

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT DECISIONS

Senator CHANEY:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Like a number of questions, it is based on a newspaper report. I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the report that Mr Egerton said that the Australian Labor Party Caucus should be stricter with the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, and Ministers who had made silly decisions recently. Can Senator Murphy assure the Senate that the Prime Minister has retained his authority over the Government and that the Prime Minister and other Ministers are still free to make silly decisions without interference from Caucus?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator referred to Mr Egerton. As the honourable senator comes from Western Australia, he probably would not be aware of Mr Egerton ‘s engaging personality. He is known all over Queensland and throughout the industrial world as a humourist of the first order. I think the honourable senator should not take too seriously the very facetious remarks made by Mr Egerton.

page 2188

QUESTION

MARITIME RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the Minister agree that the Neptune aircraft is no longer suitable for maritime reconnaissance and is too costly to maintain? As the question of a replacement for this aircraft has been considered for some time, will the Minister inform the Senate whether an aircraft has been selected and, if so, when it will be operating?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As the honourable senator knows, the Government has considered the matter.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– So did the previous Government.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes, of course the previous Government did consider this matter, but it did not move any faster than we are doing at the present time. As the honourable senator probably knows, recently we sent a mission to visit other countries to consider the 2 types of aircraft to which the selection has been limited- the Orion and the Nimrod. But I undertand that the Boeing company has asked that its aircraft be placed again in the category for consideration. The Government has not decided which of the aircraft to select. The overseas mission to which I have referred has returned to Australia after considering what should be done. The report is not yet available. I understand that the report is expected to be given to the Government and that the Government will make a decision in this matter about the middle of next year.

In addition to the overseas evaluation team to which I have referred, an industrial mission is presently overseas considering to what extent the Barra sonar system might be used in both the aircraft under consideration. I do not know what has resulted from those investigations. I might say also that one of the considerations in relation to the selection of a particular type of aircraft will be the extent to which there is participation by Australian industry in the construction of the aircraft. If I can obtain any more information for the honourable senator I will get it and give it to him.

page 2188

QUESTION

EXPULSIONS FROM UNITED NATIONS

Senator WEBSTER:

-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether the direction of the Australian socialist Labor Government to its representative at the United Nations to vote for the expulsion of South Africa from that body has been exercised as at this date? What is the current state of the aforementioned motion in the United Nations? Can the Minister inform the Senate whether the Australian Government now intends to press for the explusion of all member nations of the United Nations which do not comply with the principles for membership and the Charter of the United Nations?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I cannot tell the honourable senator whether this question has been voted on or not; I do not know. The vote is imminent; it could have happened by now. A rather long debate about this matter has been going on in the Security Council. The second question which the honourable senator asked was whether we will press for the expulsion of other members of the United Nations. As I explained the other night when we were debating this matter, it is not a question of our pressing for such expulsions. This matter concerning the expulsion of South Africa was referred to the Security Council and we happen to be on the Security Council. So the matter was put firmly in front of us to make a decision. If it had happened last year or if it were to happen next year we would not have been in our present position, but at this time we are.

Yesterday I made a statement dealing with this very point which Senator Webster raiseswhether or not everybody who has assaulted the United Nations Charter- it does not matter to what degree- should be kicked out of the United Nations. Certainly there are many member nations of the United Nations which, if one liked to watch them very closely, one would see have not done the sorts of things that the Charter lays down. But I do not think that this can be used as any excuse for the violations that South Africa has consistently committed over 25 years. Senator Webster will see that in my statement. I will give him a copy of it if he would like it. It is not a question of our pressing for the expulsion of other nations. We never pressed this one.

Senator Young:

– You are supporting it

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, we are supporting it. Let me deal with the question that was put to me. The question was: Would we, Australia, move for the expulsion of all other countries? The answer would be no. We did not move in this situation for the expulsion of South Africa. The question was put to ari organisation of which we are a member, and we voted according to what we thought was best.

page 2189

QUESTION

TRADE WITH JAPAN

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-I ask the Minister for Agriculture whether the talks starting today with the Prime Minister of Japan will include the matter of Australian meat exports to Japan. Will it be pointed out to our visitor that the depressed state of our meat industry could affect the sale of Japanese products, including cars, in Australia?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It has certainly been indicated already that the discussions between the Japanese Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister will include the question of Australian beef exports to Japan. Whether there will be suggestions that the trade between the 2 countries will be penalised because of the problems we find in particular areas of that trade is a different matter. It would not be in the interests of this country or of Japan to damage that trade relationship simply because of difficulties that arise in particular areas.

page 2189

QUESTION

REPLACEMENT FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Defence recall informing the Senate in April last year of the progress made by teams from the Department of Defence and the Department of Air engaged in evaluating the Mirage aircraft replacement scheme? Did he say in May 1973 in reply to a question in the Senate that the Government was anxious to get a recommendation soon? Can the Minister now say, 19 months later, when an announcement of the Government’s decision on a replacement aircraft can be expected.

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The honourable senator will know that since the Minister for Defence made that statement and I repeated it in the Senate the Government has considered what percentage of expenditure should be placed for defence needs. We decided that there ought to be a new priority when we came to government and that we should spend more money on pay and pensions for the Services, re-engagement bonuses and so on. Because of that policy some of the options which the Government had for new equipment were cut back. Everybody knows that at the present time pay, re-engagement bonuses and Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund conditions are really no longer the issues they were when we came into government because hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in those areas. As to the re-equipment program the Government decided that a replacement for the Mirage aircraft should be put off. It has now been decided that the replacement will not be purchased earlier than 1978.

page 2189

QUESTION

TAX REBATE ON HOME MORTGAGE INTEREST

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. What will be the amount of the pay-as-you-earn deductions that will be allowed during 1974-75 as interest deductions to those people buying their homes under the scheme recently approved by Caucus? What would home purchasers save in the same financial year if interest rates were reduced to the 1972 levels? Does the Minister agree that the Government should release more liquidity so that interest rates can come down because in that way home owners would be considerably better off than under the proposed scheme?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Obviously I am not in a position to answer the first 2 parts of the question. They will have to be placed on the notice paper for the Treasurer to provide a proper answer. As to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, the Treasury has made 5 releases of liquidity since June, if my memory serves me correctly. It has made a great amount of liquidity available in the economy which previously was not available. It would be quite remiss of the Government now to allow injections of money which were unnecessary and unwarranted into the economy at this stage. The Government has been careful in its monetary policy to ensure that there has been a relaxation of the liquidity position, and that is the policy it will continue to follow.

page 2189

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND HEALTH SERVICES

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I preface my question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, by saying that the Minister for Social Security made repeated election promises before both the 1972 and 1974 Federal elections that under his administration Queensland would receive $22m for health services. So far Queensland has not received one penny of this money. Will the Minister please indicate when this promise will be honoured?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I would have thought that one of the problems of the Opposition was not that the Labor Government had not honoured its promises but that it had honoured its promises. As to the specific matter which has been raised by Senator Sheil, I am afraid that I do not have the information available with me here, but I shall refer the question to the Minister for Social Security and see that Senator Sheil has an answer as early as possible.

page 2190

QUESTION

TASMANIAN FRUIT EXPORTS TO JAPAN

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to earlier answers regarding the visit to Australia of the Prime Minister of Japan and also to the various questions which I have asked previously about negotiations for the entry of Tasmanian fruit into the Japanese market. In view of the extremely serious state of the fruit industry in Tasmania and the importance of opening up this new market for Tasmanian fruit, I ask the Minister whether the opportunity will be taken to engage in further talks so as to further press the matter of the entry of Tasmanian fruit into Japan.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I doubt whether there will be discussions with the Japanese Prime Minister on this specific matter on this occasion. As I have said in answering questions previously, the discussions which were initiated last October in relation to the entry of Australian apples into Japan were continued and I think, at least for the moment, resolved in August of this year when the Japanese made it quite clear that they would not allow the importation of Australian apples into that country until such time as they were sure of the elimination of codling moth. At this stage we have not reached the health standards that the Japanese require. It is quite understandable that they will protect their own industries from disease in exactly the same way as we do. We have rigid laws in relation to the imports of livestock, fruit or other products where we feel that our industries might suffer as a result of the introduction of disease. I am not hopeful of any fresh developments in relation to exports to Japan of apples for the 1 975 season. We can only continue to research, explore and improve the methods that we already have for the elimination of the sons of diseases that currently prevent our fruit from being exported to that country.

page 2190

QUESTION

TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Since the Trade Practices Act came into operation on 1 October last, has there been any evidence that undesirable restrictive trade practices are being curtailed? If so, what is likely to be the short term and long term result of such curtailment?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The Trade Practices Act has been in operation for only a very short time and there does seem to be some indication of a movement away from what was occurring previously. 1 do not know whether this has been reflected in any dramatic way in decreases of prices. I seem to remember that the Chairman of the Trade Practices Commission, Mr Bannerman, expressed the view that there would be either a significant drop in prices, or at least that prices would fall significantly below the level at which they otherwise would have been, in a fairly short period by reason of the operation of the Act. There is no doubt that the long term effects will be in this direction.

I should remind the Senate that although the prohibition of price fixing, monopolisation and anti-competitive mergers in the consumer protection provisions has been operating as from 1 October, the provisions in relation to the prohibition of exclusive dealing, prices discrimination and contracts in restraint of trade, other than price fixing, are not operative until 1 February 1975. So another wave of the operation of the Act is still to come. There seems to be a good deal of evidence that the commercial community is responding positively to the provisions of the Act. They see that this is for their ultimate benefit and certainly it will be for the benefit of the consumers. I will concede that ultimately after the delays ceased there was a fairly general support for the provisions of the Act. I am sure that they will be effective in the long term and we would hope in the short term. I will endeavour to get a report from the Chairman of the Commission as to how he sees the Act operating, even at this early stage.

page 2190

QUESTION

POWER STATION AT NEWPORT

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Environment and Conservation: Is the Government aware that a group of unions in Victoria is standing over the Victorian Government by simply telling it that the power station, essential for Victoria’s future power needs, is not to be built at Newport? Is not the Minister aware that this attitude is being taken against a background of exhaustive enquiries into the environmental impact of such a station, all of which inquiries have resulted in findings in favour of the station being built? Is it not also a fact that the Minister whom the Minister represents, after initial opposition to the Victorian power station, now indicates that the inquiries have been found to show that the station will not be a detriment to the environment? I ask, in the interests of balanced and sensible environmental policies under which buildings can be constructed after the necessary inquiries have been conducted, will the Minister come out and strongly support the Victorian Government’s position?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

page 2191

QUESTION

ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE ARMIES

Senator GRIMES:

-Has the Attorney-General seen again this morning Press reports on the possibility of the setting up of private army and vigilante groups by certain ex-service organisations? Will the Minister clarify for the Senate and for these gentlemen their legal position which one assumes would be a danger to the principles of rule of law in this country?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– This issue was raised here, I think, about a month ago. I then indicated that there were certain provisions in our law which were aimed against the development of private armies. I suppose, if necessary, these provisions will be invoked. It is quite undesirable in a world which has been characterised by more and more violence that there should be suggestions in Australia of a private army. I think those in the Returned Services League ought to understand quite firmly- I think we can speak for any government of any political character- that if the Government thinks it needs the assistance of the Returned Services League to run the defence force or any kind of para-military force, it will ask for it. It does not do any good for democracy and the preservation of peace for this kind of idiotic suggestion to be put forward by the Returned Services League or anybody else.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Just as well you said anybody else.

Senator Webster:

– Yes, it is just as well.

Senator MURPHY:

-I thank Senator DrakeBrockman and Senator Webster for indicating their concurrence with what I put. We do not want the development of any private army under any guise whatever. The suggestion that such an army would be standing by, ready to help is something that is quite unnecessary. This kind of volunteering by such bodies or any other body- I repeat or by any other body- is to be deprecated. We want no private armies from any source whatever in Australia.

page 2191

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND PHOSPHATE DEPOSITS

Senator YOUNG:

– Following an answer given earlier today in relation to rock phosphate in Queensland, has the Minister for Agriculture made any inquiries? If not, will he make inquiries to give some indication of what the cost per tonne will be for this rock phosphate?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not aware the Australian Government has the power to make any such determination. I assume that the only body which would be competent to make a judgment on the price would be the Prices Justification Tribunal. I assume also that once the company is in a position to market the product, it will be required to take the matter to that Tribunal.

page 2191

QUESTION

PRE-SCHOOL CENTRES

Senator MELZER:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to reports that the Lord Mayor of Melbourne will lead a deputation to the State Minister for Health protesting about the State Government’s threat to withdraw the $100,000 subsidy to 2 proposed council pre-school centres if the Melbourne City Council accepts Federal Government building funds? Can the Minister advise how widespread is this obstructive attitude of the Victorian Government? What action can the Federal Government take to counter such destructive actions?

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

-My attention was drawn to the report and because I represent in the Senate the Minister for Education in another place I sought the views of his office and his Department on the matter. I am told by my colleague that a new Australian Government program is being developed in the area of children’s services and that the whole facet of Federal-State subsidies will have to be re-assessed and new guidelines established. Consultations are at present under way with the Victorian Government and hopefully situations of the kind mentioned by the honourable senator will be overcome so that no hardships will be felt by local councils developing programs.

page 2191

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table of the Senate the text of the Prime Minister’s address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Monday, 30 September 1974, and of my own address on Monday, 7 October 1974. I also table a short statement on my visit.

page 2191

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education, a report on the meeting of the Australian Education Council on 4 October 1 974.

page 2192

NORTHERN TERRITORY URANIUM

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present a statement entitled Northern Territory Uranium’.

page 2192

SCHOOL OF ARTILLERY, NORTH HEAD, SYDNEY

Senator BISHOP (South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral) On behalf of the Minister for Defence (Mr Barnard) I present for the information of honourable senators a statement on the investigation into the incident at the School of Artillery at North Head, Sydney, on the evening of Friday, 30 August 1974. Due to the limited numbers of this statement available at this time the Minister has arranged for reference copies to be placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 2192

QUESTION

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

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

– I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2192

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION BILL 1974

(No. 2)

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Leader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– Pursuant to leave granted on 23 October I present a Bill for an Act relating to the elimination of racial and other discrimination.

Bill presented and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Leader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

The purpose of this Bill is to make racial discrimination unlawful in Australia and to provide an effective means of combating racial prejudice in this country. I introduced into the Senate a Racial Discrimination Bill on 21 November 1 973, and again on 4 April 1 974, but the Bill was not debated before Parliament was dissolved for the last election. The present Bill is similar to the previous Bills and includes some improvements. The Bill implements into Australian law the obligations contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is recognised in this Convention that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous and without any justification. Eighty-one countries have already ratified the Convention. The Convention was signed on behalf of Australia on 13 October 1966 and the ratification of the Convention by Australia is, I believe, urgent and overdue.

The basic framework of the previous Bills has been retained. The Bill recognises the importance of legislation that will make racial discrimination unlawful. I emphasise that the introduction of legislation to outlaw racial discrimination is a fundamental step that must be taken if Australia is to ratify the Convention. The common law provides no effective remedies against discrimination in the exercise of human rights, whether it be based on race or colour or on other grounds. Legislation therefore has a vital role to play in the elimination of racial discrimination. The proscribing of racial discrimination in legislative form not only makes people more aware of the evils of discrimination and makes it more obvious and conspicuous, but also furnishes an essential legal background on which to base changes to basic community attitudes. The fact that racial discrimination is unlawful will make it easier for people to resist social pressures that result in discrimination.

In making racial discrimination unlawful, the Bill follows closely the definition used in the Convention. The Bill will thus make it unlawful for a person to do an act involving discrimination based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which impairs the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms. The Bill will guarantee equality before the law without distinction as to race. It also deals in detail with racial discrimination so far as it concerns access to places and facilities, the provision of land, housing and other accommodation, the provision of goods and services, the right to join trade unions and employment

An important objective of the Bill is the creation of practical and effective legal remedies. Pious declarations of principle are of little value unless they can be given practical expression. The remedies provided by the Bill will include those of an injunction restraining the doing of discriminatory acts, an order requiring acts of a remedial nature to be done, an order cancelling a contract and damages in respect of the loss suffered by an aggrieved person and the loss of dignity, humiliation and injury to the feelings of an aggrieved person.

In addition, the Bill establishes formal administrative machinery for the examination of complaints of racial discrimination on a systematic basis and for the settlement of complaints by conciliation. The Bill recognises that reliance on the spasmodic operation of judicial review for the enforcement of the legislation would be unsatisfactory. The Bill also recognises that an emphasis on mediation and conciliation is a more satisfactory way of tackling individual instances of racial discrimination and the tensions that are associated with individual disputes. A Commissioner for Community Relations will therefore be established as an independent statutory authority to undertake these tasks. Where settlement cannot be achieved, the Commissioner will have power to commence legal proceedings before a court to have the legal issues between the parties determined.

The Bill also recognises the importance of developing programs of education and research and other programs to combat racial discrimination and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial and ethnic groups. The Commissioner will have the function of conducting programs of education and research to combat racial discrimination, and a Community Relations Council will be established with an advisory role. The Bill contains some improvements to the previous Bills. The Bill has been amended to further emphasise the Commissioner’s position as an independent and impartial conciliator. Overseas experience tends to show that a Commissioner who has an independent and impartial role and whose functions place emphasis on the effecting of a settlement enjoys greater co-operation from respondents than a Commissioner whose functions require him to make a judgment of the issues and identify himself with a complainant’s cause. The bill has accordingly been amended to give effect to this approach.

There is also a need to ensure that the operation of the Act is not frustrated by a lack of cooperation on the part of a respondent. The Bill has accordingly been amended to give the Commissioner the power to call a compulsory conference for the purpose of inquiring into a complaint and endeavouring to effect a settlement. The Bill will also authorise a judge to require a - person to give evidence in relation to a matter that is the subject of an inquiry under the Act. Evidence so obtained will not be admissible in other proceedings except proceedings for giving false evidence. In Canada, compulsory evidencegathering powers are given to Human Rights Commissions and similar powers are vested in the conciliator established by the New Zealand legislation. The absence of evidence-gathering powers in the United Kingdom legislation is said to seriously impede the effectiveness of that legislation.

A further change to the previous Bills effected by the present Bill will give the Commissioner the function of carrying out and fostering programs of education and research and other programs to combat racial discrimination. Overseas experience has shown that the success of legislation dealing with racial discrimination depends very much on the effectiveness of programs of this kind. The need for these programs was recognised in the 1 973 Bill and highlighted in the Bill introduced earlier this year. In my second reading speech of 4 April 1974, 1 pointed out that the changing of community attitudes and the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship among racial and ethnic groups would form an extremely important part of government’s program for the elimination of racial discrimination. I also pointed out that both government and community-based programs to combat racial discrimination were necessary. Amendments were made to the Bill to supplement the advisory role of the Race Relations Council with respect to education and research. The vesting of the proposed functions in the Commissioner will reinforce these important aspects. Australia will be required by Article 7 of the Convention to conduct programs of this kind to combat racial discrimination.

Finally, the Bill has been amended to emphasise reliance on civil, rather than criminal, law to combat racial discrimination. The range of offences in the Bill has accordingly been reduced and is mainly concerned with meeting the specific requirements imposed by Article 4 of the Convention. This Bill represents an important step in the government’s program with respect to human rights. The Bill will provide the basis upon which Australia can comply with the obligations imposed by the Convention on Racial Discrimination. The Bill recognises that laws proscribing discrimination are vital, but not in themselves sufficient. The legislation recognises that there must also be effective and systematic enforcement of rights and the promotion of education and research, if the elimination of racial discrimination in this country is to be achieved in fact as well as in theory. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

page 2194

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

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

-Imove:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday 12 November 1974 at 1 1 a.m. unless sooner called together by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise on this motion to get some indication from the Government in regard to an item on the notice paper. We will return to the Senate on 12 November. I know that reports of committees are scheduled to be presented that day and that the debate on the Family Law Bill 1974 is continuing. But I also notice that the Superior Court Bill 1974 has in recent days been lifted to the second position on the notice paper. It is in regard to the future of that Bill that I seek some indication from the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland). This Bill, as he will recall, is now on its third appearance before the Senate. It was introduced on 12 December last year and disappeared from the notice paper on prorogation. It was reintroduced in April of this year, debated in the Senate and the Senate rejected the second reading of the Bill.

At the time of the double dissolution there was standing on the notice paper a motion by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) for the recommittal of the Bill. When the new Parliament assembled the Bill was reintroduced on 30 July and it has been on the notice paper for 25 sitting days. My recollection also is that when the Parliament adjourned on 16 August it was a matter of touch and go as to whether the Superior Court Bill would be debated on that day. In the result it was not debated. But we have had it on the notice paper for quite a long time. I am also very conscious of many statements made from time to time about the Opposition not co-operating with the Government in the passage of legislation. We on our part think we have co-operated well, but we would like an indication as to whether the Superior Court Bill is to be proceeded with. If so, when will it be proceeded with or is it to be regarded as abandoned? If so, are formal steps likely to be taken? I think it is important for us to have some indication as to what are the Government’s intentions. I use this motion to seek that information.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– My understanding, after consultation with Senator Douglas McClelland, is that had the Family LawBill passed the second reading stage the debate on the Superior Court Bill would have commenced yesterday. There have been some developments in regard to that Bill, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood) would be aware. For a start, it has been proposed to take one division out of it- that is, the family law division. As I indicated, that proposal was recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. It seemed to be a sensible proposal and I indicated acceptance of it. It has also been suggested that we ought to remove from the Superior Court the matters which could give rise to criticism of possible conflicts of jurisdiction. I have indicated that I am amenable to that suggestion. The scope of the Superior Court may be a matter to be discussed in the Committee stage of the debate.

I think there would be no real reason why the matter ought not to proceed in its ordinary course and these matters dealt with in the Committee stage. Certainly the Government wants to proceed with the Superior Court Bill. That was announced on several occasions in the policy speeches. I do not know whether it is convenient to go through all that now, but there has been a good deal of discussion and a good deal of endeavour on the part of the Government to gain acceptance of the concept, which after all was originally advanced by the Opposition Parties when in Government. I think that with a little goodwill from the Opposition we can succeed in getting a piece of very helpful legislation on the statute book. So I ask Senator Greenwood, if he is anxious for the debate to proceed, to endeavour to obtain and express the goodwill of his own Party to our efforts to continue and to get on the statute book the concept which was originally introduced by members of his own Party.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2195

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

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

– I move:

The Committees are scheduled to meet at 12 noon. Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Committee B in Senate Committee Room No. 1 and Committee G in Senate Committee Room No. 3. May 1 say that, whilst the Committees are scheduled to meet at 12 noon, I suggest that they meet as soon after 12 noon as possible.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

- Mr Deputy President, may I ask for some clarification? The Senate is to reassemble at a quarter to five this afternoon. The Manager of Government Business in the Senate has not given any indication when Parliament will re-assemble after we rise other than on 12 November. I did not hear him make any clarifying statement as to what the procedure will be when we re-assemble at 4.45 p.m. in relation to the remainder of the day.

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

– I did not do that on this occasion but I was under the impression that I had done it earlier. We reassemble at 4.45 p.m. for the purpose of an adjournment debate of the Senate. But in the event of any of the Estimates Committees not having completed their deliberations they will resume the deliberations on those estimates after the adjournment debate of the Senate has concluded. It is the desire of the Government to see all Estimates Committees complete their business this week so that when we return to the Senate on Tuesday, 12 November, the reports of the Committees will be able to be placed before the Senate Committee of the whole.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2195

SENATE STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- I inform the Senate that I have received letters from Senator Milliner and Senator Georges requesting their discharge from attendance on the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Orders.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That Senators Milliner and Georges be discharged from attendance on the Senate Standing Orders Committee and that Senators Poyser and Douglas McClelland be appointed to fill the resultant vacancies.

page 2195

COMMITTEE ON PECUNIARY INTERESTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy), the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers), the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate (Senator Drake-Brockman) and the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) nominating Senators G. Georges, James McClelland, J. E. Marriott, J. J. Webster and Mr P. J. Keating, Mr V. J. Martin and Mr J. M. Riordan to serve as members of the Joint Committee on the Disclosure of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That the honourable senators and honourable members named by the Deputy President be appointed members of the Joint Committee on the Disclosure of the Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament.

page 2195

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Papua-New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Bill 1974

Papua-New Guinea Loans Guarantee Bill 1 974.

page 2195

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The sitting of the Senate is suspended until approximately 4.45 p.m. this day to enable Estimates Committees A, B and G to meet. The Committees will meet as soon as possible. Committee A will meet in the Senate chamber, Committee B in Senate Committee Room No. 1 and Committee G in Senate Committee Room No. 3. The bells will be rung for 5 minutes prior to the meeting of the Estimates Committees.

Sitting suspended from 1 1.59 a.m. to 4.45 p.m.

page 2195

ADJOURNMENT

Votes in the Senate

Motion (by Senator Murphy) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

- Mr President, I do not want to delay the Senate for any length of time, but I want to correct the arithmetic of one or two honourable senators who have claimed that certain Opposition senators have voted for the Government at certain times, and of course I have been the butt of those remarks. Senator Jessop claimed, I think yesterday or the day before, that I have voted for the Government on 49 occasions when the Opposition has not done so. I have taken some trouble to examine the journals of the Senate, and I have found that the record should be put straight in relation to the Opposition as a whole and the way in which it has either supported or not opposed Government legislation. I tender this factual information for the benefit of the Senate.

So far this session the Senate has passed 57 Government Bills with the approval of, or certainly without the disapproval of, the Opposition. There are 7 voting procedures connected with the passage of each Bill. Therefore, the Liberal-Country Party Opposition, as a bloc, has voted for, or at least has not opposed, Government measures on 399 occasions. However, expressed as votes by individual senators, this represents 11,571 occasions on which the 29 members of the Liberal-Country Party Opposition have not opposed the Government. If Senator Missen, who is trying to interject, studies the record he will find that there are 7 voting procedures connected with the introduction and the passage of each Bill. He will also find that the same standard of approach was adopted by Senator Jessop in arriving at the proposition that I have voted for the Government on 49 occasions when the Opposition has not done so. I do not alter the standard of approach which Senator Missen and his colleagues have adopted. There is no differential in the standard of approach in working out the voting pattern.

In my case there have been an additional 49 occasions on which I have given individual votes in support of Government Bills. I therefore have not opposed or voted for Government legislation on 399 occasions, plus 49 occasions, making a total of 448 occasions. In order to find the number of occasions on which the LiberalCountry Party Opposition has voted for the Government, one has to multiply the votes of the 29 Liberal-Country Party senators by the number of Bills by the number of procedural matters which are decided by vote. On 11,571 occasions the Liberal-Country Party Opposition has voted for the Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday, 12 November 1974, at 11 a.m., unless sooner called together by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees.

Senate adjourned at 4.49 p.m.

page 2197

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

National Social Welfare Organisations (Question No.150)

Senator Guilfoyle:
VICTORIA

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

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister make a statement to the Senate on the complete review of funding voluntary associations, which the Government stated 18 months ago was being undertaken.
  2. Has the review been completed; if so, what assistance is available to national associations to enable them to maintain and expand their work with mentally retarded persons.
  3. Does the announcement that the activities of the Social Welfare Commission have been curtailed indicate that action on the review has been abandoned.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department in association with the Social Welfare Commission is currently examining the need for Government assistance to national social welfare organisations.
  2. It is proposed that this review will be completed prior to the 1975-76 Budget. The question of assistance to particular organisations will be decided at that time and the details will, of course, be published in the usual way.
  3. As already indicated there has been no decision to abandon this review.

Pensioners: Medical and Hospital Care (Question No. 184)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Commonwealth Government acquire in 1 946 responsibility for the medical and hospital care of Pensioners.
  2. Is the total Commonwealth contribution towards bed costs for Pensioners$5 per day; if so, did this represent onethird of total bed cost when fixed in 1 966 and 1 967.
  3. Does the $5 a day now represent only one-tenth of the cost to the States caring for Pensioners.
  4. If the cost of hospital care of Pensioners is a Commonwealth responsibility, will the Minister undertake an urgent review of the present situation, so that the Commonwealth, by increasing its contribution in this area to the States can fulfil its Constitutional obligations.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The Australian Government was given, by referendum in 1946, the power to make laws with respect to the provisions of certain benefits, allowances and services including sickness benefits, hospital benefits and medical services. The Australian Government, by virtue of these powers, can assume certain responsibilities for the health care of the population generally, which of course, includes pensioners, but it does not have an exclusive or even dominant responsibility in that field. The State Governments have accepted that it is their role to control public hospitals and provide treatment from them and clearly asa result, the States have an obligation to the public generally including pensioners in that respect.
  2. The National Health Act provides for the Australian Government to pay public hospitals $5 for each day that a pensioner eligible for the Pensioner Medical Service is provided with free treatment in a public ward. However, that is not the total contribution by the Australian Government towards the bed costs for pensioners. Previous LiberalCountry Party governments adopted the view that the general revenue grants made by the Australian Government to the States, to cover their broad range of responsibilities, included an element relating to the additional cost of pensioner hospitalisation above the $5 per day directly allocated for that purpose. The present Government agrees that this is a valid position.
  3. It will be apparent from my answer to the second part of the honourable senator’s question that a comparison of past and present relationships between the pensioner hospital benefit and average bed day costs is inappropriate when considered in isolation from the finance made available under the general revenue grants.
  4. At the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference on 16-18 August 1974, the State Ministers for Health sought an increase in the pensioner bed day benefit. The State Health Ministers were informed that, if they so wished, I would approach the Prime Minister to have the pensioner hospital benefit of $5 a day increased, subject to a corresponding adjustment of the general finance allocations to the States. This is in accordance with my view that if State governments have difficulties in identifying appropriate amounts of the general financial allocations that assist them to meet the cost of treating pensioners in public hospitals, the Australian Government could consider earmarking an appropriate portion of general allocation in the future.

Inflation (Question No. 160)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Does the Attorney-General recall stating in the Senate on 23 July 1974 that inflation in Australia has been said by the Organization for Economic and Co-Operative Development to have started in the life of the previous Government: If so will he refer to the date and text of what the Organization actually said.

Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

I made the following statement in the Senate on 23 July 1974 (see Hansard, page 339):

The action taken by the Government no doubt materially assisted in holding down the inflation which was under way and which was commented on by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development as having begun here in the time of the previous Government and as being rampant overseas’.

The comments of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to whichI referred (see the

OECD Economic Survey of Australia, April 1974) were as follows:

Since 1 970-7 1 there has been a marked quickening in the rate of price inflation and the consumer price index for the December quarter of 1 973 showed an increase of 13.2 per cent over the corresponding quarter of 1 972.

It was against this background of rapid price inflation and the failure of the States to act uniformly that the Australian Government which came into power in December 1972 announced a number of initiatives in the area of price control. A Parliamentary Joint Committee on prices was appointed to report on a wide area relating to prices. Referenda were held in December 1973 on the questions of vesting in the Australian Parliament full constitutional powers to control incomes and prices. In the event, the referenda failed to be passed so that these powers remained with the States’. (Page 52).

According to latest estimates the rate of increase of food prices has not been slowing down since September and an easing in the escalation of property prices is discernible. Nevertheless, with the expected very high rates of inflation abroad- the GNP deflator for the OECD area as a whole this year is estimated to rise by about 10 per centthe pressure from external sources is likely to remain severe’. (Page 27).

Federal Courts: Day and Night Sittings (Question No. 220)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

  1. Has the Attorney-General proceeded with his plan, announced in February 1973, to have some Federal Courts sitting day and night.
  2. Which Federal Courts (a) have sat at night and (b) are currently sitting at night.
  3. On how many occasions have Court sittings been extended to enable sittings at night.
  4. For what length of time have the sittings been extended.
  5. How many extra cases have been dealt with by Courts sitting such extra hours.
  6. What additional costs have been incurred by the extra sittings.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Since the middle of August 1973 parties involved in proceedings in the Court of Petty Sessions at Canberra have been able at their option to have the proceedings heard at night.
  2. 3 ) The Court has sat at night on 56 occasions to the end of September 1974.
  3. The Court’s night sitting hours are between 6.30 p.m. and 9.30 p.m.
  4. The main aim of introducing night sittings of the Court was to save parties the inconvenience and expense of taking time off work to attend Court during the day, not to increase the number of cases heard in the Court. There have been 308 cases heard at night to the end of September 1974.
  5. The cost of night sittings of the Court is approximately $83 per night. The total cost to the end of September 1974 was $4,697.

Health Insurance Commission (Question No. 198)

Senator Baume:

asked the Mnister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware that a Mr Garske, a former officer of the Department of Social Security, has been appointed Queensland manager of the Health Insurance Commission?
  2. What was Mr Garske ‘s salary in the Department immediately prior to his new appointment?
  3. What was Mr Garske’s salary upon appointment to the Commission?
  4. What is Mr Garske’s salary now?
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes, notification of his appointment was in the Australian Government Gazette of 22 August 1974.
  2. ) $ 14,733 within the salary range $ 1 4,229-$ 1 4,733.
  3. $ 15,236 within the salary range $ 1 5,236-$ 1 5,739.
  4. $15,236.

Electoral: Employment of Candidates (Question No. 302)

Senator Withers:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibility are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of the Labor Government.
  2. What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.
  3. What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.
  4. What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.
  5. What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1975.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

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

  1. to (5) I indicated in my answer on 23 August 1974 (House of Representatives Hansard, page 1213) that the Government does not know in each case what occupations were followed by Australian Labor Party candidates after the 1972 election. The same comment applies in respect of people who advocated the return of the Labor Government before that election.

National Wage Case (Question No. 162)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Commonwealth Government present a submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the course of the National Wage Case hearing by the Commission in 1974.
  2. Did the submission refer to the rate of inflation in Australia.
  3. Did the submission record that the rate of inflation then operating was the second worst among the developed countries of the world; if so, was the submission accurate at the time it was presented.
  4. On what date was the submission presented to the Commission.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 3 ) No. The information on inflation rates presented in the course of the 1974 National Wage Case by counsel for the Australian Government concerned only 10 countries- viz Australia, Canada, USA, United Kingdom, Japan, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands, and New Zealand. It did not claim to cover all developed countries, but was in the same form as tables submitted by the Australian Government in previous National Wage Cases. The information presented was derived from OECD and other official statistics and was accurate.

Two tables of statistics were given- one showing annual rates of change in the CPI from 1964 to 1973 and the other showing 5 year averages for the annual increase in the CPI over the same period. I take it that the honourable senator is referring to the 1973 figure in the former table.

If this is so I would mention just 2 points. The first is that statistics were not given for 14 other members of the OECD, most of which are usually regarded as developed countries. The second is that I am advised that the statistics presented showed only the percentage change in the CPI for the month of December 1973 compared with the month of December 1972. (The figures for Australia and New Zealand related to the percentage increase in the December quarter 1973 over the December quarter of the previous year.) There can be significant differences in such statistics from month to month. For these reasons the generalisation put forward by the honourable senator is misconceived.

  1. 5 April 1974.

Academic Salaries (Question No. 106)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Why was the interim review of academic salaries confined to university salaries.
  2. Why did it not include a special study of salaries at colleges of advanced education.
  3. Will the Minister inform the Senate as to whether there is a fixed relativity between academic salaries at universities and at colleges of advanced education, in view of the proposal contained in a press statement made on 14 July 1974 that “the outcome of the interim review would have application also for colleges of advanced education ‘ ‘.
  4. Will this relativity be maintained in a fixed relationship so that alterations in the salaries of one group will automatically flow onto the other.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) There was no Interim Review. Under the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1974, which received the Royal Assent on 16 October, an Academic Salaries Tribunal has been established. The Tribunal has advised the Government that it will undertake an early review of academic salaries under the Act. This review will include all academic staff in both the universities and the colleges of advanced education. The Tribunal expects to complete the review before the end of 1974.
  2. and (4) Relativities between academic staff in universities and colleges of advanced education will henceforth be a matter for the Academic Salaries Tribunal.

Priorities Review Staff (Question No. 155)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Priorities Review Staffof the Minister’s Department.
  2. What salaries are paid to the members of the staff.
  3. What are the qualifications of the members.
  4. What has been the cost of the Priorities Review Staff since its inception.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

– The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Director of the Priorities Review Staff is Mr A. S. Holmes. He is presently assisted by two full-time Advisers. Dr D. A. Evans and Dr M. G. Porter, and four Assistants. During 1 973-74, the P.R.S. also included for several months, as full-time Advisers, Professor C. A. Hughes and Professor R. H. Snape. The P.R.S. is supported by staffof the Priorities Branch of my Department, and receives general administrative support from the Department. As the need arises from time to time, consultants are also employed.
  2. Mr Holmes $25,235 salary. $1,200 allowance

Dr Porter $18,500

Dr Evans is employed under contract with W. D. Scott & Co. at a total cost of $25,000 per annum.

  1. MrHolmes,M.A.

Dr Evans, B.E., M.S., M.A.. Ph.D.

Dr Porter, B.Ec, M.A., Ph.D.

  1. The total cost of salaries paid to the Director, Advisers and Assistants to 30 June 1974, including leave and payment of employers’ contributions to superannuation funds for seconded members of the P.R.S., was $ 1 04,4 1 6. Consultants ‘ fees were $2,128. Other costs incurred in the operation of the Priorities Review Staff and its administrative support are carried in the general appropriations of the Department of the Special Minister of State.

Cyprus

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– On 15 October Senator Mulvihill asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, without notice:

  1. Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs comment on the impression prevalent among the Cypriot community that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees appears to be very slow to assess the total refugee complement in Cyprus; and
  2. Is it possible that the Cypriot Government is reluctant to allow a large exodus of its population to other countries.

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

  1. . It would not be true to say that the United Nations High Commissioner for Regugees has been slow in assessing the total size of the problem of displaced people on Cyprus. The Cypriot community may however have been referring to the inevitable delays that have occurred in locating and identifying specific individuals who have been displaced.

On 20 August, the Secretary General of the United Nations appointed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to co-ordinate U.N. humanitarian assistance in Cyprus. His initial report, prepared after a visit to Cyprus from 22-27 August, included an assessment of the problem of displaced people. He estimated that a total of 223,600 people were in need on the island of whom 179,400 were displaced from their homes. Details will be found in United Nations Security Council document S/ 11488 of 4 September, 1974, which is available from the Parliamentary Library.

It is a separate, and more difficult and time consuming task to locate, identify and list the displaced people. They have of course left their last known address, and each case must be traced individually.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has established a Central Tracing Agency on Cyprus, with bureaus in various parts of the island, to trace displaced people. The Australian Red Cross has received 2,139 enquiries from the Cypriot community in Australia about the welfare of relatives.

The Australian Government’s consular officer on Cyprus is also tracing and checking the welfare of Australian citizens.

  1. On 13 September, the Government of Cyprus imposed temporary restrictions aimed at preventing citizens of the Republic from leaving the island unless they secured an exit permit from the Ministry of the Interior. The permit is necessary for male citizens between the ages of IS and 60 and for females aged 1 5 to 55. Permits can be issued, however, to those who are normally resident overseas, holders of foreign passports, and those producing evidence of acceptance of their entry for permanent residence in a foreign country.

Tax Refunds (Question No. 40)

Senator Townley:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Treasurer have the Australian Taxation Office add interest to refunds that are made to ‘pay as you earn’ taxpayers; if so, will he have the interest paid from the middle of the period over which the tax is collected until its return to the taxpayer.

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

Interest has never been paid on refunds paid to PA YE taxpayers and the Government is not considering changing that situation.

Certificate of Australian Citizenship (Question No. 159)

Senator Davidson:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen no longer appear on a Certificate of Australian Citizenship; if so, what is the reason for its omission.
  2. If Her Majesty the Queen is.now officially described as Queen.of Australia’ will the Minister have a portrait of Her Majesty reinstated on Certificate of Australian Citizenship.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

– The Minister for Labor and Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ‘s question:

  1. 1 ) It is correct that a portrait of Her Majesty the Queen no longer appears on the Certificate of Australian Citizenship. I am informed that the decision was taken by the former Minister for Immigration when amendments to the Citizenship Act including the design of the certificate were under consideration in 1 973, on the grounds that the design of the new certificate should be such that it was distinctively Australian.
  2. I will see that the matter receives consideration when the design of the certificate is next under review.

Quarantine (Question No. 205)

Senator Withers:

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

Does the Minister consider that the allegations made by a Senior Quarantine Inspector, concerning the insufficient quarantine procedures in force in Western Australia were sufficiently and fairly investigated; if not, in view of the serious allegations which have been made about the standards of quarantine procedures, will the Minister undertake to have an ‘open inquiry’ to ascertain the facts.

Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

Earlier this year, when I became aware of the allegations concerning insufficient quarantine procedures in force in Western Australia, I immediately ordered an investigation which was carried out by the First Assistant DirectorGeneral, Quarantine Division, Canberra, the Director of Health, New South Wales Division, and the Assistant Director-General of the Department’s Policy Secretariat and Legislation Branch, Canberra. At the conclusion of their inquiry, during which they interviewed every person considered to be in a position to throw light on the allegations, they reported that there was no evidence to suggest that quarantine procedures were unsatisfactory. A copy of the report was tabled recently in the House of Representatives. In light of the findings and report of the committee I do not consider that an ‘open inquiry ‘ is necessary.

Taxation: Education Expenses (Question No. 229)

Senator Chaney:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the total amount of the refund of tax allowed for education expenses in the most recent year for which information is available.
  2. What is the expected saving in revenue through the cut in the amount of the education deduction to a maximum of $150 per child.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) As indicated at page 20 or the Statements attached to the 1974-75 Budget Speech, it is estimated that the cost to revenue of the concessional deductions for education expenses (including self-education expenses) was $130m in respect of the income year 1 972-73, the latest year for which figures are available.
  2. As indicated at page 86 of the Statements, it is estimated that the proposed reduction from $400 to $150 in the maximum amount claimable per-student for education expenses (including self-education expenses) would produce a full-year gain to revenue of $30m.

Social Welfare Policy-Division (Question No. .185)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. What is the establishment of the Social Welfare Policy Division of the Department of Social Security.
  2. When were these positions first advertised.
  3. How many of them have been filled.
  4. What positions in the Division in each level of the Public Service remain unfilled.
  5. ls the strength of the Social Welfare policy division of the Department adequate to enable it to function efficiently.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The establishment of the Social Welfare Division of the Department of Social Security is: . ,
  1. The position of First Assistant Director-General and the two positions of Assistant’ Director-General were first advertised on 5 July 1973; 24 positions (marked with an asterisk) were first advertised on 27 September 1973; the 4 positions of Clerical Assistant have not been advertised.
  2. Of the 27 positions advertised, 23 have been filled.
  3. The following positions remain vacant:

The positions of Cadet Social Worker are presently unstaffed but are being retained until a review has been completed of the need for these training positions.

  1. The Social Welfare Division is currently being reviewed to ensure that adequate resources arc available to undertake its functions of implementing, researching and evaluating the Social Welfare initiatives and policy of the Government.

Flooding in South Australia

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 17 September 1974, Senator Davidson asked me a question, without notice, concerning flooding in South Australia. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am aware of reported statements by the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia concerning likely severe flooding along the River Murray. The potential flooding has been discussed between officers of the Australian and South Australian Treasuries. I understand that no requests for physical or financial assistance have been received from the State Authorities. However, the Australian Government stands ready to provide technical and financial assistance in the way usually followed when natural disasters occur.

Fuel Shortages

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 17 September 1974, Senator Maunsell asked me a question, without notice, about the steps the Government was taking to ensure supplies of diesel fuel and gasoline were available to maintain the sugar harvest in Queensland and for the imminent harvesting of the State ‘s wheat crop.

I have now been advised by the Minister for Minerals and Energy that in addition to the recent release from defence stocks of 1 50,000 gallons of distillate in Cairns to assist with the sugar harvest, in a further effort to help primary producers, the Army has greatly curtailed an exercise it planned to conduct in Queensland thereby making additional fuel supplies available.

The Minister also advises that his officers have emphasised to the oil companies the urgency of making supplies available to the grain industry in Queensland and it does appear that the companies are endeavouring to distribute supplies as equitably as possible.

An additional factor which must improve the situation is that the Amoco refinery in Brisbane which earlier in September was not producing distillate due to a plant breakdown was able to resume full throughput for distillate on 18 September. Also, the Shell Company has been able to arrange, and obtain a permit for a foreign flag tanker to carry products to Townsville and Mackay.

Capital Gains Tax

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 19 September 1974, Senator Webster asked me a question, without notice, concerning capital gains tax. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It should first be noted that the introduction of a capital gains tax was recommended by the Taxation Review Committee in its Preliminary Report which was released with the Budget documents and which is available to all interested members of the public from the Australian Government Publishing Service.

Secondly, a supplementary statement was released with the 1974-75 Budget documents setting out in broad terms the framework of the proposed tax on capital gains. Copies are available on application to the Taxation Office.

Thirdly, it may be worth mentioning that No. 10 in the series of Treasury Taxation Papers, the publication of which commenced some weeks ago, is devoted to the topic of Capital Gains Taxes. This paper, which comprises the views put to the Taxation Review Committee by the Treasury last year, is presently scheduled to appear in the latter half of November.

As to the substance of the matter, the Australian taxation system is based primarily on the concept of the capacity of an individual to pay tax. Capital gains constitute an increase in ability to pay in somewhat the same way as increases in income in the form of wages, salaries, interest, dividends and rents. It has therefore been anomalous that income has borne full tax while capital gains have borne none. Further, some taxpayers have been able to manipulate their transactions so as to substitute capital gains for income and thereby avoid taxation. It is mainly for these reasons that the Australian Government has decided to introduce a tax on realised capital gains accruing after 1 7 September 1974.

Because however of the great complexity of the measure, precise details of the proposed tax are unlikely to be available until the legislation is introduced in the autumn sittings of Parliament.

Superphosphate Bounty

Senator Wriedt-On 1 October 1974, Senator

Bessell asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, without notice:

I direct my question to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the visit to Tasmania by Dr J. F. Cairns last Friday and to his comment that the Government’s decision to withdraw the bounty on superphosphate may well have been wrong. I ask, therefore, whether this indicates that the Government will give further consideration to this matter and that we may well see a reversal of the decision in this regard.

The Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer the honourable senator to my reply on the same subject to the Leader of the Opposition, the right honourable B. M. Snedden, in the House of Representatives on I October 1974. (Hansard, pp 1945-1946).

Income of Members of Parliament

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 1 October 1974, Senator Walsh asked me a question, without notice, concerning income of members of Parliament. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Parliamentary salary is personal exertion income, and not subject to the proposed surcharge. If a member has other sources of income that, considered in isolation, would be personal exertion income, that income too would not attract the surcharge. If, however, he has property income such as rents or dividends, or interest that is not related to his personal exertion activities, such income will be subject to the surcharge.

Australian Industry Development Corporation

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

-On 3 October 1974, Senator Cotton asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, without notice:

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

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

I am advised that the effects of fluctuations in exchange rates occurring during the current financial year will be brought to account by the Corporation in the current year in accordance with the AIDC’s normal accounting practice.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 31 October 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19741031_senate_29_s62/>.